443 réponses à ce sujet

[Alessa]

To a player who never played as male Hawke and didn't get any informations about Anders except of those given in Awakening and DA2, Anders is and will remain straight. Things that are not mentioned during the whole two games INSIDE the games (like the relationship with Karl if you play exclusively as female Hawke), cannot be set as canon.

Modifié par Alessa-00, 28 mai 2012 - 07:03 .

[robertthebard]

David Gaider wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...
In any case, it appears sexuality is on the flip-flop list....what’s next?

That's just my point. Their sexuality does not "flip-flop". It would only be that way if the characters discussed how they were only attracted to a gender in one version, and then discussed how they were attracted to a different gender in another version. This is not the case. Even Anders only mentioning his relationship with Karl to a male player does not change who he actually is. So I find it a bit strange that someone would paint this as inconsistencies of character when it relates only to your perception, seeing as they never discuss it... and I don't think such a discussion is always necessary.

If you wish to take issue with it regardless, that's fine. I would say the limitation is yours, however, despite your desire to push it onto others as "selfish".

Again, ideally I'd like to have set sexualities solely for the opportunities it opens up in dialogue, which we would otherwise avoid, but I don't see not having that as doing what you claim it does. And I'll leave it at that.

Here's a funny for you; I rather unintentionally ended up in a romance with Anders on my fHawke, and during the Karl scene, I had this flash of "There's more to this than he's telling me".  This on my first playthrough too.  My dialog options for the post convo didn't offer me any way to pursue it, so I just blew it off, but I think I knew there was potential for something more than just being friends.

[Jonathan Seagull]

Fandango9641 wrote...
Aye, selfish nonsense. It’s the inflexibility of those unwilling to role-play outside of their own ‘neat metal box’ that restricts them David, not people like me.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but the idea that I'm getting from your posts is that you think, for example, that if someone wants to romance Alistair, they should be willing to (role)play as a female character.  Is that correct?  I don't disagree with that specifically, which I'll get back to, but I wonder if perhaps you're missing the larger point.

The real issue is that, in Origins, players who wanted to play a gay Warden only had one option, whereas straight Wardens had two (and I suppose a bisexual Warden had three).  Sure, I have no doubt there was an amount of disappoint from some players in specifically not being able to romance Alistair as a male (or Morrigan as a female).  But I think that's really just a consequence of the greater problem.

Now, ideally I'd prefer if romanceable companions did have varying orientations.  But only if there are equal options available to everyone.  I'd love for the next game to have two straight love interests, two bisexual, and two gay.  That would allow for more detailed characterization while providing equal options.  But in the absence of that, I prefer a system that includes more choices for more people.

Modifié par Jonathan Seagull, 29 mai 2012 - 01:47 .

[HiroVoid]

I'd like for companions to not want to romance you if they dislike the way you act.

Modifié par HiroVoid, 29 mai 2012 - 07:30 .

[AkiKishi]

Jonathan Seagull wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...
Aye, selfish nonsense. It’s the inflexibility of those unwilling to role-play outside of their own ‘neat metal box’ that restricts them David, not people like me.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but the idea that I'm getting from your posts is that you think, for example, that if someone wants to romance Alistair, they should be willing to (role)play as a female character.  Is that correct?  I don't disagree with that specifically, which I'll get back to, but I wonder if perhaps you're missing the larger point.

The real issue is that, in Origins, players who wanted to play a gay Warden only had one option, whereas straight Wardens had two (and I suppose a bisexual Warden had three).  Sure, I have no doubt there was an amount of disappoint from some players in specifically not being able to romance Alistair as a male (or Morrigan as a female).  But I think that's really just a consequence of the greater problem.

Now, ideally I'd prefer if romanceable companions did have varying orientations.  But only if there are equal options available to everyone.  I'd love for the next game to have two straight love interests, two bisexual, and two gay.  That would allow for more detailed characterization while providing equal options.  But in the absence of that, I prefer a system that includes more choices for more people.

It depends on the % of straight/gay/bi people in Thedas, unless adventurers are predisposed to being bi sexual... Realistically there should be more straight romances. But the game is in part about pandering to peoples fantasies, hence we get the everyone is bi with watered down characters model.

Dave and I kind of disagree here. I think you should write the world and people can take it or leave it The whole validating life choices through gaming, not something I buy into it. If it's good enough any loses will be made up. Witcher 2 did splendidly despite less advertising and only having a straight white guy as the protagonist. While you don't need to be that limited, it does demonstrate that pandering is not really a requirement and can actually bite you in the ass if the game is too watered down as a result.

[robertthebard]

Fandango9641 wrote...


Thanks for the question Jonathan. For me, any talk of metagaming notwithstanding, having NPC’s reinvent themselves to suit the demands of a single player or protagonist is weak and it’s my view (though it appears David disagrees) it cheapens characterisation. I mean, let’s take sexuality out of the equation for a moment and talk magic. Would people support the idea of having Anders and Fenris flip-flop on their views about blood magic to suit those of the player? If so, what would they even stand for?

In any case, I agree with every word of your last paragraph and wouldn't want to see anyone short changed as far as romance options go (even though some place, to my mind, far too much emphasis on being able to woo whomever they want with a single character).

EDIT: And, correct me if I'm wrong, but there were no explicitly gay LI's in Origins or DA2 right? If so, thats a shame and kind of my point.

Fenris' viewpoint encompasses all magic, and yet, you can get him to fight against the Templars at the end, and he's got lines that he party banter speaks about how he can't believe he's doing it, but he does it because he believes in you, for one reason or another.  As for Anders, this is the non-spoiler section, but what exactly is it that causes what he does?  We don't know, for a fact, that his pursuit for justice didn't lead him to blood magic, it certainly led him to allowing himself to be possessed.  Something that Wynne agonizes over privately, and with the Warden in conversation.  I haven't had any problems keeping Fenris in party on my mage Hawke, yet, but I still haven't gotten very far.

[whykikyouwhy]

The companions never discuss their sexuality/sexual identity in terms of labels or categorization. Aveline never makes any broad declaration that she is straight. Players make that assumption about her because of what they see in-game, which is only a fraction of her character and her life. Does that mean that said assumption is true? That such is the truth as she would see or feel about it? 

Why are the labels with regard to sexuality/sexual identity even important - both in-game and IRL? Sexuality is only a portion of the sum total of a person, and may not be the aspect that a person acts/reacts from consciously. Decisions, ethics, beliefs, what is liked/disliked  - all of that comes from a multitude of things from a person's life and experience, and it is probably those things that we see outwardly from the people that we come to know. Those are the things that we react to or that resonate with us - whether or not someone is a decent person, how they do their work or handle responsibility, what sorts of things they like to eat or do for leisure. The more intimate details are exactly that... intimate, and not always something that is discussed or revealed right away (or at all). Why then, if we are talking about how deep or how "cheap" a character is, do we place so much immediate importance to some revelation or declaration about sexuality and use it as a measure to judge validity?

Do I think that the companions not declaring themselves to be bisexual or homosexual to be a cheapening of their core character make-up? Not at all. Just as I don't see Aveline or Varric not declaring themselves to be heterosexual as a sign of some sort of weakness in their writing or character development. 

There is no "pandering" going on here - players are given options to use, as they see fit, for their various playthroughs (if they decide to do more than one). And characters are not "reinventing" themselves from playthrough to playthrough because none of them have ever made any firm statement to box themselves into and define themselves by. 

[Reznore57]

Maybe Anders should have wore a nametag with "Hello , my name is Anders and i'm bi.".
And since gender preference seems to define us so much ,we wouldn't have to talk with him...better than a codex entry.
People imagine a type of character depending on preferences more than they do depending on how somebody act with a partner .
That's wierd ,gay straight bi are just words to express what type of gender we're attracted to , it's not the writers fault if people tends to think it has a more weighted meaning.
Nobody really cares if Anders likes chocolate more than vanilla , or if he likes both the same.

[Kidd]

Fandango9641 wrote...

It’s my view NPC’s should have different values, desires, priorities and motivations and I would hate to see that undermined in favour of having them pander to the play style of a single protagonist.

They do. Every character explores a part of the world of Thedas for us, and this is consistent. This is the function of the character.

Whether they are prefer people who are blonde, brown-eyed or clad in certain genitalia is ultimately not really important.

[AkiKishi]

Reznore57 wrote...

Maybe Anders should have wore a nametag with "Hello , my name is Anders and i'm bi.".
And since gender preference seems to define us so much ,we wouldn't have to talk with him...better than a codex entry.
People imagine a type of character depending on preferences more than they do depending on how somebody act with a partner .
That's wierd ,gay straight bi are just words to express what type of gender we're attracted to , it's not the writers fault if people tends to think it has a more weighted meaning.
Nobody really cares if Anders likes chocolate more than vanilla , or if he likes both the same.

Because chocolate or vanilla is not tracked and thus changes nothing.

You don't need to write a chocolate loving character or a vanilla loving version of the character, or to water the character down so they don't do anything that might preclude them liking either.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 29 mai 2012 - 12:08 .

[Reznore57]

And what is a difference between a person who's gay/straight/bi ?Nothings except the gender preference.
Knowing a person sexual orientation has no purpose except if you want to flirt with them.And again you can be turned down simply because the person isn't attract to you for others reasons (that actually might be far more interesting if it 's something related to your actions/moral code)

I mean Let's just say I'm bi.
So what do you know exactly about me now?

[AkiKishi]

Reznore57 wrote...

And what is a difference between a person who's gay/straight/bi ?Nothings except the gender preference.
Knowing a person sexual orientation has no purpose except if you want to flirt with them.And again you can be turned down simply because the person isn't attract to you for others reasons (that actually might be far more interesting if it 's something related to your actions/moral code)

I mean Let's just say I'm bi.
So what do you know exactly about me now?

That  straw men are your type?

If I wanted a personal fantasy I'd play a female PC and have a female Harem. I don't want a fantasy I want to live in a world that does not revolve around me just because I'm a player character.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 29 mai 2012 - 12:34 .

[Reznore57]

BobSmith101 wrote...

That  straw men are your type?

If I wanted a personal fantasy I'd play a female PC and have a female Harem. I don't want a fantasy I want to live in a world that does not revolve around me just because I'm a player character.

Ouh i didn't know that straw man expression .Nicely done

[nightscrawl]

David Gaider wrote...

Even Anders only mentioning his relationship with Karl to a male player does not change who he actually is. So I find it a bit strange that someone would paint this as inconsistencies of character when it relates only to your perception, seeing as they never discuss it... and I don't think such a discussion is always necessary.

This is perfectly fine. But it does not change the fact that Anders never even hints at such a thing to a female Hawke. If the same feelings are true for both versions of Anders (that is the Anders we have as a male Hawke versus the Anders we have a female Hawke) why is it considered a more valid line of conversation to mention it to male Hawke and not female Hawke? There has to be a reason. Really, it would be more in-line with his not changing "who he actually is" if he did mention it to both genders of Hawke. The very fact of him doing so must mean something. I refuse to believe you writers sat around at a meeting and rolled some dice to pick which gender he would say this to, or even if he would say it at all.

Anders talking to a female Hawke mentions breaking her heart and so forth, while male Hawke has the option of hearing about Karl and can be asked directly if it bothers him that Anders has "been with men." It really just seems as if the disparity on romance dialogue between the male and female Hawke means that the female romance was designed to appeal to straight female players, while the male romance was designed to appeal to gay male players because you, the writers, specifically chose to make that disparity.

In comparison, except for a single line post Fenris-sex there really is no difference at all in the way the two Hawke genders are handled with him.

This is the main reason I subscribe to the "LI are Hawke-sexual" theory. Unfortunately I've never been able to test the alternative to that by seeing whether or not certain party banter options happen when you are of the same gender as the person but choose to not romance them (Isabela/Fenris lines for a male Hawke, for example).

You also spoke negatively of applying labels to people, but I think that's a bit unfair. It's something that human society does, positive and negative. It's something that people do to themselves, positive and negative. If you call yourself a nerd/geek because of your interests and the people you associate with, well that is you putting a social label on yourself in a positive way. Someone standing up at a meeting and proclaiming that they are an alcoholic, or an addict, or have an eating disorder is positive and negative, in that the condition is bad but admitting it is the first step in getting help. Social labels are used for all sorts of things, not just for prejudice.

Players calling the various LI "Bi" or Alistair/Morrigan "straight" and Leliana/Zevran "Bi" simply means that they are trying to understand who these people are and how they relate to their characters. No, those labels might not exist in Thedas, and even in our time they are pretty recent, but you as a dev are a modern human and most of these labels have been around since before you were born. Those things influence you as a creator, consciously or unconsciously.

Sorry for going off on this tangent. I did watch the whole interview. The bit I found most interesting was how Bioware evolved in the romances from BG2 onward and how you initially thought they wouldn't be that interesting to anyone.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 29 mai 2012 - 01:58 .

[Reznore57]

I would agree that for certain type of characterisation , it might be a problem.
But i would also say when the characterisation is based a lot of the sexuality ,it tends to go in strereotypes.
Zev and Isabella , I like them a lot , but some might say if you didn't care much about them all you would remember is Bi= 24/24h open for "business" type.
What i see in the all bi Li is a possibility to break some mold and give people the chance to access different type of romance .
No more always the sassy femine "****" elf for gay man.No more virgin romantic knight guy only for the girls.etc...

Now of course if the writer wants to give us a LI like Oghren who kinda seems like he wouldn't touch a man even if his life depending on it , it would be a problem.The solution is simply to not make him a LI.

As for Anders not revealing his past affairs , I could argue that when you met someone at first you tend to not mention your past lovers.And i guess the writer did this simply because it might have made a lot of players incomfortable.
Since a lot of male Hawke are still recovering from having Anders making a move on them , I think it was a safe bet.

[nightscrawl]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Why are the labels with regard to sexuality/sexual identity even important - both in-game and IRL? Sexuality is only a portion of the sum total of a person, and may not be the aspect that a person acts/reacts from consciously. Decisions, ethics, beliefs, what is liked/disliked  - all of that comes from a multitude of things from a person's life and experience, and it is probably those things that we see outwardly from the people that we come to know.

What about people who proudly proclaim that they are Christian? What about gay pride parades? Several years ago the local police had a charity football game called the Pig Bowl. There are a multitude examples of people putting labels on themselves: whether for solidarity, to turn a bad word around in your favor (like the aforementioned "pig"), or even just to know where people with your same experience and interests may gather.

Labels are not always bad.

Reznore57 wrote...

I would agree that for certain type of characterisation , it might be a problem.
But i would also say when the characterisation is based a lot of the sexuality ,it tends to go in strereotypes.
Zev and Isabella , I like them a lot , but some might say if you didn't care much about them all you would remember is Bi= 24/24h open for "business" type.

I really like Zevran as a character, and he gets more interesting the more you get to know him. Listening to him talk after the assassination attempt and then later on is highly entertaining and doesn't always revolve around sex. That said, most of his party banter does revolve around sex, and it does get a bit tiresome after a while.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 29 mai 2012 - 01:42 .

[Reznore57]

Well maybe we should stop trying to make a advertizement of ourselves and just be?
The labels ain't wrong but the need of people for things to be labelled is worrying.
People ain't poison bottle to put stickers on it just to be safe , neither are spice in the kitchen and you already know what they tastes like just by looking at them.

[whykikyouwhy]

nightscrawl wrote...

What about people who proudly proclaim that they are Christian? What about gay pride parades? Several years ago the local police had a charity football game called the Pig Bowl. There are a multitude examples of people putting labels on themselves: whether for solidarity, to turn a bad word around in your favor (like the aforementioned "pig"), or even just to know where people with your same experience and interests may gather.

Labels are not always bad.

No, labels are not always bad. But forcing someone to label themselves, or refusing to regard someone as a whole complete being or as valid because they may not be utilizing a label, or may not reveal something about themselves, can be bad. At least it may qualify as inappropriate in some cases. 

How a person seeks to identify his/herself is his/her choice. That's not what I find fault with. What I don't care for is when people try to place an individual in a box or a category or affix a label to someone when that person may have no intention of doing so his/herself. 

So in the matter of characters, it's not for me to say that Varric or Merrill must reveal this or that about their background. It's not for me to say that they must tell me how they identify or want to call themselves. If they don't reveal certain aspects of themselves to me/my PC, then that's fine. Lack of that information, lack of that self-appointed label on their part, does not cheapen them imo, or make them weak or less.

Modifié par whykikyouwhy, 29 mai 2012 - 01:50 .

[nightscrawl]

Reznore57 wrote...

Well maybe we should stop trying to make a advertizement of ourselves and just be?
The labels ain't wrong but the need of people for things to be labelled is worrying.
People ain't poison bottle to put stickers on it just to be safe , neither are spice in the kitchen and you already know what they tastes like just by looking at them.

This is a social human thing. We give things names so we can (1) identify them, (2) easily retrieve them from long term memory, (3) respond appropriately in social situations. We've been giving things names since we started speaking. It will never go away.

[Reznore57]

Yeah names and labels ain't wrong .But people don't take them as just a name , they tend to think it's a whole instruction manual coming with it.
I mean yeah names are supposed to be a tool , that makes our life easier.But like any other thing it's often misused and hurt people a lot.

[nightscrawl]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

What I don't care for is when people try to place an individual in a box or a category or affix a label to someone when that person may have no intention of doing so his/herself.

I think it's a bit extreme to think this way about NPCs though.

whykikyouwhy wrote...

So in the matter of characters, it's not for me to say that Varric or Merrill must reveal this or that about their background. It's not for me to say that they must tell me how they identify or want to call themselves. If they don't reveal certain aspects of themselves to me/my PC, then that's fine. Lack of that information, lack of that self-appointed label on their part, does not make them cheapen them imo, or make them weak or less.

Are people doing that? Or are you just referring to those who want to know before hand that an NPC of the same gender is going to hit on them? If it's referring to Anders, well my biggest beef is with the disparity between the male and female Hawke, why the devs did it, and what it says about his character.