930 réponses à ce sujet

[Blacklash93]

I'm going to get my views on the "all bi" method of LGBT companions and romances out of the way right here.

I think they should make characters with defined sexualities. Bioware games are story-heavy and often charcter-driven and the company has said on the record multiple times that games *can* be on par with movies and books in storytelling. If that's the goal and style they desire then making character traits subject to the players' whims isn't going to fly.

That's the only reason I oppose the all bi thing. Developers with certain things in mind are usually better suited to approach things a particular way. Realism is quite relevant in these cases. Not for all, mind you, as there are a few games where lifting restrictions even at the cost of believability is appropriate. Just not here.

Under that premise, I'd like to make notes about how Bioware could better handle its LGBT dealings in its stories without expanding its romances in this way, thus the title. Pointing out a few trappings and patterns Bioware is falling into or may be falling into for these characters is a good place to start. Things like:

1) Making LGBT companions and/or interaction with them optional. Zevran and Leliana/Fenris and Isabela (if DA2 didn't do the all bi thing the bi companions would have been them) were completely optional in every way especially compared to their romantic counterparts who were mandatory in recruitment and could not leave or be killed until near the end of the story.

2) Making LGBT companions and their conflicts removed from the main story. Arguably inverted with Merrill and Isabela, but it remains true for everyone else. Zevran, Leliana, and Fenris had nothing about them that was or became relevant to the main story. While Alistair, Morrigan, and Anders did very much so.

3) Cliche or Sterotypical Personalities and Backstories. I loved Zevran and Isabela and they are some of my favorite characters in DA, but their promiscuous nature and fetishized tastes in sex pretty much painted them as your run-of-the-mill bisexual in entertainment. Leliana, while also among my favorite characters, was a (defintely more interesting and tasteful) variant of the psycho lesbian. Fenris is probably the stand-out here in terms of personality, but I believe it was said that he suffered sexual abuse from Danarius and we all know that story. [Merrill and Anders would have been straight if all romancable companions weren't bi in DA2 as I said before so I'm not counting them.]

Now don't read me as saying Bioware should avoid these things altogether as they'd just be falling into other predictable patterns and that's not something we want in any shape or form. Nor am I saying the DA dev team is necessarily falling into these patterns as with only two installments you can't really tell for sure. This is just advice bringing attention to tropes I fear they could be falling into.

Also maybe they could create more LGBT NPCs in the world that are not in your party. Orgins had Herren and Wade, no-name prostitutes, Branka and Hespith, and Isabela. DA2 just had no-name prostitutes and Serendipity. I also think one of the books had a gay couple. That's all I can remember. But it would be cool to see more LGBT characters outside your party at least above DA2.

[Wulfram]

Declaring that Merrill and Anders would have been straight seems a bit arbitrary. Merrill and Anders are just as bisexual as Fenris.

It's fairly hard to show many NPCs as any particular orientation, unless their romantic involvement is relevant to the plot. Or they're married or have children, both of which is limited to straight couples in Thedas.

Modifié par Wulfram, 05 juin 2012 - 04:09 .

[MichaelStuart]

Honestly I would prefer if every character was bisexual.
Why, because I hate being limited by something as trivial as aesthetic gender.
I call it aesthetic gender because being a man/woman has no effect on gameplay.

[Blacklash93]

Wulfram wrote...

Declaring that Merrill and Anders would have been straight seems a bit arbitrary. Merrill and Anders are just as bisexual as Fenris.

It's fairly hard to show many NPCs as any particular orientation, unless their romantic involvement is relevant to the plot. Or they're married or have children, both of which is limited to straight couples in Thedas.

It is incredibly likely they would have been straight. David Gaider showed opposition to all bi romances in a thread during DA2's development sometime after it was announced which pretty much tells us that the team changed their mind part-way through development. Characters would have needed to change. Part of me wonders if the thread in question is what convinced the team to do it.

Isabela is clearly the first bi lady and Anders was obviously not concieved as bi.

And characters with a stated or implied or hinted sexuality vastly outnumber those who don't and even most of those are just one-dimensional quest-givers. Don't see why a character can't have a same-sex partner or make a one-off comment. There's no reason to make a big deal of it.

[whykikyouwhy]

Blacklash93 wrote...
David Gaider showed opposition to all bi romances in a thread during DA2's development sometime after it was announced which pretty much tells us that the team changed their mind part-way through development.

Do you have a source for this? I've never seen anything from Gaider that implied "opposition." Rather, he has posed what could be ideal if resources allowed. And if said resources are not available, he is a proponent of providing as many options to the player as possible.

This was recently discussed in a different thread.

[jlb524]

I will only agree when they stop letting ugly PCs date everyone.

[Wulfram]

Blacklash93 wrote...

And characters with a stated or implied or hinted sexuality vastly outnumber those who don't and even most of those are just one-dimensional quest-givers. Don't see why a character can't have a same-sex partner or make a one-off comment. There's no reason to make a big deal of it.

How many NPCs do we know are straight?  I don't think there are all that many.  Certainly in DA:O it doesn't seem disproportionate, though I guess you might have a point that there could be more in DA2.

[syllogi]

jlb524 wrote...

I will only agree when they stop letting ugly PCs date everyone.

Or letting ridiculously evil characters dating pure and innocent npcs.  Or letting us metagame friendship/approval points to the right level by putting the LI in or out of the party only at certain times, even when it's obvious that the character would not agree with the actions of the PC overall.

If I can't have realism in the behaviour of NPCs in these ways, why should NPCs care about gender?  What makes gender, specifically related to romance, more important than morals, values, common sense, and logic?

[Fiery Phoenix]

jlb524 wrote...

I will only agree when they stop letting ugly PCs date everyone.

Oh yeah, good luck coding that!

[jlb524]

 

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

I will only agree when they stop letting ugly PCs date everyone.

Oh yeah, good luck coding that!

Not my problem.

And it's for REALISM...which is a good cause when talking about video game romances....but only in regards to sexuality apparently 

Modifié par jlb524, 05 juin 2012 - 05:34 .

[Lenimph]

Actually coding the ugly thing might not be hard since most ugly PCs are made by using the extreme end of a slider. Also certain hair styles like the toilet bowl one and the wrinkled skin options could be marked as ugly.

Modifié par Lenimph, 05 juin 2012 - 05:47 .

[jlb524]

Lenimph wrote...

Actually coding the ugly thing might not be hard since most ugly PCs are made by using the extreme end of a slider. Also certain hair styles like the toilet bowl one and the wrinkled skin options could be marked as ugly.

Yeah...actually you wouldn't need a 'global attractiveness' variable but just one for each LI.

Perhaps Alistair doesn't like females with hairstyle 5?

Zevran doesn't like a lot of facial hair on his men?

Etc.

[Fiery Phoenix]

jlb524 wrote...

Lenimph wrote...

Actually coding the ugly thing might not be hard since most ugly PCs are made by using the extreme end of a slider. Also certain hair styles like the toilet bowl one and the wrinkled skin options could be marked as ugly.

Yeah...actually you wouldn't need a 'global attractiveness' variable but just one for each LI.

Perhaps Alistair doesn't like females with hairstyle 5?

Zevran doesn't like a lot of facial hair on his men?

Etc.

I imagine that's about the simplest way it could be implemented, yes. It would be highly selective, however. And I just don't see BioWare going that route at all.

[Blacklash93]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...
David Gaider showed opposition to all bi romances in a thread during DA2's development sometime after it was announced which pretty much tells us that the team changed their mind part-way through development.

Do you have a source for this? I've never seen anything from Gaider that implied "opposition." Rather, he has posed what could be ideal if resources allowed. And if said resources are not available, he is a proponent of providing as many options to the player as possible.

This was recently discussed in a different thread.

http://social.biowar...ndex/5687716/13

This is the thread I was refering to. Although I was just going off vague memory and now I realize my error here. He did not express opposition, although a mod did mention something about him saying all bi romances weren't going to happen and I'm not sure what to think about that. But he did say that making all LI's canonically bi would be his least favorite option, which is kind of what they ended up doing.

I find it unlikely they started out going "Let's make every LI available to everyone." Rather I believe they heard the argument part-way into development, liked the idea and were convinced by it, and changed a few characters accordingly.

But if you had to ask yourself who would be bi for each gender if there could only be two, then the obvious answers would be Isabela and Fenris. Isabela is blatantly bi and was established as so in Origins and Anders very likely was not concieved as such. Taking that into account I think the tropes I mentioned still apply with the arguable exception of Isabela.

How many NPCs do we know are straight? I don't think there are all that many. Certainly in DA:O it doesn't seem disproportionate, though I guess you might have a point that there could be more in DA2.

While a character having kids or on opposite sex parter/spouse or making a mention/hint of liking females (almost every character in DA that is not a bit-role quest-giver does at least one of these things) doesn't specifically tell us they are straight (they could be bi or closeted), it is expected we assume such until proven otherwise. They are basically straight characters until we get an Anders. But even a character that shows no sexuality at all is not an LGBT character to the audience unless it is expressed somehow.

But yeah DA:O was pretty proportionate so I agree there. But the premise of what I'm saying is that "If you have to take this away from that audience, why not make it up like this?".

Modifié par Blacklash93, 05 juin 2012 - 06:17 .

[mousestalker]

I think the next Bioware game should be Diatom Age. No LI's and no sexuality, but the PC produces new companions by fissioning at inopportune moments.

No gaming company has ever done anything similar.

Modifié par mousestalker, 05 juin 2012 - 06:11 .

[HiroVoid]

mousestalker wrote...

I think the next Bioware game should be Diatom Age. No LI's and no sexuality, but the PC produces new companions by fissioning at inopportune moments.

No gaming company has ever done anything similar.

Why not the Suikoden route?  108 companions.  Except all bi.  All romancable.

[whykikyouwhy]

With regard to the following:

Blacklash93 wrote...

While a character having kids or on opposite sex parter/spouse or making a mention/hint of liking females (almost every character in DA that is not a bit-role quest-giver does at least one of these things) doesn't specifically tell us they are straight (they could be bi or closeted), it is expected we assume such until proven otherwise. They are basically straight characters until we get an Anders. But even a character that shows no sexuality at all is not an LGBT character to the audience unless it is expressed somehow.

That's the interesting thing - that such an assumption of heterosexuality is, or can be, made. 

There's a fine line between including dialogue about past loves (to broaden the details in a romance arc) and getting into that tendency to label everyone - to affix some sort of category on them. I understand the desire to have characters that reflect the many shades and hues of love and identity, but I don't really want to see a situation where NPCs have to relate details about themselves in order to be viable (even if such a situation may be reflective of the most extreme). Vagueness and ambiguity is quite alright, because we're dealing with personal matters. Not every person is comfortable divulging personal matters to even those most trusted, and so, characters written with human traits may be molded in the same vein - displaying that wariness and not being so inclined to talk about who they have been with, who they find attractive, etc. (for example, Aveline).

[Allan Schumacher]

I was initially reserved about the idea that all the companions would be bisexual in DA2, until I realized two things:

1) I don't actually know what life is like in Thedas
2) In DA2, some are not explicitly bisexual, but rather you can only conclude that knowledge based on metagaming. Anders, for instance, doesn't make any references to the time he spent with Karl if the PC is female.

Point #2 is more about slightly changing the NPCs based upon PC sex. Now some might still think that's stupid or whatever, but I think if we're going to make romanceable NPCs available to all players regardless of PC gender, this is a good solution to it.

[Blacklash93]

My point is not to label every character. I know there are plenty of characters better off not blatantly stating things about themselves. The person I responded to someone who worded his question in a way that sounded to me like "You might have these LGBT characters and not know it.".

My point is that you cannot call, for instance, a married man who does not specifically mention his sexuality a relatable LGBT character in any way. Just because there is that, however small, element of ambiguity does not make one a relatable character to an LGBT audience. Sexuality must be expressed somehow. Gay people are not going to go "Oh! Bann Teagan didn't specifically state his orientation! He might be bi!" and call that a character they can identify with.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 05 juin 2012 - 06:59 .

[robertthebard]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I was initially reserved about the idea that all the companions would be bisexual in DA2, until I realized two things:

1) I don't actually know what life is like in Thedas
2) In DA2, some are not explicitly bisexual, but rather you can only conclude that knowledge based on metagaming. Anders, for instance, doesn't make any references to the time he spent with Karl if the PC is female.

Point #2 is more about slightly changing the NPCs based upon PC sex. Now some might still think that's stupid or whatever, but I think if we're going to make romanceable NPCs available to all players regardless of PC gender, this is a good solution to it.

I thought it was a good solution.  I also think that there are more important concerns than who can romance who and why.  It's not like a romance is required to play the game at all.  If the way romances are handled is offensive to some, perhaps they can, instead of trying to adjust the game to fit them, adjust to fit the game.  I got my Zevran romance on a female character because I'm not gay, and while I tried to pretend to be, I just couldn't.  I was always one click away from it, but just couldn't make myself take that option.  If that makes me a homophobe, I'll own it right now.

So I guess my response to the topic title is really summed up in two words:  they shouldn't.

[jlb524]

Blacklash93 wrote...
My point is that you cannot call, for instance, a married man who does not specifically mention his sexuality a relatable LGBT character in any way. Just because there is that, however small, element of ambiguity does not make one a relatable character to an LGBT audience. Sexuality must be expressed somehow. Gay people are not going to go "Oh! Bann Teagan didn't specifically state his orientation! He might be bi!" and call that a character they can identify with.

I don't see how that can be used to justify eliminating the 'herosexual' approach.

That game mechanic can still exist while also providing LGBT NPC characters for relatability.

robertthebard wrote...
I got my Zevran romance on a female character because I'm not gay, and while I tried to pretend to be, I just couldn't.  I was always one click away from it, but just couldn't make myself take that option.  If that makes me a homophobe, I'll own it right now.

 

LOL, it doesn't...it's okay to not like doing s/s romances (I don't like o/s romances and just cannot do them).

There's a difference between having no interest in playing s/s romances and arguing for the elimination of those options for others who do wish to have them.

Modifié par jlb524, 05 juin 2012 - 07:17 .

[whykikyouwhy]

Blacklash93 wrote...

My point is not to label every character. I know there are plenty of characters better off not blatantly stating things about themselves. The person I responded to someone who worded his question in a way that sounded to me like "You might have these LGBT characters and not know it.".

My point is that you cannot call, for instance, a married man who does not specifically mention his sexuality a relatable LGBT character in any way. Just because there is that, however small, element of ambiguity does not make one a relatable character to an LGBT audience. Sexuality must be expressed somehow. Gay people are not going to go "Oh! Bann Teagan didn't specifically state his orientation! He might be bi!" and call that a character they can identify with.

As I said, it would be an extreme scenario if every character had to self-identify in some manner. That's the tricky part - to balance out the NPCs and/or their dialogue so that you hear about s/s couples or relationships, without it becoming a situation where some quota is met.

I think in some ways, outside of the LIs, the offhand remarks might be the best way to handle the matter, because it allows for hints that s/s romance is simply part of Thedan life, part of its many people. Like when Oghren spoke about Branka and her lover - he was lamenting on no longer being the source of Branka's happiness, but not on who she was now with, not on that detail of gender. And thus, no one really bats an eye. The focus is what might be the ideal that is akin to what the LGBT community is seeking IRL - that in Thedas, people who might identify as gay, bisexual, straight, etc are first and foremost people. And then, people who might be noble, heroic, etc. People who have dreams and fears, people who love.

That's the way I look at it, at least. 

[FieryDove]

robertthebard wrote...

I thought it was a good solution.  I also think that there are more important concerns than who can romance who and why.  It's not like a romance is required to play the game at all..

I agree. I loved having more options. Not less, Moar pls!