930 réponses à ce sujet

[FieryDove]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Direwolf0294 wrote...

As someone who quit TOR because of it's lack of SGRA all I can say is, don't you even dare think about doing this.

You quit a game... because it lacked a romance option which they said they'd add in later?

The expanded class stories and s/s romances were supposed to be in a the update in May. Oops I guess?
How long should a person wait for something they may have really looked forward too?

[Vormaerin]

Sith Grey Warden wrote...

Someone doesn't have to share the player's sexual orientation to be relatable. I'm bi, yet found Alistair far more relatable than Zevran.

Well, sure.  But that's not exactly what he's saying.  He's saying you can't use "its never clarified" as an argument for GLBT inclusiveness.

Varric and Avelline are probably the DA2 characters I most "relate" to, but I'm neither a dwarf nor a woman.   Nor was it because I find their choice of lovers anything like what I'd chose  (I like Bianca and all, but not in that way.   )

However, if you are trying to play the game in the "self insertion style" of RP,  then not having compatible characters could be a problem.

Modifié par Vormaerin, 06 juin 2012 - 02:14 .

[GodWood]

Vormaerin wrote...

GodWood wrote...

nerdage wrote...
Likewise, which is why I think the more choices open to the player, the better. So arbitrarily locking some options out as soon as you start the game for no obvious gain as far as I can see seems counter-productive to me, it's losing the ability to define the PC a certain way almost like deciding mages can't be pro-chantry or only rogues can make jokes; the safest option seems to be leave all the options open to everyone and let the player decide what's appropriate.

I don't have to point out how this is flat out wrong do I?

Yes,I think you do.

Having an NPC's sexuality predetermined is not remotely the same as having characteristics of the PC predetermined.

[Direwolf0294]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Direwolf0294 wrote...

As someone who quit TOR because of it's lack of SGRA all I can say is, don't you even dare think about doing this.

You quit a game... because it lacked a romance option which they said they'd add in later?

I think I gave the game a fair shot. I played for 6 months and got two characters to 50. With absolutely no news coming out regarding SGRA though I decided I'd stuck around long enough. I was willing to be patient and wait for them to be added but it seems they're not very high on the developers to do list. I'd actually hoped they'd be announced during the TOR announcement at E3 but sadly that was not the case (though I guess E3 isn't over yet so some information regarding them could still come out).

[Dave of Canada]

*often repeated opinion incoming*

I'm not against the bisexual romances, I'm opposed to the idea that they must remain generic swaps of "he/she" however. Most of the times people want equality by having everything being exactly the same, rather than similar but different content.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are different by their very nature and social views.

Let's take a dalish elf for example, they're supposed to be on their last legs and oppose everything human. You're the male protagonist, strong and charming and you manage to woo your Dalish friend and start a relationship. What happens when the Dalish find out? They should hate you both, the risk of her bearing a human child should be an insult to everything she was raised to believe. How would you deal with this?

Now flip it around, you're the female protagonist and you're just as equally strong and charming! You woo the Dalish friend and start a relationship, though the Dalish clan doesn't mind as much when they find out. They're not afraid of her suddenly finding herself with human child, though they're still thinking of arranging her to hook up with a male hunter. How would you deal with this?

This allows two sides to every relationship, the key differences possibly alternating how you react to the situation and changing the relationship and defining your character further. Imagine the tears if Alistair was bisexual and there was no way for him to keep you around if you were male and you placed him as king, as he'd need to produce an heir.

Though I do understand this requires resources which might not be there and not everyone likes the idea of their relationship being treated differently.

[Dave of Canada]

Direwolf0294 wrote...

I think I gave the game a fair shot. I played for 6 months and got two characters to 50.

Ah, my mistake. Thought you started playing and quit immediately after when you found out, rather than playing the game to "completion".

[Vormaerin]

GodWood wrote...
Having an NPC's sexuality predetermined is not remotely the same as having characteristics of the PC predetermined.

Why not?  Because you say the two choices aren't equivalent?   Being able to play a mage (which I never did) had less impact on my game than both the characters I actually liked as people be non romance-able.  Being able to play a mage arguably does more to destroy good RP than any other choice in the game.

The issue is that choice is artificially limited by virtue of it being a game.  I am not limited to my coworkers as romance options in real life, so if none of them are compatible I can look elsewhere.    But there is no elsewhere in the game, so if choices for romance are going to be that constrained, its best to do what can be to limit the constraints.

It doesn't do any violence to Merrill's character to make her lesbian in some playthroughs and straight in others.

[Vormaerin]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are different by their very nature and social views.

Entirely different issue, for one thing.  And not necessarily true for another.  It is certainly true in the modern west.   But the whole concept GLBT is a modern, western cultural construct.   It /could/ be like that in Thedas.  Doesn't have to be.

The Romans had a completely different viewpoint.  Their equivalent of straight/gay division culturally had more to do with what you did sexually than who you did it with.   There are other societies where transgendering (culturally, if not physically) are accepted.

Its not nearly as simple as we like to think with our modern, psychology based definitions.

Modifié par Vormaerin, 06 juin 2012 - 02:39 .

[Firky]

I'm going to have to stop reading this thread, because I'm becoming increasingly convinced that "variations" on characterisation, on occasions where sexuality is relevant, can be handled with flags/structural variation. (In a way that would alter relevant dialogue for a character like Merrill, who could be either gay or straight, player defined, or left undefined by the player. It'd get progressively more complex and would have the added problem of more bugs, resources required etc. But I'm sure the "everyone's bi" criticism would disappear, while allowing for similar representation across gender/roleplaying preference.)

If I don't stop reading, I'll be firing up the toolset and trying to prove it. And then no-one in my house will get dinner or clean clothes for a month. Must. Walk. Away.

(Good discussion.)

[GodWood]

Vormaerin wrote...

GodWood wrote...
Having an NPC's sexuality predetermined is not remotely the same as having characteristics of the PC predetermined.

Why not?  Because you say the two choices aren't equivalent? 

Because the game limits you to only being able to control YOUR PC's actions and attributes. All the examples Nerd listed were limitations imposed on what the player can have for THEIR character. Restricting the sexuality of other characters is not the same because it's not THEIR character.

[Vormaerin]

GodWood wrote...
]Because the game limits you to only being able to control YOUR PC's actions and attributes. All the examples Nerd listed were limitations imposed on what the player can have for THEIR character. Restricting the sexuality of other characters is not the same because it's not THEIR character.

That's not actually true.  I can control their skill sets, combat actions, and (to some extent) gear.

Though it is different in that the player is not actually choosing the sexuality of the other character.   The authors are, just with a conditional variable.  That's not different than other conditional variables.   Which sibling sticks around is based on class choice, for example.    Its the player's choice whether Bethany or Carver accompanies the PC to Kirkwall, its just not a direct one.

"Play a Mage = Carver"   and   "Play femHawke = Merrill is a lesbian"  are not different.

[Nerdage]

GodWood wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

GodWood wrote...
Having an NPC's sexuality predetermined is not remotely the same as having characteristics of the PC predetermined.

Why not?  Because you say the two choices aren't equivalent? 

Because the game limits you to only being able to control YOUR PC's actions and attributes. All the examples Nerd listed were limitations imposed on what the player can have for THEIR character. Restricting the sexuality of other characters is not the same because it's not THEIR character.

But it's an opportunity do define their character was the point, I didn't mean they were literally equivalent. If romances are a good way to give the player a sense of ownership over who their character is then limiting them is surely a bad thing, especially if there's no reason to do so which is how I see it.

[GodWood]

Vormaerin wrote...
The authors are, just with a conditional variable. That's not different than other conditional variables. Which sibling sticks around is based on class choice, for example. Its the player's choice whether Bethany or Carver accompanies the PC to Kirkwall, its just not a direct one.

"Play a Mage = Carver" and "Play femHawke = Merrill is a lesbian" are not different.

Not comparable.

Having which sibling Hawke has die at a determined plot-point based on the class of Hawke (which was stupid anyway) differs because up to that point there's nothing that needs to be changed about that character or their history. They're still the same person, same mindset, same experiences and so on. They just died at point X instead of point Y. Changing a character's sexuality however should radically alters a character's perceptions, experiences, history, personality, etc etc.

Also, when I play a female character I don't want all the female companions to be lesbians. That just seems like a juvenile fantasy.

nerdage wrote...
But it's an opportunity do define their character was the point, I didn't mean they were literally equivalent. If romances are a good way to give the player a sense of ownership over who their character is

They should gain ownership over the character by deciding how they want their own character to interact with the world. NOT by deciding how the world interacts with them. 

then limiting them is surely a bad thing, especially if there's no reason to do so which is how I see it.

Verisimilitude and maintaining a character identity are two good reasons that I value.

Modifié par GodWood, 06 juin 2012 - 03:34 .

[Nerdage]

GodWood wrote...

nerdage wrote...
But it's an opportunity do define their character was the point, I didn't mean they were literally equivalent. If romances are a good way to give the player a sense of ownership over who their character is

They should gain ownership over the character by deciding how they want their own character to interact with the world. NOT by deciding how the world interacts with them. 

But if some interactions with the world are denied to the player based on a decision they made without knowing the consequences..

then limiting them is surely a bad thing, especially if there's no reason to do so which is how I see it.

Verisimilitude and maintaining a character identity are two good reasons that I value.

I already gave my view on this; I don't see how imposing arbitrary restrictions on the romances benefits either of those things.

[wsandista]

GodWood wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...
The authors are, just with a conditional variable. That's not different than other conditional variables. Which sibling sticks around is based on class choice, for example. Its the player's choice whether Bethany or Carver accompanies the PC to Kirkwall, its just not a direct one.

"Play a Mage = Carver" and "Play femHawke = Merrill is a lesbian" are not different.

Not comparable.

Having which sibling Hawke has die at a determined plot-point based on the class of Hawke (which was stupid anyway) differs because up to that point there's nothing that needs to be changed about that character or their history. They're still the same person, same mindset, same experiences and so on. They just died at point X instead of point Y. Changing a character's sexuality however should radically alters a character's perceptions, experiences, history, personality, etc etc.

Also, when I play a female character I don't want all the female companions to be lesbians. That just seems like a juvenile fantasy.

nerdage wrote...
But it's an opportunity do define their character was the point, I didn't mean they were literally equivalent. If romances are a good way to give the player a sense of ownership over who their character is

They should gain ownership over the character by deciding how they want their own character to interact with the world. NOT by deciding how the world interacts with them. 

then limiting them is surely a bad thing, especially if there's no reason to do so which is how I see it.

Verisimilitude and maintaining a character identity are two good reasons that I value.

I agree with you, but I contend that the Carver/Merrill situations are equal in one sense. Both happen without player input at all, and the world changes to accommodate the PC. Having characters be either straight or gay depending on the PC's gender would be like having Mages being free and respected because the PC is a mage.

[GodWood]

nerdage wrote...
But if some interactions with the world are denied to the player based on a decision they made without knowing the consequences..

I'm not sure what you're hinting at.

I fully support the ability to hit on any companion provided not all companions are interested and limitations are placed on what makes sense for the character.

I already gave my view on this; I don't see how imposing arbitrary restrictions on the romances benefits either of those things.

Like I said: Verisimilitude and maintaining character identity.

These restrictions make the world feel more 'real' and give the character's a stronger identity. Rather then being shallow husks that contort themselves to fit the whims of the player, they're their own person.

[Nerdage]

GodWood wrote...

I fully support the ability to hit on any companion provided not all companions are interested and limitations are placed on what makes sense for the character.

But how do you decide what makes sense for a given character? As far as I know there's never been a good case for "That character can't be bi because ..."

So the decision is either arbitrary (in which case why bother?) or based on tired old tropes (so the amoral assassin can be bi, but the virtuous knight? No, that just wouldn't fit), neither of which really lend anything to the characters or the game in my view, they certainly aren't strong grounds for locking out options I'd like to have which go a long way to letting my define my character. I'd be much more sympathetic to a development-based reason than any in-character reason.


Ultimately, I'm more concerned with getting the experience I want out of a given play-through than having the game world meet all my modern sensibilities. Even if all the romancable characters being open to both genders seems unlikely to me, if that's the price for being able to say "I want to make character X who'll do Y" then so be it, especially if the 'problem' doesn't become apparent unless you try all the romances as both genders. If you don't agree then.. you don't agree.

[Firky]

Firky didn't leave. Firky now has an A4 page of notes and a new module open in the toolset. Not that anyone likely cares, but Firky finds it very difficult to turn off her brain, at times. Especially when it comes to plot flags (and, to a lesser extent, "non-traditional" gender representation in RP games.)

So, sorry Vormaerin, but not this. "Play femHawke = Merrill is a lesbian." But also not this, companions must be defined as gay/straight in order to give their character an identity. (Sexuality really doesn't have to define a person. It can, but doesn't have to. I could describe the example of a close friend I've had for 20 years, but that would be inappropriate.) But, I think, having moments of conversation in which Merrill is gay or straight is a different thing. (She just thinks the Arishok is hot, or thinks he's funny for the clothes he wears. She's still Merrill.)

The problem is, to my mind, there must be a barrier for entry into a player defined gay (also bi*, not gay - or even default/player undefined - ) relationship, but what is it?

*but not bi in the sense that Isabela is bi

Can it simply be "I like you," therefore you are the orientation I choose? Maybe, in the case of someone like Merrill? As a general rule, I don't really like that idea. (Which is not to say it's wrong, just that I don't really like it.)

Can it be linked to a case in the story, but at an unrelated juncture, in which the player self-identifies as wanting to play as gay character? It still doesn't solve the first "problem," necessarily. It's not either/or.

But what? You can't do a quest to unlock same sex relationships. Merrill will become gay for me if I save her from the beasties. (Well, not my thing, anyway.)

[Urzon]

I vote that we keep all the future LIs open to each gender, but make them into genderless stick figures. There everyone's happy.

Anything to stop this thread from ressing again....

[AmstradHero]

nerdage wrote...

GodWood wrote...

nerdage wrote...
But it's an opportunity do define their character was the point, I didn't mean they were literally equivalent. If romances are a good way to give the player a sense of ownership over who their character is

They should gain ownership over the character by deciding how they want their own character to interact with the world. NOT by deciding how the world interacts with them. 

But if some interactions with the world are denied to the player based on a decision they made without knowing the consequences..

Then you've got a well written story that facilities replayability.

Seriously, I love it when a game just lets me make a decision and then quite a while later someone comes back and references that action which results in a consequence. That leaves the player wondering: "What if I HADN'T made that decision?" Even if that never happens, when you get two people talking about a game and they have different results, they'll be wondering: "Wow, how did you get that to happen?"

What I DON'T want, and what I really don't like, is a system as was implemented in Witcher 1, where the game tells you in a fourth-wall breaking moment "because you made decision X earlier, you're now getting consequence Y". That breaks immersion. As far as I'm concerned, decisions should just happen. It shouldn't be a big song and dance of "you're now making a major changing decisions, warning warning, major differences will occur as a result of this." That's practically enforced metagaming, and I don't want to promote that.

If your character shows romantic interest in a same sex person, then a romance might be possible. If they don't, then it might not be. But every additional possibility creates additional work in writing, VO, scripting and testing. Options are expensive.

[AkiKishi]

Writing with the idea of being politically correct, not good at all. Write the characters, don't worry about things that have nothing to do with the game.

As a believer in both proportional representation and not letting real world politiking into games. Everyone should have fixed sexualities and it should be representative of Thedas. Not just made up for the players personal fantasies.

[Firky]

With the greatest possible respect, it's not about political correctness, or avoiding the causing of offense. (As I understand the term.) Not all gamers are straight men, and aspects of generalised gaming culture are a deep sadness to many of us. Gay romance is an opportunity. (But, hopefully one that is done right. I'm sure there are ways to do it that would attract less criticism.)

Also, if people had never called Richard Garriott "the satanic perverter of America's youth," we would never have had Ultima IV and morality systems in games today. (Well, I'm sure we would have, by some other means. But games, society, politics. Can they really be separated?)

Here you go. I love this lecture. They start talking Ultima at 46'00". The Ultima IV, criticism, morality bit starts around 48'20''.

Modifié par Firky, 06 juin 2012 - 08:52 .

[robertthebard]

GodWood wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...
The authors are, just with a conditional variable. That's not different than other conditional variables. Which sibling sticks around is based on class choice, for example. Its the player's choice whether Bethany or Carver accompanies the PC to Kirkwall, its just not a direct one.

"Play a Mage = Carver" and "Play femHawke = Merrill is a lesbian" are not different.

Not comparable.

Having which sibling Hawke has die at a determined plot-point based on the class of Hawke (which was stupid anyway) differs because up to that point there's nothing that needs to be changed about that character or their history. They're still the same person, same mindset, same experiences and so on. They just died at point X instead of point Y. Changing a character's sexuality however should radically alters a character's perceptions, experiences, history, personality, etc etc.

Also, when I play a female character I don't want all the female companions to be lesbians. That just seems like a juvenile fantasy.

nerdage wrote...
But it's an opportunity do define their character was the point, I didn't mean they were literally equivalent. If romances are a good way to give the player a sense of ownership over who their character is

They should gain ownership over the character by deciding how they want their own character to interact with the world. NOT by deciding how the world interacts with them. 

then limiting them is surely a bad thing, especially if there's no reason to do so which is how I see it.

Verisimilitude and maintaining a character identity are two good reasons that I value.

It's a single player game, maintain them all you want.  Just because Merrill may be a lesbian in somebody else's game doesn't mean she will ever have to be in yours.  Instead of speaking out to limit someone else's choices, continue to limit your own?  The only similarity between any of my completed games, and any of yours may well be that all the major plot points occurred, even if we played the same gender, and romanced the same companion.  There is no continuity between my first completed game and my second completed game.  I still had to do all the same things I had to do the first time, so it doesn't matter that Merrill was straight in my first game, and lesbian in my second, especially since she wasn't romanced in either.  In fact, nobody was romanced in my second game, so sexual preference didn't come up, at all, other than Isabela, and maybe Varric and Bianca.

What you see as a legitimate reason, I see as personal preference.  Not that personal preference isn't a legitimate reason, to you.  However, your personal preference may not match up to my personal preference, and therefore, it's not legitimate to me.  The difference here is, I'm not asking them to change the game to suit mine.  My overall opinion is it doesn't matter, as I mentioned earlier, I tried to RP being gay, and couldn't do it.  It's not my thing, but that doesn't mean I want to deny that oppurtunity to somebody that can, or maybe somebody that is gay. 

[Ponendus]

David Gaider wrote...

That certainly does get tempting after reading a thread like this, where one would almost come to the conclusion that the entire point of the game is to romance someone. Anyone. Everyone.

I actually wonder if a game like this wouldn't be successful? Considering how popular romance is in Bioware games, why not actually do an RPG where romance is a large part of the game? Something like Heavy Rain with an emphasis on relationships. And less creepiness. 

[AkiKishi]

Ponendus wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

That certainly does get tempting after reading a thread like this, where one would almost come to the conclusion that the entire point of the game is to romance someone. Anyone. Everyone.

I actually wonder if a game like this wouldn't be successful? Considering how popular romance is in Bioware games, why not actually do an RPG where romance is a large part of the game? Something like Heavy Rain with an emphasis on relationships. And less creepiness. 

There are numerous H games (with varying degrees of H) that do just that. It's never really caught on in the west.