5 réponses à ce sujet

[HiddenInWar]

Any word on that yet? Or any romance news in general will do. 

[Allan Schumacher]

Thread is being (somewhat) watched by me so please don't do anything that would make me want to bring out the hammer.

[Allan Schumacher]

If I get the impression, Ivey, (I quickly looked over this thread so I may have missed something), but in a nutshell:

You find it a bit strange/different knowing, even through metaknowledge, that a character could be romanced by both genders, and feel it helps strengthen the character if they are more established rather than reactive in how they respond to "the dating game" so to speak?

Because if that's the way you feel I just want to say I don't think that's a very offensive perspective so I don't think you need to worry about justifying how you feel

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 08 octobre 2012 - 06:04 .

[Allan Schumacher]

motomotogirl wrote...

I think that's how I was reading her response. And I like I said, it seems to come from the mindset that a person's sexuality is a very definitive part of who s/he is. 

It's just hard for me to think like that since I rarely think of a person's sexuality. 

I'm just confused why "Merrill being straight" is a stronger characterization than "Merrill is hero-sexual." She is still the same character with the same story arc.

Well, someone like Cortez can't reference his husband if he's "hero-sexual" and I applaud the ME guys for incorporating Cortez's backstory in there and while it made me (Allan, the player) go "oh hey!" (because I have limited experience with a gay man being that open) I loved that Shepard didn't even blink an eye.  It meant that that type of relationship was so common it wasn't even noteworthy, which is a strong message to convey.

[David Gaider]

DuskWarden wrote...
In our society (I can only speak for Western society), it used to be a big deal, and there were often negative connotations, if you weren't heterosexual. I guess it was because certain dominant religions told people they'd go to hell etc. if they had sex with people of the same sex. Now we live in a (hopefully) more enlightened time and not being heterosexual isn't the end of the world anymore (in the majority of cases at least).

But what makes people think that in Thedas they'd have gone through that "Hetero or else" phase at all? Does the chantry condemn bi/****** sexuality? Perhaps being bisexual or homosexual in Thedas isn't anything unusual at all. Zevran and Isabella both freely talk about their same sex experiences, but people don't seem to care. 

So whilst some people are claiming it is 'unrealistic' for all the companions to be bisexual based on the time DA is set in, it might not be.

There is a strange divide between things that someone considers "acceptably unrealistic" and "unacceptably ahistorical" in a fantasy game. My impression is that the actual fantasy elements (such as magic) are fine, but anything which exists in our own world (such as sexuality) must be closely analogous to medieval history or it's simply beyond the pale.

Which rather underlines the fact that many people don't know very much about medieval history. They get it mixed up with the Renaissance, or perhaps some strange mixture of the Renaissance and medieval times (which looks something like a Ren Fair, I gather). And this is, of course, only when it's a difference that they personally dislike. Even if you pointed out to them the historical actuality, they'd still come up with some other reason why it's not a good thing... because such reasons are always more valid than admitting personal bias, evidently.

As for 'hero' sexualism, I personally don't like it. I have no problem with all of the companions being bisexual, but in DA2 they weren't. Anders and Isabella are bisexual, Merril and Fenris are herosexual. That said, I think there are far bigger issues which need working on, so if herosexual companions saves time to work on other things, by all means.

As I've said before, I too would prefer set sexualities if all things were equal-- if I had enough resources that "realism" could be my biggest concern (ignoring for the moment how very subjective that is). But they're rarely equal, and in the case of DA2 simple fairness won out. As it should. I get that some people felt weird (for whatever reason) when they found out a character could romance someone of a different gender in another game... but I will not count that as being more important than allowing players a simple choice in who they romance, provided that it doesn't impact our ability to write the character. And it does not.

As for what our plans are for S/S romances in DA3, we've not discussed it. And we will not, probably for quite some time. I can, however, safely say that whatever changes we make will not be derived from concerns over "unrealistic bisexuality" or the veiled (and sometimes not-so-veiled) homophobia that crops up here from time to time. Our primary concerns are fairness, fun and (above all) making good characters that you'd want to romance (if you were so inclined to romance anyone, as it will always be an optional element).

And that's all there is to it. A statement I expect to make numerous times as versions of this thread keep cropping up. I look forward to the day when this sort of content is simply taken as a given, rather than used as fodder for awkward arguments.

Modifié par David Gaider, 09 octobre 2012 - 04:10 .

[David Gaider]

Lennard Testarossa wrote...
You could say that, yes. As I've said at the very beginning, I find plausability more important than pandering to minorities. If you're of the opinion that in this case, it is better to let said minorities have their fun, fine. Nothing to argue about there.

Wow. This is not going to go anywhere good.

Let me say this:

I'm certainly glad you're okay with other people believing it's fine for BioWare to "pander to minorities", even if you're not... said pandering being unimportant in comparison to your evaluation of the setting's plausibility. Because, so long as your world view is reinforced, it's not a problem?

That is called privilege. I hate having to roll the word out in cases like this, but the "pander" comment all but screams it. And since you otherwise seem like a thoughtful person, it might be difficult to face up to such biases in yourself. I certainly did, the first time they were pointed out to me. And I still have plenty of preconceptions I have to contend with on a regular basis, things that I resist not because they're actual problems but because I'm simply used to them being that way... and used to having my worldview reinforced every way I look. That's the way it should be, right?

Well, it's not. Dragon Age is not interested in catering to overt ideas of sexism or homophobia simply because someone considers that "realistic". We feel no need to have that level of realism. Ignoring the idea that those notions are based on Victorian mores which themselves are out of place in a medieval setting, I'll point out that Dragon Age isn't even trying to be excessively medieval. Some people scoff at the idea of dragons and fireballs being used as an argument as why a fantasy world might have "implausible" elements, completely ignoring that history does not happen without context. In this world, fireballs and dragons exist. So its history must also exist in conjunction with that completely implausible reality... not aside from it. Deciding what you find implausible in that context says more about you than it does about the setting, and while you're certainly free to say what you do and do not like you might also want to check your privilege a little harder when you start deriding what other people find personally important just because their concerns are not such a big deal for you.

I hope that's clear, and that you'll think about this a bit harder before the next time you bring it up.

And since this thread is only going to go downhill, I'll close by saying this isn't something that is up for discussion. We're not going to alter the way the world works, or change how sexuality is dealt with in its context purely on the basis of people using the excuse that they find it implausible-- for the reasons mentioned above. Thanks.

Modifié par David Gaider, 09 octobre 2012 - 11:26 .