596 réponses à ce sujet

[Rawgrim]

Romances are also a fairly new concept to rpgs. Back in the days, when they first started being included, it was just 1 option for each gender. Even if its not 100 percent on the equality ratio yet, having several options for different sexualites is still a huge step in the right direction.

So credit to Bioware for that bit.

[Iakus]

Rawgrim wrote...

Its overly simplified

Dang.

So many pages on this topic, So many arguments over so much time.  And those three words end up perfectly descibing my problem with the system.

Well done!

[Neon Rising Winter]

Fiacre wrote...

And Gaider has said, in this very thread, that that's not really the case. And that's ignoring how offensive it is to insist stuffing people into these three categories. As has been discussed. In this very thread.

Fenris, for example, could be pan. Or he could be a pan/biromantic demisexual. Or he could prefer women, but still be attarcted to a male Hawke as an exception -- it's been known to happen. Sexuality can be fluid. And there's a lot more to it than straight/gay/bi.

Yes, one thing I'm getting from his posts is he doesn't consider slapping a label on them to be important. Now like that or loathe it, if that's the principle these romances were implemented under, then trying to go ahead and slap a label on them is pretty pointless.

[Ryzaki]

LPPrince wrote...

Lets remember that romance doesn't equate to sexy time underneath sheets.

Oh I know that. But manShep gets rejected (completely rejected) a whooping one time. He has 9 different women and 2 different men that'll go for him pretty much regardless (he has a few things that'll end a romance but like Hawke they're apparently minor).

Hawke meanwhile gets rejected at least twice. And has 2 men and 2 women that'll go for him pretty much regardless.

But Hawke's the one that's horrible and ruining realistic sexualities, personalities, preferences and immersion.

LOL

Seeing this held up as some sort of thing to strive for (espcially when poor FemShep who gets cheated on, has an LI die and gets no new options, gay Shep gets a whooping 2 options to straight dude Sheps at least 3 times that). Is pretty amusing to me.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 21 mars 2013 - 01:08 .

[Rawgrim]

Fiacre wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

LPPrince wrote...
Those would make up some non-sexuality based limits. A little more of those+a couple Samantha Traynor Rejection moments.

Why does there have to be Samantha Traynor rejection moments with LI characters? They can't be with other members of the party? What is so terrible about 4 LIs being available to both genders of PCs? 

Its overly simplified. It also reeks of the reason why there is only 1 cave map in DA2. And it lets the player controll what sexualities the love interests are to have, when creating the PC. Affecting in game content without having even started playing yet.

No it is not controlling their sexuality. You don't turn Anders straight by rolling a female Hawke. You don't turn Fenris gay by rolling a male Hawke.

Yes you do. and vice versa. The devs have said they arn`t bisexual. Therefore, if you make a male Hawke, Anders is gay. make a female one and he is straight. Thats the player`s choice of PC gender controlling an NPC`s sexual leanings.

And Gaider has said, in this very thread, that that's not really the case. And that's ignoring how offensive it is to insist stuffing people into these three categories. As has been discussed. In this very thread.

Fenris, for example, could be pan. Or he could be a pan/biromantic demisexual. Or he could prefer women, but still be attarcted to a male Hawke as an exception -- it's been known to happen. Sexuality can be fluid. And there's a lot more to it than straight/gay/bi.

Its offensive to say gay, straight or bi, now?

[Fiacre]

Rawgrim wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

And Gaider has said, in this very thread, that that's not really the case. And that's ignoring how offensive it is to insist stuffing people into these three categories. As has been discussed. In this very thread.

Fenris, for example, could be pan. Or he could be a pan/biromantic demisexual. Or he could prefer women, but still be attarcted to a male Hawke as an exception -- it's been known to happen. Sexuality can be fluid. And there's a lot more to it than straight/gay/bi.

Its offensive to say gay, straight or bi, now?

No, it's offensive to pretend only these three categories exist and everyone has to fit them. A lot of people do, sure, but not everyone and insisting that they have to is what I take issue with.

[Ryzaki]

krul2k wrote...

ME3 - Not sure about it either I don't play femshep. As for Sam's rejection it was fine. Too bad just about everyone ELSE Shep hits on falls heads over heels for him. Thus it looks more than a little shallow. So...Shep strikes out...what 1 time out of 9? Let's see...Liara, Ashley, Miranda, Tali, Kelly, Jack, Samara (minor setback), Allers, Consort. Yeah those aren't bad odds. Not at all.

Theres no rejection, its clear from the start steve is gay, heck guy just lost his husband, so through out the game as femshep its you being a friend to steve nothing more, no done the romance as well no got many male sheps but the friendship is pretty nice tbh

Aaah I see.

Not so different to Alistair with male Warden then.

[Rawgrim]

Fiacre wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

And Gaider has said, in this very thread, that that's not really the case. And that's ignoring how offensive it is to insist stuffing people into these three categories. As has been discussed. In this very thread.

Fenris, for example, could be pan. Or he could be a pan/biromantic demisexual. Or he could prefer women, but still be attarcted to a male Hawke as an exception -- it's been known to happen. Sexuality can be fluid. And there's a lot more to it than straight/gay/bi.

Its offensive to say gay, straight or bi, now?

No, it's offensive to pretend only these three categories exist and everyone has to fit them. A lot of people do, sure, but not everyone and insisting that they have to is what I take issue with.

Ohh I can agree to that. Sure. Still, this is more or less a discussion about it as a game mechanic. So for the sake of a constructive discussion, its ok if we keep it "simple" and just use three terms?

[Silfren]

Sejborg wrote...

Would an Alistair who has hitherto defined himself as heterosexual really, on finding out he was attracted to a male Warden, just react with indifference and immediate acceptance? Wouldn't he be confused, surprised, apprehensive, unsure etc?

Surely it would have some kind of impact on Alistair's sense of who he is and where he belongs in the world? Ignoring this just seems to undermine the kinds of issues that non-heterosexual people will have to deal with in real life.

Sure.  IF you assume that the social and cultural background of Thedas is identical to that of real world cultures with a powerful heteronormative bias. 

There is no reason at all to assume that people who live in a society which IS accepting of sexual orientations outside the hetero- dynamic would struggle with any such thing.  You don't even need to assume that sexual orientation is considered such a big thing that the average person even consciously thinks about it as a facet of themselves.  An Alistair who grew up within a culture that didn't actually care a whit about sexual orientation might never consider himself as having an orientation at all.

The assertion that a person who has always been attracted to one gender would inevitably be confused, surprised, apprehensive, unsure, or some combination of those emotions, this is an assumption that only works within the framework of a culture wherein heterosexuality is considered the default and the norm.  It wouldn't necessarily exist in a culture that embraced all forms of sexuality, or even one which placed no significance or emphasis at all on any concept of sexual orientation.

Modifié par Silfren, 21 mars 2013 - 01:15 .

[jillabender]

Rawgrim wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Yes you do. and vice versa. The devs have said they arn`t bisexual. Therefore, if you make a male Hawke, Anders is gay. make a female one and he is straight. Thats the player`s choice of PC gender controlling an NPC`s sexual leanings.

And Gaider has said, in this very thread, that that's not really the case. And that's ignoring how offensive it is to insist stuffing people into these three categories. As has been discussed. In this very thread.

Fenris, for example, could be pan. Or he could be a pan/biromantic demisexual. Or he could prefer women, but still be attarcted to a male Hawke as an exception -- it's been known to happen. Sexuality can be fluid. And there's a lot more to it than straight/gay/bi.

Its offensive to say gay, straight or bi, now?

It's not offensive to refer to someone as gay, straight, or bi, if they identify themselves as such.

But it can be insulting to insist that those are the only three options, because there are people who don't feel that they fit into any of those three categories - for example, people who are bigendered (they don't feel that they fit into either "male" or "female" as a category).

Edit: Ninja'd by Fiacre. 

Modifié par jillabender, 21 mars 2013 - 10:50 .

[Neon Rising Winter]

Rawgrim wrote...

Ohh I can agree to that. Sure. Still, this is more or less a discussion about it as a game mechanic. So for the sake of a constructive discussion, its ok if we keep it "simple" and just use three terms?

Probably not useful if the writers weren't considering those three terms when they wrote the romances though. Why not just use one term, they are all of a sexuality that is compatible with player characters of either gender. Long winded I grant, but accurate.

[Rawgrim]

jillabender wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Yes you do. and vice versa. The devs have said they arn`t bisexual. Therefore, if you make a male Hawke, Anders is gay. make a female one and he is straight. Thats the player`s choice of PC gender controlling an NPC`s sexual leanings.

And Gaider has said, in this very thread, that that's not really the case. And that's ignoring how offensive it is to insist stuffing people into these three categories. As has been discussed. In this very thread.

Fenris, for example, could be pan. Or he could be a pan/biromantic demisexual. Or he could prefer women, but still be attarcted to a male Hawke as an exception -- it's been known to happen. Sexuality can be fluid. And there's a lot more to it than straight/gay/bi.

Its offensive to say gay, straight or bi, now?

It's not offensive to refer to someone as gay straight, or bi, if they identify themselves as such.

But it can be insulting to insist that those are the only three options, because there are people who don't feel that they fit into any of those three categories - for example, people who are bigendered (they don't feel that they fit into either "male" or "female" as a category).

True. But so far there hasn`t been a bi-gendered romance option in DA, so we can`t really take that into account (yet).

[jillabender]

Narrow Margin wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Ohh I can agree to that. Sure. Still, this is more or less a discussion about it as a game mechanic. So for the sake of a constructive discussion, its ok if we keep it "simple" and just use three terms?

Probably not useful if the writers weren't considering those three terms when they wrote the romances though. Why not just use one term, they are all of a sexuality that is compatible with player characters of either gender. Long winded I grant, but accurate.

Very well put!

[Fiacre]

Rawgrim wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

And Gaider has said, in this very thread, that that's not really the case. And that's ignoring how offensive it is to insist stuffing people into these three categories. As has been discussed. In this very thread.

Fenris, for example, could be pan. Or he could be a pan/biromantic demisexual. Or he could prefer women, but still be attarcted to a male Hawke as an exception -- it's been known to happen. Sexuality can be fluid. And there's a lot more to it than straight/gay/bi.

Its offensive to say gay, straight or bi, now?

No, it's offensive to pretend only these three categories exist and everyone has to fit them. A lot of people do, sure, but not everyone and insisting that they have to is what I take issue with.

Ohh I can agree to that. Sure. Still, this is more or less a discussion about it as a game mechanic. So for the sake of a constructive discussion, its ok if we keep it "simple" and just use three terms?

The problem with that is that Gaider already told you that not using labels is what they did. Yes, they're not officially considered bisexual -- but they're also not officially considered playersexual. Their sexuality is set -- they feel attraction to both genders, at least in Hawke's case, even if they were and exception -- you don't change it by choosing Hawke's sex.

And hey, it can be even shown in game -- if one were to take Merrill's comment about the Qunari beig pleasing to the eye as an indication for her sexuality, as some in this thread have done, I'm relatively sure she still says that when with fem!Hawke. M!Hawke can flirt with Fenris, have that reciprocated, but then get with Anders or Merrill and Fenris will start a relationship with Isabela. So how did making Hawke a certain sex somehow change their sexuality?

[Rawgrim]

Narrow Margin wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Ohh I can agree to that. Sure. Still, this is more or less a discussion about it as a game mechanic. So for the sake of a constructive discussion, its ok if we keep it "simple" and just use three terms?

Probably not useful if the writers weren't considering those three terms when they wrote the romances though. Why not just use one term, they are all of a sexuality that is compatible with player characters of either gender. Long winded I grant, but accurate.

I see you point. But it also makes the game overly simplified, and it smells of shortcuts being taken.
This was also one of the main complaints and criticizms of DA2. Felt rushed.

[Rawgrim]

Fiacre wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

And Gaider has said, in this very thread, that that's not really the case. And that's ignoring how offensive it is to insist stuffing people into these three categories. As has been discussed. In this very thread.

Fenris, for example, could be pan. Or he could be a pan/biromantic demisexual. Or he could prefer women, but still be attarcted to a male Hawke as an exception -- it's been known to happen. Sexuality can be fluid. And there's a lot more to it than straight/gay/bi.

Its offensive to say gay, straight or bi, now?

No, it's offensive to pretend only these three categories exist and everyone has to fit them. A lot of people do, sure, but not everyone and insisting that they have to is what I take issue with.

Ohh I can agree to that. Sure. Still, this is more or less a discussion about it as a game mechanic. So for the sake of a constructive discussion, its ok if we keep it "simple" and just use three terms?

The problem with that is that Gaider already told you that not using labels is what they did. Yes, they're not officially considered bisexual -- but they're also not officially considered playersexual. Their sexuality is set -- they feel attraction to both genders, at least in Hawke's case, even if they were and exception -- you don't change it by choosing Hawke's sex.

And hey, it can be even shown in game -- if one were to take Merrill's comment about the Qunari beig pleasing to the eye as an indication for her sexuality, as some in this thread have done, I'm relatively sure she still says that when with fem!Hawke. M!Hawke can flirt with Fenris, have that reciprocated, but then get with Anders or Merrill and Fenris will start a relationship with Isabela. So how did making Hawke a certain sex somehow change their sexuality?

That makes Hawke a sexual Mary-Sue. Thats more or less god-moding.

[Fiacre]

Rawgrim wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

And Gaider has said, in this very thread, that that's not really the case. And that's ignoring how offensive it is to insist stuffing people into these three categories. As has been discussed. In this very thread.

Fenris, for example, could be pan. Or he could be a pan/biromantic demisexual. Or he could prefer women, but still be attarcted to a male Hawke as an exception -- it's been known to happen. Sexuality can be fluid. And there's a lot more to it than straight/gay/bi.

Its offensive to say gay, straight or bi, now?

No, it's offensive to pretend only these three categories exist and everyone has to fit them. A lot of people do, sure, but not everyone and insisting that they have to is what I take issue with.

Ohh I can agree to that. Sure. Still, this is more or less a discussion about it as a game mechanic. So for the sake of a constructive discussion, its ok if we keep it "simple" and just use three terms?

The problem with that is that Gaider already told you that not using labels is what they did. Yes, they're not officially considered bisexual -- but they're also not officially considered playersexual. Their sexuality is set -- they feel attraction to both genders, at least in Hawke's case, even if they were and exception -- you don't change it by choosing Hawke's sex.

And hey, it can be even shown in game -- if one were to take Merrill's comment about the Qunari beig pleasing to the eye as an indication for her sexuality, as some in this thread have done, I'm relatively sure she still says that when with fem!Hawke. M!Hawke can flirt with Fenris, have that reciprocated, but then get with Anders or Merrill and Fenris will start a relationship with Isabela. So how did making Hawke a certain sex somehow change their sexuality?

That makes Hawke a sexual Mary-Sue. Thats more or less god-moding.

...How?

These are four people that are attracted to two or more genders. Isabela makes it pretty clear that she likes men and women, Anders says that he doesn't care, Merrill and Fenris don't comment on it and the writers didn't decide to give them any labels, therefore the characters decided not to identify with any particular label. And them not labelling themselves somehow makes Hawke a sexual Mary-Sue who's god-moding. Really?

[Renmiri1]

Rawgrim wrote...
he also said they arn`t bisexual. So if they have sex with both genders, and arn`t bisexuals....what are they?

What the frack does it matter ?

Your LI loves you, no matter what flavor of Hawke you pick.  does it really matter what the LI is on an entirely different playthrough, or in the past or in the future ?

I believe if you dug deep on your own personal life, you might be surprised to discover some ex of yours  "switched sides" either before or after you knew them. I don't mean to be offensive, it is just statistics. Does that invalidate the time you spent with that person ?

Does it invalidate it more than finding out some ex cheated on you, was arrested, used drugs, committed bank fraud, married Prince Andrew, opened a fast food chain ? On the past ? A few years after you last talked to them ?

People's lives are not static. We can only live for the moment and that is already hard enough.

Modifié par Renmiri1, 21 mars 2013 - 01:28 .

[jillabender]

Rawgrim wrote...

jillabender wrote...

It's not offensive to refer to someone as gay straight, or bi, if they identify themselves as such.

But it can be insulting to insist that those are the only three options, because there are people who don't feel that they fit into any of those three categories - for example, people who are bigendered (they don't feel that they fit into either "male" or "female" as a category).

True. But so far there hasn`t been a bi-gendered romance option in DA, so we can`t really take that into account (yet).

I think the issue is more that we don't really know how some of the characters, like Merrill and Fenris, would describe their sexuality. Maybe they would consider themselves bi, or maybe they would consider themselves pansexual. Maybe they would consider themselves straight with some gay tendencies, or the other way around. Or maybe they don't feel any need to label their sexual preferences beyond simply expressing attraction for the people they happen to be attracted to.

As far as whether Hawke is a Mary-Sue because all four romanceable characters can be romanced by a Hawke of either gender, I don't see it that way, because not all of the romanceable characters throw themselves at Hawke in every playthrough.

Modifié par jillabender, 21 mars 2013 - 01:33 .

[Neon Rising Winter]

Rawgrim wrote...

Narrow Margin wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Ohh I can agree to that. Sure. Still, this is more or less a discussion about it as a game mechanic. So for the sake of a constructive discussion, its ok if we keep it "simple" and just use three terms?

Probably not useful if the writers weren't considering those three terms when they wrote the romances though. Why not just use one term, they are all of a sexuality that is compatible with player characters of either gender. Long winded I grant, but accurate.

I see you point. But it also makes the game overly simplified, and it smells of shortcuts being taken.
This was also one of the main complaints and criticizms of DA2. Felt rushed.

To me it doesn't smell of short cut, it smells of resource management. It's an effective compromise between wanting to offer a choice of romances to player characters of all genders and sexualities, while not devoting excessive resources to creating romance options. I think it's an effective solution, and I'd bet even if there had been a lot more resources available, this isn't the area that would have been considered in need of them. For me the one thing DA2 really didn't skimp on was character design.

[Fiacre]

jillabender wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

jillabender wrote...

It's not offensive to refer to someone as gay straight, or bi, if they identify themselves as such.

But it can be insulting to insist that those are the only three options, because there are people who don't feel that they fit into any of those three categories - for example, people who are bigendered (they don't feel that they fit into either "male" or "female" as a category).

True. But so far there hasn`t been a bi-gendered romance option in DA, so we can`t really take that into account (yet).

I think the issue is more that we don't really know how some of the characters, like Merrill and Fenris, would describe their sexuality. Maybe they would consider themselves bi, or maybe they would consider themselves pansexual. Maybe they would consider themselves straight with some gay tendencies, or the other way around. Or maybe they don't feel any need to label their sexual preferences beyond simply expressing attraction for the people they heppen to be attracted to.

You're pretty much saying everything I want to say. Except better. So yeah, this.

[Silfren]

Rawgrim wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

LPPrince wrote...
Those would make up some non-sexuality based limits. A little more of those+a couple Samantha Traynor Rejection moments.

Why does there have to be Samantha Traynor rejection moments with LI characters? They can't be with other members of the party? What is so terrible about 4 LIs being available to both genders of PCs? 

Its overly simplified. It also reeks of the reason why there is only 1 cave map in DA2. And it lets the player controll what sexualities the love interests are to have, when creating the PC. Affecting in game content without having even started playing yet.

No it is not controlling their sexuality. You don't turn Anders straight by rolling a female Hawke. You don't turn Fenris gay by rolling a male Hawke.

Yes you do. and vice versa. The devs have said they arn`t bisexual. Therefore, if you make a male Hawke, Anders is gay. make a female one and he is straight. Thats the player`s choice of PC gender controlling an NPC`s sexual leanings.

And Gaider has said, in this very thread, that that's not really the case. And that's ignoring how offensive it is to insist stuffing people into these three categories. As has been discussed. In this very thread.

Fenris, for example, could be pan. Or he could be a pan/biromantic demisexual. Or he could prefer women, but still be attarcted to a male Hawke as an exception -- it's been known to happen. Sexuality can be fluid. And there's a lot more to it than straight/gay/bi.

Its offensive to say gay, straight or bi, now?

Why, when someone very plainly says its offensive to insist on categorizing people in exactly and only one of three ironclad ways, and doesn't actually refer to the terms at all, would you read that they mean the terminology itself is offensive?

[Rawgrim]

[/quote]

That makes Hawke a sexual Mary-Sue. Thats more or less god-moding.

[/quote]

...How?

These are four people that are attracted to two or more genders. Isabela makes it pretty clear that she likes men and women, Anders says that he doesn't care, Merrill and Fenris don't comment on it and the writers didn't decide to give them any labels, therefore the characters decided not to identify with any particular label. And them not labelling themselves somehow makes Hawke a sexual Mary-Sue who's god-moding. Really?

[/quote]

It leaves the impression that all 4 of the love interests will just "drop their pants and get it on" just because its Hawke. The choice of gender has no bearing at all. All that matters is the name Hawke.

I didn`t meant Hawke was god moding. I meant the mechanics felt like god-moding a certain aspect of the game.

[Renmiri1]

Rawgrim wrote...

 it also makes the game overly simplified, and it smells of shortcuts being taken.
This was also one of the main complaints and criticizms of DA2. Felt rushed.

Oi...

The lead writer of the games came here and told you literally that IT IS A SHORTCUT yes, that is what is. If he had more time/ zoots / minions he would do it better, with set sexualities, but he opted to be fair rather than excluding people just because his budget didn't allow for perfection.

Yes, of course it smells of shortcuts. Because it is precisely what it is!!! 

Narrow Margin wrote...

To me it doesn't smell of short cut, it smells of resource management. It's an effective compromise between wanting to offer a choice of romances to player characters of all genders and sexualities, while not devoting excessive resources to creating romance options. I think it's an effective solution, and I'd bet even if there had been a lot more resources available, this isn't the area that would have been considered in need of them. For me the one thing DA2 really didn't skimp on was character design.

+100000000