596 réponses à ce sujet

[Fiacre]

Silfren wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Silfren wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Lemme try to rapidly bring this back on topic-

What are the chances Bioware's been given the necessary funds to give the "optimal" solution of an equal amount of hetero, ******, and bisexual options instead of making every option playersexual?

I don't understand why you think this is the optimal solution.  In Origins, many people wanted to romance Morrigan as a female Warden, or Alistair as a male Warden.  Providing more options for hetero-, bi-, and homosexual romance pairings doesn't solve this, if Character A is only open to female characters but a population of players want to play male characters but also want to romance that character. 

So no, this solution is not optimal, it just leads to people implementing mods to force an otherwise off-limits romance, which creates very interesting and sometimes very awkwad dialogue.

In a perfect world with unlimited resources, I completely disagree. I don't think it matters whether you really really really wanted to romance one character and couldn't because they weren't interested. Hell, I'd like for that to happen more often. You want to free all mages? Well, super religious Chantry templar brother guy has absolutely no interest in you.

Several people have done this enough that it's really starting to grate on my nerves.  I totally agree that there should be decisions a PC can make, beliefs they can express, that will cut them off from romancing certain characters.  But this has NOTHING to do with the question of gender or sexual orientation!  You should have characters who will have nothing to do with your PC  because they find your beliefs or actions reprehensible, but why people keep making this point in a discussion about whether romances should be across-the-board available is mind-boggling.  You should NOT use that need of characters who will reject the PC on certain grounds to extend it to limiting romance options based on gender and orientation.  Because the issue becomes one of inclusiveness, and sorry, but wanting to play a PC who is fanatically pro-mage freedom but still gets to romance a mage-hater like Fenris is IN NO WAY COMPARABLE OR EQUAL to wanting to play a PC of the player's preferred gender while NOT being cut off from romancing their preferred LI. The two situations are totally unrelated, and one has zero real world implications, while the other DOES have an impact on whether players feel marginalized or included.

As someone who vastly prefers playing a male PC because of gender identity issues... this. (It's nearly always my first choice, with the exception being... Pokémon Black/White and to an extent it's sequel, one because I adored the fem!PC's design, and one because I wasn't really content with either design. And I ended up defaulting to male in the latter case.) So, yeah. I was lucky enough in Origins that I love Morrigan and can't stand Alistair, anyway, but if say, Merrill -- my favourite DA2 romance -- had only been attracte to a female Hawke, I likely would have never gotten to play that romance. And if I had, I wouldn't have enjoyed it nearly as much.

[Rawgrim]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

I think you are going abit too far on the assumption bit here, and its starting to become more than a little insulting.. The fact that there are gay people and such in the game, and that they are romancable is not a problem for me.

No offense intended, my apologies.

Rawgrim wrote...
I am arguing the mechanics of it, thats all. I wouldn`t complain if there were 8 gay romances and just 1 straight one either. Its just the fact that everyone being available from the get-go, to either gender, thats the problem.

Everyone in this thread, including David Gaider agrees with you that the mechanics are not optimal.

What everyone else sees is that it is better to be somewhat "imperfect" on the portrayal of the LIs than to be unfair to gamers just because they are not heterosexual males.

Can't you agree to that ? I mean seriously, you don't seem like a bigoted guy you actually seem quite nice and I didn't mean to offend you. It just drives me up a wal that a "nice guy" would fight so hard to preserve an unfair situation that is all around us, just because the fairness mechanics in game isn't perfect. 

Its just annoying that when I disagree with this mechanic, someone plays the homophobe card.

And yes, I do agree with and imperfect LI system is better than people being excluded. Certainly. Its not what I have been arguing. But what I am arguing, is that it is in fact imperfect. It could do with some tweaks to make it make more sense. And I am stubborn (norwegian vikings, you know).

And i am not fighting hard to get an unfair system. I am arguing the point that it is flawed. Equal choices for everyone is perfect, but I don`t think the way they did it in DA2 was optimal at all.

[Renmiri1]

Same here. I always play hetero females. I am a hetero female and it feels natural to me. But as you may have guessed, someone very dear to me is gay. And thank heavens she lives in a place where gender issues are mostly irrelevant (Amsterdam). Because if she lived in Africa she may have been beaten to death for loving women.

Lottery of life. People can help being who they are and where they were born, but we can all make an effort - and bear some discomfort - to make sure people different than us are treated fairly.

Modifié par Renmiri1, 21 mars 2013 - 02:17 .

[jillabender]

Rawgrim wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

Yes and the Arishock will ALWAYS lose the fight with Hawke. So will Meredith. And Hawke will ALWAYS be able to raise or borrow the money to go to the Deep Roads. And a tired bedragled Hawke will always beat a group of mercenaries who had been idling at Kirkwal for days, impressing a guard enough that he goes call Uncle Gamlem. And Hawke will always impress one of the Kirkwall crime leaders enought that they pay to bring her / him into the city.

You getting a pattern here ?

Why Hawke being good at everything and succeeding where others fail only bithers you when it's gender related ?

Pleas just look deep inside yourself and try to see why this issue bothers you so much more than the rest. Because it clearly is something that causes you a lot of angst. And there is no need for that at all.

I am glad you won't be able to change Gaider's mind on this but there are just about a million of other games where you don't have to face this issue. So forgive me if I don't weep for you. You have alternatives, a lot more than a lot of people.

You don`t allways defeat the arishok. You have to use tactics and avoid being killed.


I think you are going abit too far on the assumption bit here, and its starting to become more than a little insulting.. The fact that there are gay people and such in the game, and that they are romancable is not a problem for me. I am arguing the mechanics of it, thats all. I wouldn`t complain if there were 8 gay romances and just 1 straight one either. Its just the fact that everyone being available from the get-go, to either gender, thats the problem.

If making some potential love interests available to only one gender makes the romances feel like more of a challenge to you, and you prefer it for that reason, that's fine.

But keep in mind, too, that you're in the position of being able to take for granted that you'll see your sexuality represented in games and other entertainment, while other people aren't. LGBT players have been excluded by a gaming industry that overwhelmingly features straight male romances, and some of them find it very refreshing and liberating to see a game where romances aren't restricted based on gender for that reason.

Modifié par jillabender, 21 mars 2013 - 02:22 .

[Rawgrim]

jillabender wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

Yes and the Arishock will ALWAYS lose the fight with Hawke. So will Meredith. And Hawke will ALWAYS be able to raise or borrow the money to go to the Deep Roads. And a tired bedragled Hawke will always beat a group of mercenaries who had been idling at Kirkwal for days, impressing a guard enough that he goes call Uncle Gamlem. And Hawke will always impress one of the Kirkwall crime leaders enought that they pay to bring her / him into the city.

You getting a pattern here ?

Why Hawke being good at everything and succeeding where others fail only bithers you when it's gender related ?

Pleas just look deep inside yourself and try to see why this issue bothers you so much more than the rest. Because it clearly is something that causes you a lot of angst. And there is no need for that at all.

I am glad you won't be able to change Gaider's mind on this but there are just about a million of other games where you don't have to face this issue. So forgive me if I don't weep for you. You have alternatives, a lot more than a lot of people.

You don`t allways defeat the arishok. You have to use tactics and avoid being killed.


I think you are going abit too far on the assumption bit here, and its starting to become more than a little insulting.. The fact that there are gay people and such in the game, and that they are romancable is not a problem for me. I am arguing the mechanics of it, thats all. I wouldn`t complain if there were 8 gay romances and just 1 straight one either. Its just the fact that everyone being available from the get-go, to either gender, thats the problem.

If making some potential love interests available to only one gender makes the romances feel like more of a challenge to you, and you prefer it for that reason, that's fine.

But keep in mind, too, that you're in the position of being able to take for granted that you'll see your sexuality represented in games and other entertainment, while other people aren't. Many LGBT players have been excluded by a gaming industry that overwhelmingly features straight male romances, and some of them find it very refreshing and liberating to see a game where romances aren't restricted based on gender for that reason.

(whats LGBT?)

[sandalisthemaker]

Rawgrim wrote...



(whats LGBT?)

lesbian gay bisexual transgender

Modifié par sandalisthemaker, 21 mars 2013 - 02:17 .

[Rawgrim]

Thanks i thought it was an online gaming term or something Shows you how well I keep up with terms and whatsnot.

[Plaintiff]

Rawgrim wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

DarkSpiral wrote...
Is that the best you can come up with?  Compare how I react to a video game to how I react to my real lifef riends?  They are nothing remotely the same.

Immersion.  In real life.  That's ridiculous.  Try again.

The only reason for the sexuality of the characters in Dragon Age to disrupt your immersion is if it somehow interferes with your perception of reality.

Even then, that reaction is still illogical because Thedas is not reality and not bound by the same "rules" as reality.

But you insist on imposing your perception of reality onto the fantasy world of Thedas. So yes, I think how you react to similarly non-defined sexualities in real life is extremely relevant.

Thedas is the same as our worl (in medieval times) unless stated otherwise. This is true about every fantasy setting. If there are dragons about, that is an explained difference between our world and thedas. If magic excists in a setting, its real and so on. Its why the codex and lore is important in every fictional setting.

A flawed assumption. If anything, people should be approaching Thedas (and indeed, all fantasy settings) with the assumption that they are different unless stated otherwise. Being 'different' is the whole point of a fantasy setting, after all. It wouldn't be much of a fantasy otherwise.

Regardless, it's pretty obvious that Thedas has a very different conception of sexuality. For isntance, in Thedas, the only two brothels we've seen, The Pearl and The Blooming Rose, provide escorts of both genders, all of whom are available to clients of either gender.

Meanwhile, in our own society, brothels and escort services generally only provide escorts of one gender, and only service either male or female clientele. Same-sex prostitution is a specialized service.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 21 mars 2013 - 02:21 .

[Harle Cerulean]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...



(whats LGBT?)

lesbian gay bisexual transgender

And here I thought it was Lesbian Gay Bacon Tomato.   Colbert lied to me!

Modifié par Harle Cerulean, 21 mars 2013 - 02:21 .

[The Hierophant]

Silfren wrote...

Saibh wrote...

Silfren wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Lemme try to rapidly bring this back on topic-

What are the chances Bioware's been given the necessary funds to give the "optimal" solution of an equal amount of hetero, ******, and bisexual options instead of making every option playersexual?

I don't understand why you think this is the optimal solution.  In Origins, many people wanted to romance Morrigan as a female Warden, or Alistair as a male Warden.  Providing more options for hetero-, bi-, and homosexual romance pairings doesn't solve this, if Character A is only open to female characters but a population of players want to play male characters but also want to romance that character. 

So no, this solution is not optimal, it just leads to people implementing mods to force an otherwise off-limits romance, which creates very interesting and sometimes very awkwad dialogue.

In a perfect world with unlimited resources, I completely disagree. I don't think it matters whether you really really really wanted to romance one character and couldn't because they weren't interested. Hell, I'd like for that to happen more often. You want to free all mages? Well, super religious Chantry templar brother guy has absolutely no interest in you.

Several people have done this enough that it's really starting to grate on my nerves.  I totally agree that there should be decisions a PC can make, beliefs they can express, that will cut them off from romancing certain characters.  But this has NOTHING to do with the question of gender or sexual orientation!  You should have characters who will have nothing to do with your PC  because they find your beliefs or actions reprehensible, but why people keep making this point in a discussion about whether romances should be across-the-board available is mind-boggling.  You should NOT use that need of characters who will reject the PC on certain grounds to extend it to limiting romance options based on gender and orientation.  Because the issue becomes one of inclusiveness, and sorry, but wanting to play a PC who is fanatically pro-mage freedom but still gets to romance a mage-hater like Fenris is IN NO WAY COMPARABLE OR EQUAL to wanting to play a PC of the player's preferred gender while NOT being cut off from romancing their preferred LI. The two situations are totally unrelated, and one has zero real world implications, while the other DOES have an impact on whether players feel marginalized or included.

I think it's because people (me included) see the futility in further debating over the subject as DG's comments confirmed that DA2's system will carry over. Right now  It's like arguing over the pc being "human only" or voiced after it's been set in stone by the devs comments. Yeah people will continue to have varying opinions on the matter but no one's opinion on ambiguousexual characters will change the devs minds or each other's. The same posters have been going at it for nearly 20 pages, making this topic reach Simple Jack levels of redundancy regardless of your position on it.

People should instead shift their focus to worrying about the companion's reactivity to the pc's actions, and dialogue choices affecting their friendship. 

And more importantly weather effects and their affect on magic.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 21 mars 2013 - 02:22 .

[Neon Rising Winter]

Rawgrim wrote...

I am not saying people should get excluded or have limited options. Far from it. Everyone should have the same amount of options. I am just not agreeing with how it was handled in DA2. I can`t really comment on how it was done in ME either. I only romanced Liara.

Well being a great fan of bookworms, archeologists and the colour blue, I can't complain on a personal level myself. But take one look at the ME3 diagram that was posted earlier and that illustrates the problem nicely.

I do understand why you find it jarring for all characters to be avilable to all PCs, and I think you're arguing to expand the available character pool to still provide choice while allowing some of the characters to have more defined sexualities. But I doubt that expansion is what would happen.

The size of the character pool, the resources available to implement romances, the fact this is at the end of the day optional content, that's all going to conspire to limit the number of romances that will be offered. And if they keep the number of romances the same and start defining the sexualities, I'm fairly sure it's not the number of heterosexual options that will shrink.

[Rawgrim]

Plaintiff wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

DarkSpiral wrote...
Is that the best you can come up with?  Compare how I react to a video game to how I react to my real lifef riends?  They are nothing remotely the same.

Immersion.  In real life.  That's ridiculous.  Try again.

The only reason for the sexuality of the characters in Dragon Age to disrupt your immersion is if it somehow interferes with your perception of reality.

Even then, that reaction is still illogical because Thedas is not reality and not bound by the same "rules" as reality.

But you insist on imposing your perception of reality onto the fantasy world of Thedas. So yes, I think how you react to similarly non-defined sexualities in real life is extremely relevant.

Thedas is the same as our worl (in medieval times) unless stated otherwise. This is true about every fantasy setting. If there are dragons about, that is an explained difference between our world and thedas. If magic excists in a setting, its real and so on. Its why the codex and lore is important in every fictional setting.

A flawed assumption. If anything, people should be approaching Thedas (and indeed, all fantasy settings) with the assumption that they are different unless stated otherwise. Being 'different' is the whole point of a fantasy setting, after all. It wouldn't be much of a fantasy otherwise.

Regardless, it's pretty obvious that Thedas has a very different conception of sexuality. For isntance, in Thedas, the only two brothels we've seen, The Pearl and The Blooming Rose, provide escorts of both genders, all of whom are available to both genders.

Meanwhile, in our own society, brothels and escort services generally only provide escorts of one gender, and only service either male or female clientele. Same-sex prostitution is a specialized service.

Being different is the whole point of fantasy, yes. But the golden rule is "assume things are the same as our world, unless stated otherwise". You can look it up. Several fantasy writers have blogs about it, and there are plenty of world-building books about it too.

Actually, in ancient Rome, they had both gender prostitutes. Its now adays that things like this have become a specialized service. And Thedas is closer to ancient Rome than it is to 2013 US.

[Plaintiff]

Harle Cerulean wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...



(whats LGBT?)

lesbian gay bisexual transgender

And here I thought it was Lesbian Gay Bacon Tomato.   Colbert lied to me!

I love a bit of G in my BLT.

[Plaintiff]

The Hierophant wrote...
I think it's because people (me included) see the futility in further debating over the subject as DG's comments confirmed that DA2's system will carry over. Right now  It's like arguing over the pc being "human only" or voiced after it's been set in stone by the devs comments. Yeah people will continue to have varying opinions on the matter but no one's opinion on ambiguousexual characters will change the devs minds or each other's. The same posters have been going at it for nearly 20 pages, making this topic reach Simple Jack levels of redundancy regardless of your position on it.

People should instead shift their focus to worrying about the companion's reactivity to the pc's actions, and dialogue choices affecting their friendship. 

And more importantly weather effects and their affect on magic.

Yeah, it's not as if the representation of sexual minorities in video games is an issue that has real-world impact or anything. Everybody should just stop caring about it.

[Renmiri1]

Ya and the fact that I can do frost magic in the summer breaks my immersion bigtime -.-

Modifié par Renmiri1, 21 mars 2013 - 02:28 .

[sandalisthemaker]

Plaintiff wrote...

Harle Cerulean wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...



(whats LGBT?)

lesbian gay bisexual transgender

And here I thought it was Lesbian Gay Bacon Tomato.   Colbert lied to me!

I love a bit of G in my BLT.

Oh, you guys....

[Rawgrim]

Narrow Margin wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

I am not saying people should get excluded or have limited options. Far from it. Everyone should have the same amount of options. I am just not agreeing with how it was handled in DA2. I can`t really comment on how it was done in ME either. I only romanced Liara.

Well being a great fan of bookworms, archeologists and the colour blue, I can't complain on a personal level myself. But take one look at the ME3 diagram that was posted earlier and that illustrates the problem nicely.

I do understand why you find it jarring for all characters to be avilable to all PCs, and I think you're arguing to expand the available character pool to still provide choice while allowing some of the characters to have more defined sexualities. But I doubt that expansion is what would happen.

The size of the character pool, the resources available to implement romances, the fact this is at the end of the day optional content, that's all going to conspire to limit the number of romances that will be offered. And if they keep the number of romances the same and start defining the sexualities, I'm fairly sure it's not the number of heterosexual options that will shrink.

The thing is, if all romance options is available to both gender, it kind of "invalidates" the choice of gender. And since we have allready lost the choice to pick a race and are stuck with human only.... The choice of gender was more or less simply choice of character skin in DA2 (with a few exceptions here and there). In the end it limits the players choices when creating and playing a character.

[sandalisthemaker]

Rawgrim wrote...



The thing is, if all romance options is available to both gender, it kind of "invalidates" the choice of gender. And since we have allready lost the choice to pick a race and are stuck with human only.... The choice of gender was more or less simply choice of character skin in DA2 (with a few exceptions here and there). In the end it limits the players choices when creating and playing a character.

You may see it that way, but for a player who wants to create a gay male or a lesbian character, it doesn't invalidate choice of gender.

Modifié par sandalisthemaker, 21 mars 2013 - 02:31 .

[The Hierophant]

Plaintiff wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...
I think it's because people (me included) see the futility in further debating over the subject as DG's comments confirmed that DA2's system will carry over. Right now  It's like arguing over the pc being "human only" or voiced after it's been set in stone by the devs comments. Yeah people will continue to have varying opinions on the matter but no one's opinion on ambiguousexual characters will change the devs minds or each other's. The same posters have been going at it for nearly 20 pages, making this topic reach Simple Jack levels of redundancy regardless of your position on it.

People should instead shift their focus to worrying about the companion's reactivity to the pc's actions, and dialogue choices affecting their friendship. 

And more importantly weather effects and their affect on magic.

Yeah, it's not as if the representation of sexual minorities in video games is an issue that has real-world impact or anything. Everybody should just stop caring about it.

Because the posts you've been arguing with will magically make DG change his stance and exclude your sexual preference from DA:I? 

[Plaintiff]

The Hierophant wrote...
Because the posts you've been arguing with will magically make DG change his stance and exclude your sexual preference from DA:I? 

That's not at all what I was talking about.

[Neon Rising Winter]

Rawgrim wrote...

The thing is, if all romance options is available to both gender, it kind of "invalidates" the choice of gender. And since we have allready lost the choice to pick a race and are stuck with human only.... The choice of gender was more or less simply choice of character skin in DA2 (with a few exceptions here and there). In the end it limits the players choices when creating and playing a character.

Now consider, you felt that limited your choices in this one game. That was, to my recollection, the first time I've had a choice of romance options that matched my preferences. Can you understand why I favour it?

[Rawgrim]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...



The thing is, if all romance options is available to both gender, it kind of "invalidates" the choice of gender. And since we have allready lost the choice to pick a race and are stuck with human only.... The choice of gender was more or less simply choice of character skin in DA2 (with a few exceptions here and there). In the end it limits the players choices when creating and playing a character.

You may see it that way, but for a player who wants to create a gay male or a lesbian character, it doesn't invalidate choice of gender.

You could do that in DA:O and ME as well. You just had less choices when it came to romances.

It invalidates the in-game effect of gender choice. Not the players personal experience of their playthrough.

[The Hierophant]

Plaintiff wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...
Because the posts you've been arguing with will magically make DG change his stance and exclude your sexual preference from DA:I? 

That's not at all what I was talking about.

With DA:I being confirmd by DG as following DA:2's model what's the problem now? You guys arguing over the representaion of sexual minorities in DA:I or the plausibilty of the system will not change things now. The companions will be inclusive regardless. Plus you guys will not change each other's stances on the issue.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 21 mars 2013 - 02:42 .

[Rawgrim]

Narrow Margin wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

The thing is, if all romance options is available to both gender, it kind of "invalidates" the choice of gender. And since we have allready lost the choice to pick a race and are stuck with human only.... The choice of gender was more or less simply choice of character skin in DA2 (with a few exceptions here and there). In the end it limits the players choices when creating and playing a character.

Now consider, you felt that limited your choices in this one game. That was, to my recollection, the first time I've had a choice of romance options that matched my preferences. Can you understand why I favour it?

Its abit different, because I had the race option to begin with, and it got removed. Your options got added in the second game, and will continue in the third. Mine won`t.

The first time I had a romance in a game was BG2. It was fun and all, but I didn`t complain when Neverwinter Nights didn`t have one. Or when Kotor only gave me one choice.