596 réponses à ce sujet

[Renmiri1]

you just had less choices...

Aye, "just" that forever and ever everywhere.

Fairness is something even monkeys understand. Heck if I give my dogs different treats and one gets Bacon and the other gets Lettuce, the dog wit the lettuce will look at me with sad puppy dog face...

Modifié par Renmiri1, 21 mars 2013 - 02:41 .

[sandalisthemaker]

Rawgrim wrote...

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.

But I never got the sense that there ever was an in-game effect based on the gender of your protag in DA games. (And really that's the point. Men and women are equal in DA games.)  Personal experience is the *only* real difference to playing male or female.  Having LIs available to both genders simply emphasizes that fact.

[Fiacre]

For reasons I've already outlines, it doesn't invalidate the choice to me one bit. But if we limit ourselves to in game effects... I honestly don't see the problem. Why should, of all things, the PC's sex matter so much? It can very well affect the way we play the PC, why does the game need to make up arbitrary limits that may make it vastly less enjoyable for some people? Why can't it have other effects, if one wanted to argue for the PC's sex to affect things at all?

[The Hierophant]

Renmiri1 wrote...

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

That's not what i meant. It's shameless promotion for this.

[Rawgrim]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

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.

But I never got the sense that there ever was an in-game effect based on the gender of your protag in DA games. (And really that's the point. Men and women are equal in DA games.)  Personal experience is the *only* real difference to playing male or female.  Having LIs available to both genders simply emphasizes that fact.

I am not arguing the fact that there are love interests available to both genders. Just the fact that all of them are available to both genders.

There was several in game effects of it in DA:O. Creating the old god baby was one. I can list several others too.

Personal experience is not the only real difference to playing a male of female. Thats just your opinion. Several rpgs have lots off differences based on gender choice. including DA:O.

[Neon Rising Winter]

Rawgrim wrote...

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.

But think about this. You had that romance in BG2, I got to apply a female voice to a male character and ignore the more jarring dialogue if I wanted something that fitted me. You got the full romance in KOTOR, I got the crippled remains of the Juhani one. Jade Empire made me grin like a loon, because I finally got something that was more or less equal. Dragon Age and Mass Effect even more so. I hope you can see, that when I finally see a game offering me equal choices and options, and ones that have been a long time coming, I'm a bit protective of them.

[Rawgrim]

Fiacre wrote...

For reasons I've already outlines, it doesn't invalidate the choice to me one bit. But if we limit ourselves to in game effects... I honestly don't see the problem. Why should, of all things, the PC's sex matter so much? It can very well affect the way we play the PC, why does the game need to make up arbitrary limits that may make it vastly less enjoyable for some people? Why can't it have other effects, if one wanted to argue for the PC's sex to affect things at all?

Well in DA2 we are left with 2 choices when it comes to character creation. Gender and class. Thats it. With only two choices, its a good thing if those choices actually matter when the game starts. Otherwise the character creation itself is pointless.

[Plaintiff]

The Hierophant wrote...

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.

My concerns about LGBT representation do not begin and end with Dragon Age, or with Bioware's games, or with games generally.

It was never just about the games. The Dragon Age games simply provide the framework for discussing an issue that affects media and society at large.

[Rawgrim]

Narrow Margin wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

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.

But think about this. You had that romance in BG2, I got to apply a female voice to a male character and ignore the more jarring dialogue if I wanted something that fitted me. You got the full romance in KOTOR, I got the crippled remains of the Juhani one. Jade Empire made me grin like a loon, because I finally got something that was more or less equal. Dragon Age and Mass Effect even more so. I hope you can see, that when I finally see a game offering me equal choices and options, and ones that have been a long time coming, I'm a bit protective of them.

Ohh I am all for you getting the best possible experiences in all your games. I am merely saying the way its done in DA2 is too simplified. And no matter what I think or don`t think about it, I won`t be able to change what the devs are planning for the next game. Not that I would try either. Just arguing that it can be done differently, and still have an equal amount of options for everyone.

[Plaintiff]

Rawgrim wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

For reasons I've already outlines, it doesn't invalidate the choice to me one bit. But if we limit ourselves to in game effects... I honestly don't see the problem. Why should, of all things, the PC's sex matter so much? It can very well affect the way we play the PC, why does the game need to make up arbitrary limits that may make it vastly less enjoyable for some people? Why can't it have other effects, if one wanted to argue for the PC's sex to affect things at all?

Well in DA2 we are left with 2 choices when it comes to character creation. Gender and class. Thats it. With only two choices, its a good thing if those choices actually matter when the game starts. Otherwise the character creation itself is pointless.

Maybe to you.

In a world where female, non-white and non-straight videogame protagonists are few and far between, many gamers might consider the ability to create their own character to be valuable for its own sake.

[Renmiri1]

And tone: Sarcastic, Good, Rude

And who do you romance. And if you kill or let the magistrate son's live. And if you deliver the blood mages to Alrik. If you side with Meredith or Orsino. If you help Merril or not...

DA2 does not lack choices

[Fiacre]

Rawgrim wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

For reasons I've already outlines, it doesn't invalidate the choice to me one bit. But if we limit ourselves to in game effects... I honestly don't see the problem. Why should, of all things, the PC's sex matter so much? It can very well affect the way we play the PC, why does the game need to make up arbitrary limits that may make it vastly less enjoyable for some people? Why can't it have other effects, if one wanted to argue for the PC's sex to affect things at all?

Well in DA2 we are left with 2 choices when it comes to character creation. Gender and class. Thats it. With only two choices, its a good thing if those choices actually matter when the game starts. Otherwise the character creation itself is pointless.

How so? You get to create the character you want. Again, as I already explained, being able to choose my PC's sex is far from pointless for me. And I'm lucky. I prefer male PCs. And male PCs are the default in most games that don't offer a choice. Female ones aren't, making that one choice, even if it has no effect in game (and I have seen lots of women argue against it having any) very, very important to a great many people, no matter the in game effects.

[Rawgrim]

Renmiri1 wrote...

And tone: Sarcastic, Good, Rude

And who do you romance. And if you kill or let the magistrate son's live. And if you deliver the blood mages to Alrik. If you side with Meredith or Orsino. If you help Merril or not...

DA2 does not lack choices

Actually, I sided with the mages 100 percent in my first playthrough. It never got recognized by either side. The only thing that got affected was who I killed first. Meredith or Orsino. Thats not a choice, thats just picking what end scene to watch first.

If I helped Anders gather the ingredients or not, it didn`t matter either. He still blew up the chantry.

[Rawgrim]

Fiacre wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

For reasons I've already outlines, it doesn't invalidate the choice to me one bit. But if we limit ourselves to in game effects... I honestly don't see the problem. Why should, of all things, the PC's sex matter so much? It can very well affect the way we play the PC, why does the game need to make up arbitrary limits that may make it vastly less enjoyable for some people? Why can't it have other effects, if one wanted to argue for the PC's sex to affect things at all?

Well in DA2 we are left with 2 choices when it comes to character creation. Gender and class. Thats it. With only two choices, its a good thing if those choices actually matter when the game starts. Otherwise the character creation itself is pointless.

How so? You get to create the character you want. Again, as I already explained, being able to choose my PC's sex is far from pointless for me. And I'm lucky. I prefer male PCs. And male PCs are the default in most games that don't offer a choice. Female ones aren't, making that one choice, even if it has no effect in game (and I have seen lots of women argue against it having any) very, very important to a great many people, no matter the in game effects.

No i didn`t get to create the character i wanted. I got to play a human named Hawke. If you liked picking the gender, good for you. But in.game that choice had zero bearing on anything. a choice with no consequence is the same as a blank statement. Its nothing real to begin with.

[Fiacre]

Rawgrim wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

For reasons I've already outlines, it doesn't invalidate the choice to me one bit. But if we limit ourselves to in game effects... I honestly don't see the problem. Why should, of all things, the PC's sex matter so much? It can very well affect the way we play the PC, why does the game need to make up arbitrary limits that may make it vastly less enjoyable for some people? Why can't it have other effects, if one wanted to argue for the PC's sex to affect things at all?

Well in DA2 we are left with 2 choices when it comes to character creation. Gender and class. Thats it. With only two choices, its a good thing if those choices actually matter when the game starts. Otherwise the character creation itself is pointless.

How so? You get to create the character you want. Again, as I already explained, being able to choose my PC's sex is far from pointless for me. And I'm lucky. I prefer male PCs. And male PCs are the default in most games that don't offer a choice. Female ones aren't, making that one choice, even if it has no effect in game (and I have seen lots of women argue against it having any) very, very important to a great many people, no matter the in game effects.

No i didn`t get to create the character i wanted. I got to play a human named Hawke. If you liked picking the gender, good for you. But in.game that choice had zero bearing on anything. a choice with no consequence is the same as a blank statement. Its nothing real to begin with.

Says you. It means a lot to a lot of people. To say it matters not like that is a rather dismissive of them and what they find important, don't you think?

[Rawgrim]

Fiacre wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

For reasons I've already outlines, it doesn't invalidate the choice to me one bit. But if we limit ourselves to in game effects... I honestly don't see the problem. Why should, of all things, the PC's sex matter so much? It can very well affect the way we play the PC, why does the game need to make up arbitrary limits that may make it vastly less enjoyable for some people? Why can't it have other effects, if one wanted to argue for the PC's sex to affect things at all?

Well in DA2 we are left with 2 choices when it comes to character creation. Gender and class. Thats it. With only two choices, its a good thing if those choices actually matter when the game starts. Otherwise the character creation itself is pointless.

How so? You get to create the character you want. Again, as I already explained, being able to choose my PC's sex is far from pointless for me. And I'm lucky. I prefer male PCs. And male PCs are the default in most games that don't offer a choice. Female ones aren't, making that one choice, even if it has no effect in game (and I have seen lots of women argue against it having any) very, very important to a great many people, no matter the in game effects.

No i didn`t get to create the character i wanted. I got to play a human named Hawke. If you liked picking the gender, good for you. But in.game that choice had zero bearing on anything. a choice with no consequence is the same as a blank statement. Its nothing real to begin with.

Says you. It means a lot to a lot of people. To say it matters not like that is a rather dismissive of them and what they find important, don't you think?

I said "in-game".  List up 10 examples of how your choice of gender affects anything in-game, and I will give you a cookie.

[jillabender]

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.

Haha, thanks for that - I needed a bit of levity in my BSN!

Modifié par jillabender, 21 mars 2013 - 03:07 .

[Renmiri1]

[Silfren]

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

Just straight up sexual creatures.  

Labeling people as this, that, or both, this binary means of classification wherein a person's orientation is either one or the other OR both, it's an artificial construct borne of a society that insists on thinking of sexuality as expressing in exactly one of three ways. 

There are people who would gladly call themselves bisexual.  There are others who find the term problematic because it assumes that biological sex* itself expresses in exactly one of two forms, and this is also proven to not be true, and these people dislike the term because it implies that they cannot be attracted to people whose gender does not neatly fall under "male," or "female." 

The people who are struggling to understand this...you have noticed that several posters, including myself, tend to refer to "all" genders rather than "both"?  There's a reason for that.

There are still others who dislike the term because they literally do not give a damn about a person's gender, because it has absolutely no bearing on their attraction to a person.  Personally I've seen enough people whose actual experience in attraction and love is so impossible to pigeonhole according to a neat label, that I concur wholeheartedly with this view.  People are not hetero-, bi-, or homosexual, they are sexual, period (except of course those people who are asexual), and how their sexuality expresses itself depends on the individual, affected by a number of different factors, biological and cultural, and experiential. 



*Sex as the male or female, both, or neither, etc. bit.  I originally wrote gender, but gender is a social construct, whereas sex is purely biological.  It's inaccurate to use the terms interchangeably, but sometimes its easier to default to gender because "sex" can confuse the matter by referring to the act of sex as much as the biological expression of a person.

Modifié par Silfren, 21 mars 2013 - 03:23 .

[The Hierophant]

Plaintiff wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

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.

My concerns about LGBT representation do not begin and end with Dragon Age, or with Bioware's games, or with games generally.

It was never just about the games. The Dragon Age games simply provide the framework for discussing an issue that affects media and society at large.

As an African American /Taino Indian (minority among minorities) equal rights, and representation is what i'd like to see across all media, and facets of life. No amount of debating over this topic will change DG's stance on the subject, and that's what should count in the end. What i'd like to see now is how varied in appearance the Rivaini in DA:I are as the series inclusivity only applies to a few groups.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 21 mars 2013 - 03:15 .

[Fiacre]

Rawgrim wrote...

I said "in-game".  List up 10 examples of how your choice of gender affects anything in-game, and I will give you a cookie.

But why is that the one thing that matters? Why is the choice empty unless it fulfills you criteria for being meaningful? It is very important to people, to the point where it has far more impact on their enjoyment than many other things. And as I said, I've seen women (and men) actively argue against having in game effects. For them, it would make the game actually less enjoyable.

I repeat -- I think saying that only the in game effects matter is dismissive. I don't get to be represented in the game, but I wouldn't begrudge the people that finally do, and I think that that is a lot, lot more important than wether or not companion a, b, c and d all like my PC regardless of their sex, or wether people treat me differently or I'm able to do different things based on it.

And lets be honest, how many differences did DA:O have? There was some different dialogue occasionally -- DA2 has that as well. You had two hetero exclusive romances (and the ones that tied the most into the main plot, too). THe Dark Ritual went slightly different because well, a female PC will have some difficulty impreganting someone -- but even then, all that chabges is that you have Loghain/Alistair father the kid if you choose to do it. Which I think you can do as a male, as well...

[Saibh]

Silfren wrote...


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.

They probably bring it up because it's the obvious counterpoint. Someone bringing it up a lot doesn't weaken the argument, it just means it's really obvious.

And, sorry, so long as you can argue that a character should have enough personality to reject you on the base of your race, they can you object to you on the basis of your sex. They are related, and stomping up and down because people keep bringing up that fact doesn't change it. 

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 I said, in a perfect world with unlimited resources. Clearly you didn't bother to even read the first sentence I wrote. I'm saying that claiming marginalization because some dude isn't interested in women is bologna in this perfect world. I agreed that so long as BioWare doesn't possess the resources, inclusiveness outweighs everything else. I disagree that in a perfect world, you still retain the argument you deserve to romance whomever because it would make you upset that Morrigan isn't interested in you. 

Your concept that exclusive sexuality isn't real is wrong and frankly offensive. Oh, it might seem more forward because it's not straight up saying homophobia is wrong...just that all sexualities are wrong! Except yours. 

Modifié par Saibh, 21 mars 2013 - 03:19 .

[DarkSpiral]

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.

Well, at least this explanation is a tad bit less condescending than your previous response.

Very well, I'll try to put this in terms that makes sense.  I may fail, because I'm trying to explain in words a reaction, which occured more or less instantaeously, and isn't necessarily logical.  Most reactions aren't.

First of all: Of course I insist on imposing my perception of reality on a fantasy game.  So does everyone else, every time they play it.  I do not underestand why you brough that up, unless you were attempting to belittle my post, which is what you sounded like you were trying to do.

Second: My reaction to non-defined sexualities is moot because there is no such thing as a non-defined sexuality.  The very fact that so MANY terms for sexulaity exist is because nearly everyone attempt to define themselves in a way that can be communicated to other people.  Thus do we have labels, which are both good and bad.  It is alos moot because the fact that their sexuality was undefined wasn't my problem.  It was the complete and utter lack of reaction to this.  We never get to discuss it, damn them for it, champion their cause (yes, I'm being deliveratly dramatic, and they may not want to be championed), or ask them to not to come over for dinner anymore.  Even if the character's reaction to us asking questions about the topic is tell us to mind our own business, politely or otherwise.  Its never mentioned at all.  And that bugged me, because it isn't how anyone I know operates.  Or rather anyone I know well enough to feel discussing the topic is "within boundaries" in the first place.  I don't bring the topic up with people I only know casually.

Frankly, I've realized I'm leaning more and more in the direction that romances are becoming a bigger headache than they're worth.  Perhaps less could be more, in this case.

[Rawgrim]

Fiacre wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

I said "in-game".  List up 10 examples of how your choice of gender affects anything in-game, and I will give you a cookie.

But why is that the one thing that matters? Why is the choice empty unless it fulfills you criteria for being meaningful? It is very important to people, to the point where it has far more impact on their enjoyment than many other things. And as I said, I've seen women (and men) actively argue against having in game effects. For them, it would make the game actually less enjoyable.

I repeat -- I think saying that only the in game effects matter is dismissive. I don't get to be represented in the game, but I wouldn't begrudge the people that finally do, and I think that that is a lot, lot more important than wether or not companion a, b, c and d all like my PC regardless of their sex, or wether people treat me differently or I'm able to do different things based on it.

And lets be honest, how many differences did DA:O have? There was some different dialogue occasionally -- DA2 has that as well. You had two hetero exclusive romances (and the ones that tied the most into the main plot, too). THe Dark Ritual went slightly different because well, a female PC will have some difficulty impreganting someone -- but even then, all that chabges is that you have Loghain/Alistair father the kid if you choose to do it. Which I think you can do as a male, as well...

Well I was arguing in-game effects all evening. So I stuck to the topic in order to keep it from getting derailed. I never dismissed anyone for liking this and that in the game. I never said the choice was meaningless to individual players. I said that in the game itself, it has no meaning, and its pretty much never recognized.