41 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

I notice that in the threads pertaining to whether or not LIs should be playersexual or bisexual or whatever, a fairly common complaint is that by having LI companions available to all genders, characterization and story are both somehow watered down.  Some people seem to think that having romances at all brings down the quality of the writing, but most often I've noticed that the concern is specific toward the LIs being bisexual.  Personally I don't honestly see how simply making all the LIs available to any gender will affect either the overall story or the characterization of the Companions, so I'm curious why some people seem to think it's a given.  How were the DA2 characters unbelievable, and how can this be blamed on their availability as LIs?  For that matter, what about the bi characters from Origins?  Were they better written, or were they equally watered down? 

Please note: I am creating this topic in good faith; I am not asking about whether it is realistic to have all the LIs be playersexual/bisexual.  I don't care about whether people find it annoying to be hit on by opposite-gender Companions.  I don't really want to read about how Bioware is just pandering.  None of these are relevant to what I'd like to discuss, so please refrain from the off-topic comments or the childish potshots.  Thank you.

Modifié par Silfren, 01 décembre 2013 - 03:25 .

[Allan Schumacher]

However, many of the people that tend to complain about characters hitting on them don't seem to mind so long as said characters are female.

There are some that feel the romances themselves are a bit too overt, in general, too though. Make sure to not draw too many assumptions as well, as I find its the assumptions that start to derail stuff like this.

[Allan Schumacher]

Dobbysaurus wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Dobbysaurus wrote...

Just remove romances all together. There, problem solved. Equality for everyone.

This adds nothing to the discussion. 

It seems like nothing adds to the discussion according to you. So maybe, just go talk to yourself? 

It is somewhat like solving the problem by nuking the site from orbit.  I suppose it's the only way to be sure, but (by your own admission) it's a solution that isn't what many people would like.

Your hostility to end your sentence, however, is unwarranted.  Please do not do that again.

[Allan Schumacher]

Plaintiff wrote...

Dobbysaurus wrote...
It doesn't have to strip away the LGBT presence altogether.

But it would. That is exactly what would happen. To pretend otherwise is foolish.

The difference being that romance content is the only place where LGBT characters and themes are present, whereas removing straight romance options still leaves a plethora of straight characters whose sexuality is clearly demonstrated. Like Aveline, who is first seen fighting alongside her lover, who is a man.

As much as I stinkeye the nuking of the site from orbit solution, I do have to come to his defense here.

It's perfectly valid to still have LGBT characters and themes without romances.  It just means that we'd have to do it differently.  Steve Cortez would be a great example, if his content remained the same but he was simply not a romanceable character.  He'd be a person that had a husband, and would occasionally talk up all the cute guys in the pub with Shepard (a depiction I would say would actually be quite natural, in my own personal experiences).


I think to require that LGBT can only be done via romance is a rather rigid way of thinking.  Ideally, we're at a point where LGBT content can exist everywhere and everyone just doesn't even bat an eye at it, because it's considered normal and inoffensive to everyone.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 28 juin 2013 - 06:23 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I can't speak to anything outside of DA, but I do think that Plaintiff has a point. Outside of the romances, there has not actually been a lot of LGBT content.

Part of that reason, I would assume, is because we do have romances. I mean, imagine if LGBT content existed, as did romances, but an LGBT romance did not exist. I think some people would be disappointed.

Although it's not completely devoid. Branka/Hespith and Leliana/Marjolaine for example. A thread was started that detailed some of them (focused on lesbians), although the tone was more disappointment because the author felt that our depiction always had the relationships filled with drama and ultimately tragic.

Can your statement be taken to mean that Bioware is at least trying to expand LGBT content beyond the romances for DA:I? Or is it way too early to say anything yet?

I wouldn't say that. I don't know all the stuff that is planned (or even all the stuff that currently exists). Unfortunately I spend little time in the game directly.

My point was more that the use of LGBT need not be confined to romances, and that they have only really existed as romances isn't really proof of that. It just means that that's the principal place we've put them, at this time.

[Allan Schumacher]

I wouldn't say it was implemented "pretty well", but something is better than nothing.

I don't know, maybe as a heterosexual male (and Obsidian fanboy) my perspective is somewhat skewed, but I *loved* the depiction of both Arcade Gannon as well as Veronica in terms of their sexuality. It was played *so* low key and was not their defining trait by any means.

Whilst I agree with your sentiment, I feel DA2's playersexual NPCs undermine that very notion in that it feels cheap and forced. Like something you put in because you had to as opposed to because that's just how things are. Ideally I'd like each NPC to be who they are independantly of who the PC is. I would have rather had 2 Straight and 2 Gay NPCs than 4 Bis.

See, this is unfortunate. My perspective is more "We're trying to not overlook LGBT anymore people." Are LGBT people offended by what we did in Dragon Age 2?

[Allan Schumacher]

And there's nothing really wrong with that, but the more "low key" it gets, the closer you are to non-visibility. I never finished New Vegas, so I have no idea if Arcade or Veronica ever explicitly state their sexuality, but if they do, that would raise my esteem for the game significantly.

Both do, and both as casually as though it was not even really a surprising aspect of their character. The game also includes situations where you benefit specifically only if your character is homosexual.

I wouldn't presume speak for the LGBT community or any community for that matter, but I would say that tokenism (which is what DA2's PC-sexuals felt like) is just as bad as 'overlooking'.

I think it's *very* important to not speak on behalf of the LGBT community, if you aren't sure. If tokenism is as bad as overlooking, then what you're suggesting would be that providing nothing would have been equivalent (at worst) to what we provided." My own anecdotes would indicate otherwise, but I have no real pulse on the circumstances around that are in general.

I would say DA2's model on the face of it is just as condescending if only because it is so implausible at first glance.

Again, be very careful. You're speaking on behalf of a group that you don't actually belong to. I can't presume to know if the LGBT community found DA2 condescending or not.

I'm a white, heterosexual male. Which means I'm intrinsically incapable of fully understanding any stereotypes and prejudices that may come with any combination of being non-white, non-heterosexual, non-male. I'm not able to assess whether or not, if I were to be any or all of those traits, if my experiences in life would be as I expect they would be, because my assumptions and perceptions will always be tempered by reality that I actually experience.

I may have a pretty good idea, but I also run the risk of being very, very wrong, because of factors I just don't know of.

Each character just seemed different and reacted differently to the PC.

Is this really a reflection of their sexuality? Or is it something that can be improved upon in other ways?

Imagine if you knew (after my previous paragraph, I concede that you'll never truly be sure) their sexualities, but the players didn't react differently to the PC in any way. Would it be better than if you later learned that their sexual orientation was PC centric, though their actions do not change?

[Allan Schumacher]

Cleaned up some posts.

Please do not attempt to derail this thread.

[Allan Schumacher]

My point is that these types of story lines are IMPOSSIBLE to include unless all characters are bisexual.

Or just not romanceable, as is the case with Oghren.

[Allan Schumacher]

it just doesn't make sense.

Why not? (genuine question, I don't know the answer to it)

[Allan Schumacher]

So on the one hand even though it seems odd that the interactions would be identical (mostly) regardless of your PC's gender and chosen LI dynamic, it would be kind of difficult to write them any other way that didn't create more unfortunate implications than it fixed.

This is where I trip up the most.

I'm generally of the opinion that homosexuals don't want to be seen as different. Since I'm not gay (there are people at BioWare that are, however. IIRC Patrick Weekes specifically mentioned consulting someone on staff about Samantha Traynor to make sure that she came across as authentic and respectful as possible), I can only guess (educated or otherwise) how the situation plays out.

This does remind me, however, that I think it's important to note that it's futile to try to please everyone. And just like there are people that feel insulted with other content while others think it's great, there's going to be LGBT people not happy with our implementation of a particular sort of LGBT relationship, and there's going to be people that are. And typically, the people that are not happy are going to be the ones dragging me over the coals for being disrespectful/insulting/anything else.

[Allan Schumacher]

If you keep reading, I said that men and women have certain distinctions. It doesn't have to all be the same.

What distinctions are you talking about?

As I said, as part of the LGBT community (and you were looking for perspective), there are overt distinctions between romances. A bisexual man wouldn't talk the same to a gay man, or a straight women.

The word distinctions is vague. You haven't given me any perspective aside from "it's different." How?

I would say your casual dismissal of my arguments for not percieving me to be a part of the community, because I failed to claim the mantle of LGBT Champion, is in itself quite dismissive and condesending.

You're right, that was a poor interpretation on my part. And it draws an excellent point. At our VERY core, no one can ever speak on behalf of anyone but themselves.

But if you feel I'm dismissive and condescending, that's your prerogative. I'll not make the situation worse.

[Allan Schumacher]

In any case I am off to bed.

[Allan Schumacher]

In DAO there's a quest at Ostogar where a prisoner begs you for some food. If you take certain dialogue options he'll tell you that he has a key that can open one of the chests in camp, and will give it to you if you feed him. However, it is posible to go through the entire quest without ever learning that he has that key.

If he doesn't mention it, did that key ever exist?

The prisoner may or may not be alive in one person's game compared to another, so we're already seeing some divergence. Although we're talking about personalities here.

It the personality of Viconia immutable and identical depending on how you play through Baldur's Gate and Throne of Bhaal? The personality of Bastila or Carth Onasi depending on your light side/dark side changes?

How about people like Handmaiden, Visas, Atton, Bao-Dur (i.e. the entire cast of KOTOR 2 barring perhaps Kreia - there's a heck of a difference between Atton the spiteful Dark Jedi and Atton the man who wishes to atone for his previous crimes)?

How about Alistair the drunk vagrant versus Alistair the hardened King versus Alistair the puppet King that wants nothing to do with being King? Can one unilaterally say that Alistair has the personality of a great leader, when 2 out of those 3 are decidedly not so awesome (assuming he's not dead, of course).


With your example, however, it's most definitely certain that you don't know if he has a key. And depending on what influence you exert on the game world, he may or may not still have the key (i.e. things can change in different ways depending on the player's choices).

[Allan Schumacher]

Viconia's personlity doesn't change unless you treat her a certain way

Alistair's changes come as a result of meeting Goldanna, your advice afterwards, and events in the Landsmeet.

We certainly do pander, don't we?

What is being talked with about playersexual characters or subjective sexuality, or whatever the official term is, they're saying that these characters do or do not hold these traits based entirely on who the player is. Not on what the NPC is. The player is not shaping the NPC, the player is defining the NPC

Six of one, half a dozen of the other as far as I'm concerned. My difference is that I don't see whom the NPC is attracted to as a defining aspect of their personality. In my opinion, the NPCs are all still the same character with the same motivations and the same goals and aspirations in life. On the other hand, I also consider the entire metaknowledge application to be a mostly invalid criticism, so at this point I suspect it's irreconcilable differences. I'm not interested in discussing the point further, since I fundamentally disagree with your perspective.

If this is the line in the sand that you wish to draw, then that's your prerogative, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. It's not one I, personally, agree with, and I also am not interested in chasing down the metagame rabbit hole when considering development because it's ultimately something that can go on forever.

This thread, however, has actually made me reevaluate my perspectives on how I feel about romance as well as other, related topics, as well as a boatload of cognitive dissonance. People can take that how they will.

I'll conclude by stating that I am, in fact, open to the idea that my interpretations and assumptions of reality may in fact be inaccurate (as uncomfortable and unpleasant as cognitive dissonance is, I try to reflect on it instead of avoiding it).

[Allan Schumacher]

David7204 wrote...

I would much rather live in a world where sexuality does matter than in a world where it doesn't.

Please clarify precisely what you mean here by "sexuality."

[Allan Schumacher]

Cleaned up some of the posts as they started to shift things to a bit too hostile of a territory.

[Allan Schumacher]

People arguing for playersexual LIs are effectively arguing for making the player's gender a non-factor when it comes to romances. In other words, they're arguing for less RPG elements, not more, and this on a forum where a frequent complaint is that Bioware is abandoning their RPG roots in order to make their games more "accessible" to non-RPG fans.

I think it's a bit presumptuous to label those that want this as a "non-RPG fan."

Further, I don't think the example you made is equivalent in terms of how it resonates with a person.

Clearly there are people on both sides that feel pretty strongly. Some that feel that the sexual orientation of the character is not an insignificant part of the character. Others feel that there are other aspects of sexuality that are more critical.

Finally, I don't think the situation you described is as simple. If we made more homosexual relationships than heterosexual relationships (or more extreme, simply had no heterosexual relationships), we'd satisfy your criteria but I don't think the decision would be very well received.

It also doesn't preclude us from enabling "RPG elements" along other lines.

[Allan Schumacher]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Sorry.  Not to be rude but I've generally given up trying to have a conversation wtith you tonight.  Nitpick responses are all you're gonna get for now.

I am sorry that you are unable to reconcile your position with that of an RPG.

Lets absolutely not turn this into a thread where one attempts to define what an RPG is.



Unrelated: I am starting to get pretty indiscriminate towards deleting posts now.  Please be respectful to your other posters.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 30 juin 2013 - 06:23 .

[Allan Schumacher]

David7204 wrote...

I would say the qualities that affect sexual attraction, and the attitudes that are a consequence of it. 

This is vague.  I am still not sure what you're discussing.  I'm not sure how this applies to whether or not someone finds a male, a female, or even both, attractive.

I have my thoughts, but I don't want to put words in your mouth or read too much into what you're saying.

[Allan Schumacher]

Blocking players from certain sidequests doesn't provide "more roleplay options", it just takes them away. There is a major difference between changing how a sidequest (or romance) proceeds, and preventing a sidequest (or romance) from initiating at all.

I can understand his perspective, in that there can be an analogue drawn towards player class.

A mage can (and maybe even should?) find himself with content that would not make sense for a non-mage to see.

Though as Thomas Andresen brings up, people will still have perceptions of fairness. If Mages get mountains of unique content, while rogues and warriors do not, there will be some level of outrage by some of the fanbase.

[Allan Schumacher]

You've just shifted the goal posts... He was talking about a specific action, not the whole DLC. He was implying that if the game recognises that the player has a class, then it should recognise that the player has a gender.

Fair enough. I could see some level of gender difference applying say, an attempt to subvert the chantry from within.

There are ways to apply your condition without having to apply it to romances too. It doesn't have to be done with romances.

I think that there's a degree of difference, when someone feels that a choice is more consistent with the setting in general.

I do agree with the wide scale notion that "all things must be all available to everyone at all times" need not be true.

[Allan Schumacher]

He doesn't push the male PC out of the way as he does with a romanced female PC.

Well, I think you're conflating "romanced PC" with "female PC." Had Alistair been open to romancing a male PC, I'd not be surprised if he did the same thing. I don't think the scene you describe must be a reflection of choice of sex, simply because it happened to be one. Sort of an idea of a correlated variable, but ultimately a different cause.

This may not be the place for it, but while I'm here, I may as well ask how you feel about the idea of a non-PC's personality. I am sorry for being a broken record, but back in BG 2 there were a number of criteria that would stop a PC from initiating a certain romance - typically this was related to race (and, I suppose, sexual orientation).

When I first experienced the romances during testing, I actually met with some resistance. I also felt that, on some level, that the character was less consistent took "something" away from the character, though I couldn't quite put my finger on what it was.

It wasn't really a deal breaker, and upon coming to the conclusion I realized it was only inconsistent outside of the game world, and hence meta, ultimately it stopped bothering me.

While the ability to change races has been removed from Dragon Age for now (to my knowledge), would it be problematic for a character like Fenris to have been unable to romance a Mage Hawke? Fenris clearly has hangups over mages, somewhat akin to the tensions between drow and elves. Or, back in Dragon Age Origins, for Alistar to not really be attracted to dwarves (I was going with Elves, but considering Maric's habits...)?

The thing about Fenris, is that his character has some sort of motivation for not liking mages. I can agree with the notion that it's perhaps a bit silly for Fenris to hook up with a mage (I don't know how the story goes, because at the same time I think people like challenging a character's prejudices and stereotypes).

I'm not against the idea of having Fenris cut off from mages. The thing is, as I've learned on these boards, is that for some the romances are very very very very very important to them. Going as far back as Baldur's Gate 2, there was disappointment regarding the balance of romances (not even considering a gay romance) between men and women. I know people modded the game to allow for these romances to be more available. So, on some level, there's the idea of having some sort of balance.

Coming back from that tangent, however, I think people might be more willing to accept if Fenris' depiction had been much more anti-mage, given what they learn about Fenris in the game. My question for you, however, is: is there anything in the game that actually makes it logically inconsistent with the game world as you know it, for Fenris to be in a relationship with a man? How about a woman?

I can fully understand and agree that it's reasonable for Fenris to reject a mage. Of what importance is it, that Fenris reject a man or a woman? To me, it seems like the principal reason is external of the game. Am I wrong?

[Allan Schumacher]

Firky wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Fair enough. I could see some level of gender difference applying say, an attempt to subvert the chantry from within.

My mind immediately went to, male Inquisitor bashes skulls, female Inquisitor seduces someone.

But, actually, female Inquisitor could probably disguise her way into positions of power more easily that male ...

(I think that kind of delineation would be cool. )

The latter is what I was thinking, given the matriarchal nature of the chantry.  I actually didn't even think of the first one (a good thing maybe?  Haha).

I think that making a distinction of "male bashes, female seduces" is certainly placing a non-trivial amount of our expecations from reality into the game.  I don't know if that is necessarily a good idea, however.  It places assumptions and undoubtedly you'd get some people going "Shouldn't I be able to seduce as a man?  I mean, the power brokers in the chantry are women!?"  and "Why can't I bash as a woman?" and so forth.  Though this is more just a concession that not everyone is going to be satisfied.

[Allan Schumacher]

I wasn't labeling them as such. I was merely pointing out their demands to make gender a non-issue in romance decreases from role-play, hence the irony considering that a big complaint lately is that Bioware's games have less and less roleplaying.

At this point, I think our definitions of roleplaying differ, since while I enjoy mutually exclusive choice, I do not feel that mutually exclusive choices are the only types of roleplaying options available.

In summary, the definition of an RPG is rather fluid, and at times it seems maybe even personal to people.