1981 réponses à ce sujet

[NorwegianPirate]

I'm entirely in favor of the way DA2 approached romances. It might not have been "realistic", sure, but then again, few things about the relationships - platonic or otherwise - between the protagonist and the companions strike me as completely "realistic", anyway. It's far more important to me that gay and bisexual players get as much enjoyment out of the romances as I do.

[Tarek]

frankly im just worried about the new companion looks

I want some dark chocolate man like steve tbh if they even copy paste I ain't gonna complain, Cullen is also not bad, and plz no long hair (or at least let us tell our companions to change their hair cuts, I know its a longgggggggg shot but hey)

also add a river love scene near the camp .... take a swim and oh noes im naked can I come in ok ok I will leave it to bioware im gonna go now

[Taint Master]

The Hierophant wrote...

Olwydd wrote...
Removing arbitrary restrictions appeases more people. It means more people have a higher chance of enjoying the content. I like enjoying content. You like enjoying content. I'm sure other people also like enjoying content. I think we should all be able to enjoy content together.

Excluding a character's sexual orientation i have to disagree. The li should have their own prefernces that are based on their likes, dislikes and beliefs along with the ability to shut the pc out when their actions and words flat out antagonizes the li's ideals. The autonomy of DA2's li is comparable to a KKK member romancing a CV supporter, and successfully continuing the relationship despite the latter witnessing the former lynching fellow AA on a regular basis. The companions shouldn't be treated like they're dishes from an all you can eat buffet as it only leads to their objectification (too late) where reactions to the dismissal of the pc's advances/relationship is akin to a slave master's.

Why eaxctly would you exclude sexual orientation then?

NorwegianPirate wrote...

It's far more important to me
that gay and bisexual players get as much enjoyment out of the romances as I do.

What about gay, straight and bisexual players that find less enjoyment from homogenized companions?  This was never about gay vs straight representation, it was about Bioware creating authentic and complete characters for everyone rather than taking half measures and making everyone pc-sexual.

Modifié par Taint Master, 29 juin 2013 - 08:39 .

[NorwegianPirate]

Taint Master wrote...
What about gay, straight and bisexual players that find less enjoyment from homogenized companions?  This was never about gay vs straight representation, it was about Bioware creating authentic and complete characters for everyone rather than taking half measures and making everyone pc-sexual.

Because it kind of is about straight vs. gay representation? Bioware will probably never make an equal amount of love interests, exclusively gay, straight or bisexual, for everyone. It would be nice, sure, but until they can, the way DA2 approached the subject is the best they can do. And I literally don't understand what you mean about "homogenized" characters. The fact that all of the vastly different companions can develop very deep and meaningful friendships with the PC regardless of personality is astoundisngly more far-fetched to me than the notion that four bisexuals randomly end up in the same party.

Modifié par NorwegianPirate, 29 juin 2013 - 08:52 .

[Thomas Andresen]

Taint Master wrote...

What about gay, straight and bisexual players that find less enjoyment from homogenized companions?  This was never about gay vs straight representation, it was about Bioware creating authentic and complete characters for everyone rather than taking half measures and making everyone pc-sexual.

If the choice is between a lack of fairness and equality or a lack of "authenticity" and what-have-you, I'd rather have people complain about the latter.

As for the perception that DAII's approach compromised the characters "authenticity", it's a notion I cannot accept, based on the arguments I've heard, as meta-knowledge is required for that perception, and I think meta-knowledge is something that you need to ignore when considering the quality of any piece of writing. Especially in video games. Not to mention that the perception also requires one to accept the notion that a person's sexuality is always clearly defined and always immutable.

[Rixatrix]

LarryDavid wrote...
Of course 'fair' has a dictionary-like definition, just like 'big' and 'small' have a definition. Suppose we have a quantum physicist, a cosmologist and a tennisball . The physicist says "that is a big ball" and the cosmologist says "that is a small ball". Now, who is right?

The mistake here is assuming that all of these concepts have degrees - by what logic do you group together completely different concepts?  Where is their sameness?  "Big," of course, has degrees.  "Big" is a signifier that has a lot of differance from its signified.  Does "tennisball"? Can something be "more" or "less" "tennisball"?  Or does "tennisball" better refer to its signified (even if all words are imperfect and would have to be infinite to truly signify a signified, thank you so much for the mind****, Derrida)?  Similarly, so does "fairness."

The same goes with 'equal'. Like I said before; if you have 4 breads and Bob asks for 1 bread and john asks for 3 breads. What does it mean to treat them equally? Is it about giving them exactly the same amount of bread or is it about giving them exactly the amount they asked for?

Before even getting into it, this analogy is imperfect for the following reasons:

• 4 loaves of bread is finite, unlike the 4 romances in DA2
• Bob only wants 1 loaf, but if he is representing the pro-all-available-LI side, he should want at least an equal amount
• John, if he wants strictly straight or strictly gay LIs, should want Bob not to have half of the loaves
• Bob and John, if they represent PCs, should have John returning to the bakery as a different sex if he wants to get all the LIs on the second playthrough
• Actually, let me just rewrite this.

For it to accurately reflect the situation, there would be 4 kinds of bread that are infinitely available.  Bob would have to want to be able to have each of the 4 kinds, while John only wants him to be able to have 2 kinds.  If Bob wants the other two, he would have to come back to the bakery as a person of a different sex and this bothers him (John, however, has no problem with coming back as a different sex).  Bob, however, believes that he should be able to get all 4 kinds of bread in one trip because the reason why he can't is ridiculous.  Him getting all 4 kinds of bread in one trip in no way affects whether John can get his bread or not.

I'm sorry, but this answer is crystal clear to me.  I will see if I can explain, however.  Catering to desires and catering to equality are fundamentally different.  If Jim and Sally are a couple and want to get married, while John and Andy are a couple and do not, is offering straight marriage but not gay marriage "equal," or is it just catering to the desires of a few specific people?  The "equal" solution to your question, ascribing to the only definition of "equal," would be two split the loaves equally - Bob 2 and John 2.  Catering to their desires, however, is a different story.

Now using the definition of 'fair'; is it unfair to give one more than the other or is it unfair to give one more than he asked for at the cost of giving someone less than he asked for?

Yes, it is.  In order for the distribution to be fair and equitable, ceteris paribus, both Bob and John should receive an equal amount. Now, just because it is fair for Bob to have two loaves, does he have to take them both?  Of course not; he take only 1 if that's what he wants to do.  He can let John have the other one, if he's such a glutton.  But what bearing does this have on the topic at hand?  For example, just because Tim wants to vote and I don't (for the sake of argument), wouldn't mean that it's "fair" to only give Tim the right to vote and deny me mine, besides, of course, the implications for all people sharing my sex.  

In a discussion like this the usage of the words 'fair' and 'equal' allways reflect the bias of the person using them because 'equal treatment' is open for several valid conflicting interpretations.

I disagree.

cookie analogy

I'm sorry.  Please don't take this wrong way, but I couldn't get through replying to a paragraph analogizing characters to cookies and toppings without laughing.  I already answered this two posts ago, just not about cookies and sprinkles and frosting (getting hungry now).  Can we please skip the analogies and talk about the real subject here?  I'll just leave this instead:

Xilizhra wrote...

Also, I guess some differences arise from how we look at this 'problem'. Lets say that a 'cookie' represents (a female LI) available to the opposite gender and 'topping' stands for available to the same gender. So in DAO you had a cookie (Morrigan) and a cookie with topping (Leliana), whereas in DA2 you had 2 cookies with topping (Isabela and Merrill). From your point of view DA2 is better because people who love cookies and people who love toppings have the same amount of choses. With that perspective in mind, I understand very well why one would assume that 'fair', 'inclusion', ... are words which can be used objectively. Now, I don't think this is an exclusion versus inclusion argument but an exclusion versus exclusion argument. If you argue for cookies with toppings only, you exclude all people who solely want a cookie or solely want topping.

Your analogy is, regrettably, terrible, because it's physically impossible to eat both the cookie and the topping with one person, as one person can't be both physical sexes at once (thus far, anyway). No matter what, you'll only be consuming one confection. As such, no one is harmed regardless of what confections are on which person, provided one can sample said confections from whatever tray they like. And for those people who can't stand the thought of toppings having ever touched their cookies even if they don't eat the toppings themselves... well, they can get a life, quite frankly.

LarryDavid wrote...
I think your 'definition' of fair is a very reasonable and a valid one. But you should realise that there also exists valid 'definitions' that result in different conclusions. The best thing you can achieve in a discussion like this, is to make your opponent understand your view on 'fairness' and hope that he says 'maybe some topping on my cookie isn't that bad after all'. And it seems to me that this can't be achieved by unjustified taking the moral high ground (not you), at least it has the opposite effect on me.

Thank you.  However, we must agree to disagree because we have reached an impasse.  I do not believe the definition of "fairness" in this context is at all subjective.

Modifié par BlueMoonSeraphim, 29 juin 2013 - 09:01 .

[Taint Master]

NorwegianPirate wrote...

Taint Master wrote...
What about gay, straight and bisexual players that find less enjoyment from homogenized companions?  This was never about gay vs straight representation, it was about Bioware creating authentic and complete characters for everyone rather than taking half measures and making everyone pc-sexual.

Because it kind of is about straight vs. gay representation? Bioware will probably never make an equal amount of love interests, exclusively gay, straight or bisexual, for everyone.

Well, who says they have to? It sounds kind of silly to me to demand Bioware meet some specific quota for straight/gay LIs in each game. 

That doesn't mean that all orientations can't be represented however, both in and out of party.

Bioware's claim to fame has always been creating authentic, compelling characters that weave into the overarching story.  And to me, keeping them as autonomous as possible goes a long way towards establishing said authenticity.   To that end I don't want any aspect of their character determined simply by my choices in the character creator.

I honestly don't care how many gay/straight/bi or even asexual characters we get, so long as they own it as much as any other personal preference.

And I literally don't understand what you mean about "homogenized" characters. The fact that all of the vastly different companions can develop very deep and meaningful friendships with the PC regardless of personality is astoundisngly more far-fetched to me than the notion that four bisexuals randomly end up in the same party.

Both are flawed, but that doesn't mean we should just settle either.  Bioware has a chance to be really innovative here and I'd rather not simply see more of the same.

Thomas Andresen wrote...

Taint Master wrote...

What about gay, straight and bisexual players that find less enjoyment from homogenized companions?  This was never about gay vs straight representation, it was about Bioware creating authentic and complete characters for everyone rather than taking half measures and making everyone pc-sexual.

If the choice is between a lack of fairness and equality or a lack of "authenticity" and what-have-you, I'd rather have people complain about the latter.

That's a bit of a false dilema, no?  It's certainly not as if the only two options are a fully pc-sexual cast or pandering soley to the straight audience.

Edit: these forums have weird text formatting issues...

Modifié par Taint Master, 29 juin 2013 - 09:39 .

[The Hierophant]

Taint Master wrote...

Why exactly would you exclude sexual orientation then?

It may be related to the issues i have, but a companion's SO is miniscule in comparison to my gripes about the companions lacking autonomy to my pc's beliefs/actions. (Like Anders still associating with a pro Templar Hawke despite the former being a radical, or Hawke telling Fenris that he could still use a slave with no consequences .)

So far i roughly agree with the sentiment in DG's post about the handling of DA2's companion's SO as it was the team's ideal solution due to limitations.

[Il Divo]

Taint Master wrote...

That's a bit of a false dilema, no?  It's certainly not as if the only two options are a fully pc-sexual cast or pandering soley to the straight audience.

Edit: these forums have weird text formatting issues...

Also going to agree with this. I think a quota approach to anything would be extremely unfortunate for the integrity of the setting.

For myself, I'm cool with a game having more emphasis on gay/lesbian relationships than straight relationships, if the overall product is excellent. But I don't think we should have to worry about Bioware providing equal presentation for all groups, in comparison to any other medium.

If, for example, a director makes a film where the main character is gay, is it required that all his subsequent works must have at least one gay character, for example? Or could that director get away with whatever he wanted afterwards?

[kinderschlager]

Tarek wrote...

frankly im just worried about the new companion looks

I want some dark chocolate man like steve tbh if they even copy paste I ain't gonna complain, Cullen is also not bad, and plz no long hair (or at least let us tell our companions to change their hair cuts, I know its a longgggggggg shot but hey)

also add a river love scene near the camp .... take a swim and oh noes im naked can I come in ok ok I will leave it to bioware im gonna go now

well, we DID have a foursome in DA:O it wouldn't be THHAT far fetched to imagine this.

(i want oghren there if this does happen)

[Xilizhra]

That's a bit of a false dilema, no? It's certainly not as if the only two options are a fully pc-sexual cast or pandering soley to the straight audience.

Given resource issues, it more or less is.

For myself, I'm cool with a game having more emphasis on gay/lesbian relationships than straight relationships, if the overall product is excellent. But I don't think we should have to worry about Bioware providing equal presentation for all groups, in comparison to any other medium.

Given the interactivity? I believe it's quite important for each of said groups to have the relationships they desire.

[Sylvianus]

There's at least something that I noticed with this kind of topic " they are all bi ". I feel that everyone doesn't think the same way at all about how that system worked, which is absolutely weird while it should be something we could at least agree on even if we disagree on its effects.

That's pretty much a failure from Bioware when so many folks ( from both sides ) aren't even able to describe exactly what they have experienced with that feature in the game, totally confused by this system.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 29 juin 2013 - 10:09 .

[Thomas Andresen]

Taint Master wrote...

NorwegianPirate wrote...

Because it kind of is about straight vs. gay representation? Bioware will probably never make an equal amount of love interests, exclusively gay, straight or bisexual, for everyone.

Well, who says they have to?

To start, there are people within BioWare itself who wants equality in what they deliver. Next there is the fact that EA as an organization actively supports the LGBT community -- or claim to, anyway; whether their actions reflect their claims isn't for me to judge. And finally there are people, both within and outside of(believe it or not) the LGBT community, both here and elsewhere, who actually wants this.

Taint Master wrote...

Bioware's claim to fame has always been creating authentic, compelling characters that weave into the overarching story. And to me, keeping them as autonomous as possible goes a long way towards establishing said authenticity. To that end I don't want any aspect of their character determined simply by my choices in the character creator.

I honestly don't care how many gay/straight/bi or even asexual characters we get, so long as they own it as much as any other personal preference.

And how is everyone owning to their own sexuality realistic?

Taint Master wrote...

Thomas Andresen wrote...

If the choice is between a lack of fairness and equality or a lack of "authenticity" and what-have-you, I'd rather have people complain about the latter.

That's a bit of a false dilema, no? It's certainly not as if the only two options are a fully pc-sexual cast or pandering soley to the straight audience.

Regardless of what BioWare does in this regard, people will be complaining about the one or the the other, or both.

[Il Divo]

Xilizhra wrote...

Given the interactivity? I believe it's quite important for each of said groups to have the relationships they desire.

And I personally don't see why interactivity makes a difference. Representation is representation. I could say I believe it's important for each group to be able to have equal representation in film or novels, as people might have more ease identifying with a group similar to their own. It's still a criticism that can be applied to any medium, depending on how far we want to go.

If the end result of this is that Bioware starts chopping heterosexual content, I'm down to give that a shot as long as they keep producing great npcs like Steve Cortez or Zevran, especially if I get some amusing tidbits like the Traynor scene.

Modifié par Il Divo, 29 juin 2013 - 10:06 .

[Taint Master]

Thomas Andresen wrote...

Taint Master wrote...

NorwegianPirate wrote...

Because it kind of is about straight vs. gay representation? Bioware will probably never make an equal amount of love interests, exclusively gay, straight or bisexual, for everyone.

Well, who says they have to?

To start, there are people within BioWare itself who wants equality in what they deliver. Next there is the fact that EA as an organization actively supports the LGBT community -- or claim to, anyway; whether their actions reflect their claims isn't for me to judge. And finally there are people, both within and outside of(believe it or not) the LGBT community, both here and elsewhere, who actually wants this.

I don't equate quantity to 'equality' in that regard.  Making a prerequisite number of gay/straight LIs for every game seems like very a clumsy way of handling the situation imo.

And how is everyone owning to their own sexuality realistic?

Is that not self-evident? 

You can identify your own sexual orientation, right?  And I'm assuming that orientation isn't predicated on which gender randomly decides to flirt with you day to day.

[Thomas Andresen]

Taint Master wrote...

And how is everyone owning to their own sexuality realistic?

Is that not self-evident? 

You can identify your own sexual orientation, right?  And I'm assuming that orientation isn't predicated on which gender randomly decides to flirt with you day to day.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely sure. Straight is the orientation I want to identify as, but I'm not entirely sure why that is. I don't find it inconceivable that I might change my mind, or that I might have been wrong all along. Of course, given my attraction to female beauty, me being bisexual is far more likely than me being gay.

[slimgrin]

Morocco Mole wrote...

I'd rather (since the romances aren't going away no matter how much I want them to) they focus on expanding the characterisation and depth instead of bad fanservice. And make them more difficult to activitate like in Baldur's Gate 2.

Well that's just crazy talk.

[daaaav]

Silfren wrote...

daaaav wrote...

My contention is, that it is difficult to explore a characters overall sexuality without defining their sexual orientation.

This is an illusion.  It is ENTIRELY possible to explore a person's sexuality without ever once bringing up their orientation.  The fixation on orientation labels is a recent development due to our cultural obsession with it. 

Aye. I said difficult, not impossible. And I personally do not care what orientation folk have. As I have said, orientation is only a part of a characters sexuality and a relatively uninteresting one at that. It's about as interesting as a characters love of the color red and I hate how this issue has become such an obsession for these boards and society as a whole. 

Everything Hazegurl said was true in that Merril and Fenris are as fleshed out AS A WHOLE as Anders and Isabella yet one set of characters own their sexualities and the others do not as they are barely explored. Hell, it sort of works for these characters but look at the stereotypes that it has propogated. The bisexual character (Isabella) is essentially Zevran in that she will sleep with anything that moves, whichis is fine, but the writers could not characterise Merrill in the same way without identifying her as bisexual as well. This isn't an issue in of itself as Merrill has a different personality to Isabella, BUT! she is limited by the mere fact that the writers wanted to keep her sexuality ambivalent IN ORDER TO ACCOMODATE THE PLAYER.

This shouldn't happen. The natures of characters should be entirely independant from the whims of the player. I don't believe that the player should be able to envision characters any way they see fit. For a good story, characters require the integrity of real people. 

[Ziggeh]

Sylvianus wrote...

There's at least something that I noticed with this kind of topic " they are all bi ". I feel that everyone doesn't think the same way at all about how that system worked, which is absolutely weird while it should be something we could at least agree on even if we disagree on its effects.

That's pretty much a failure from Bioware when so many folks ( from both sides ) aren't even able to describe exactly what they have experienced with that feature in the game, totally confused by this system.

Not at all.

Some people consider Bioware games to be action games, some see them as roleplaying toolsets, others as interactive novels, and everything in between. They are all entirely and equally valid. There are different ways to interpret the same information. Interpretation is practically the basis of artistic and storytelling mediums, and it's far from weird that different people will see things different ways - indeed it would be incredibly bizarre if we didn't.

So we can read them as bisexual or read them as player defined. Both are valid, and as people will tend to do this unconciously, it's not confusing to them.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 30 juin 2013 - 12:06 .

[Plaintiff]

How on Earth does arbitrarily gating content based on character gender add any depth to anything at all?

[Ziggeh]

Taint Master wrote...

Making a prerequisite number of gay/straight LIs for every game seems like very a clumsy way of handling the situation imo.

Perhaps, but if your intention is inclusivity you have to provide the same thing, and in this case it's not just "a romance subplot", but a choice of romance subplots. I don't think the number is especially important, provided the player gets to make a decision.

[slimgrin]

Plaintiff wrote...

How on Earth does arbitrarily gating content based on character gender add any depth to anything at all?

Why should a game be so exclusively focused on PC sexual orientation?

Modifié par slimgrin, 30 juin 2013 - 12:06 .

[Ziggeh]

Plaintiff wrote...

How on Earth does arbitrarily gating content based on character gender add any depth to anything at all?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the case being made is that having potentially contradictory information about a character appear within two different playthroughs creates a less clear mental image than one set in stone.

[daaaav]

slimgrin wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

How on Earth does arbitrarily gating content based on character gender add any depth to anything at all?

Why should a game be so exclusively focused on PC sexual orientation?

It's not exclusively focused. It is unfortunate that the one facet of the game that attempts to broaden the inclusivness of the gaming industry has been limited to optional side content rather than permiating through the whole experience. The romance elements of the game ARE BROKEN because they exist more to serve the players rather than the story.

Modifié par daaaav, 30 juin 2013 - 12:15 .