1981 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

Random Jerkface wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The alternative is that not every perception about certain groups is people is based in bigotry. In fact, many are based on perfectly solid reasoning.

My G, I think you should stop right there.

Yes, let's.  While having gone considerably off-topic, it's been mostly civil, but OMG this will take it clear off the rails. 

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Silfren wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Where's that quote of Gaider saying that if the resources were there and they could do it, he'd prefer to have equal measures of straight, same and bisexual romance options, rather than all available to everyone? But that if the resources for that aren't there, they'll go with all romances available to everyone?

I wouldn't know where to look but its out there somewhere, probably in this thread already.

I remember that quote, yes. And in a way, I think it's disappointing that Bioware feels romances, an arguably small facet of their games, must cater equally to all sexual orientations. Even if they do manage this one day it won't make everyone happy because you'll inevitably have people claim they don't like the LIs open to them and would prefer to romance that LI over there who's just not into them because the PC's gender isn't what gets them interested.

In short, they can't win.

This...doesn't really make any sense, given the way Bioware makes its LIs all-inclusive right now means that they ARE managing to do it, right now, and all the LIs already ARE available to the PC regardless of gender.

I was speaking in the context of LPPrince's paraphrase of what Gaider said, that ideally he'd want LIs to be of their own individual sexual orientation rather than available to everyone. And in that context, which I'm all for, Bioware still won't please the people who want their PC to be able to successfully romance whoever they want to romance (which, IMO, doesn't really come down to equality at all).

Bioware is not attempting to make everyone happy. That never has been their goal, probably because I'm sure they all already know that it isn't humanly possible.  But they do strive to make as many people as possible happy, and the all-inclusive approach they take to the LIs is the best option.

So you think that the option of having individual LIs be either homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual (ideally an equal number of characters and genders representing each) would not be as good as having all the LIs romancable no matter what?

Is this because some people will be unhappy that an LI would not be available to their PC?

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

Silfren wrote...

Shinian2 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Thomas Andresen wrote...

Being gay doesn't automatically clear your mind of the bigoted notions society have forced upon you.

Only self-awareness can do anything about that, and even then, that's only the first step.

Suggesting that the only way someone could have notions about such things is if society 'forced them' upon them is a bit irritating.

Yup, its far more likely that people simply have differing opinions.

Uh.  Did you miss the context of that statement? They were referring to gay persons having internalized anti-gay bigotry. 

No, it was in reference to a post made by another person up thread. I doubt there was any bigotry in the post I was referring to, simply a difference of opinion on a game mechanic.

[Hazegurl]

daaaav wrote...
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.

I disagree, you take one story from Anders about Karl as sexual exploration of the character? Okay. But I don't see how that means Anders own his sexuality. He can romance a female Hawke and Karl isn't even mentioned as a lover but as a friend in that play through. So I don't see how he is owning his own sexuality according to your own definition of it.  Playing a gay Mhawke, you get just as much info about Anders sexually  as you do Fenris. ask Fenris if sleeping with a man was strange and you get your anwser from him. Both anders and fenris flirt with MHawke when he flirts with them and neither menton an attraction for women and they both have the biggest sexual exploration of all, having sex. I really don't see what else you want so I'll leave it at that.

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.

To make the claim that Merrill could not be written the same as Isabella because the writers did not want her sexuality to be known you have to first prove that all of DA bi characters are written to be the same.  Are you saying Leilana was written the same as Isabella as well?

[BlueMagitek]

If I recall correctly, Merrill expressed a liking for all the ripped shirtless Qunari.

[Silfren]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Where's that quote of Gaider saying that if the resources were there and they could do it, he'd prefer to have equal measures of straight, same and bisexual romance options, rather than all available to everyone? But that if the resources for that aren't there, they'll go with all romances available to everyone?

I wouldn't know where to look but its out there somewhere, probably in this thread already.

I remember that quote, yes. And in a way, I think it's disappointing that Bioware feels romances, an arguably small facet of their games, must cater equally to all sexual orientations. Even if they do manage this one day it won't make everyone happy because you'll inevitably have people claim they don't like the LIs open to them and would prefer to romance that LI over there who's just not into them because the PC's gender isn't what gets them interested.

In short, they can't win.

This...doesn't really make any sense, given the way Bioware makes its LIs all-inclusive right now means that they ARE managing to do it, right now, and all the LIs already ARE available to the PC regardless of gender.

I was speaking in the context of LPPrince's paraphrase of what Gaider said, that ideally he'd want LIs to be of their own individual sexual orientation rather than available to everyone. And in that context, which I'm all for, Bioware still won't please the people who want their PC to be able to successfully romance whoever they want to romance (which, IMO, doesn't really come down to equality at all).

Bioware is not attempting to make everyone happy. That never has been their goal, probably because I'm sure they all already know that it isn't humanly possible.  But they do strive to make as many people as possible happy, and the all-inclusive approach they take to the LIs is the best option.

So you think that the option of having individual LIs be either homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual (ideally an equal number of characters and genders representing each) would not be as good as having all the LIs romancable no matter what?

Is this because some people will be unhappy that an LI would not be available to their PC?

Yes, exactly.  It's far from a perfect solution, because it doesn't address the issue of players either not wanting to play a given gender at all, ever, OR who just want to specifically romance a given LI by their gender of choice. 

At the end of the day, the all-inclusive LI solution is superior to an even mix of LIs that cover the default sexuality triad, (especially since, if the LIs never, ever refer to sexual orientation, allows for the player to recognize that sexual orientation exists in a continuum that far exceeds those three categories), because it favors inclusivity over realism, the latter being a very shaky argument at best, anyway.

[The Hierophant]

Wait people are calling a gay poster a bigot against gays because he doesn't like DA2's handling of romances?

[Seboist]

The Hierophant wrote...

Wait people are calling a gay poster a bigot against gays because he doesn't like DA2's handling of romances?

"Bigot"(among other words) is the new "Witch!".

Modifié par Seboist, 30 juin 2013 - 05:09 .

[David7204]

 Consider the perception that women tend to not be engineers. 

That perception is not based on nothing. If you went and researched employment statistics, you would no doubt find that probably about 90 percent of emplyeed engineers are male. 

As a physics student, I've never had a class where females make up more than about a fifth of the students. There's no way any reasonable person would not look around and notice that 'Gee, there certainly are a lot of males in this class. ' Demanding people not perceive such things is just demanding them not to think.

Does that perception cause harm? Yes, I'm sure it does. But the solution is not demanding people ignore the reality in front of them.

Modifié par David7204, 30 juin 2013 - 05:10 .

[BlueMagitek]

Silfren wrote...
Yes, exactly.  It's far from a perfect solution, because it doesn't address the issue of players either not wanting to play a given gender at all, ever, OR who just want to specifically romance a given LI by their gender of choice. 

At the end of the day, the all-inclusive LI solution is superior to an even mix of LIs that cover the default sexuality triad, (especially since, if the LIs never, ever refer to sexual orientation, allows for the player to recognize that sexual orientation exists in a continuum that far exceeds those three categories), because it favors inclusivity over realism, the latter being a very shaky argument at best, anyway.

Why is this a problem?  The greater difference between playthroughs the better.

[The Hierophant]

Ain't that a...

[Silfren]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Yes, exactly.  It's far from a perfect solution, because it doesn't address the issue of players either not wanting to play a given gender at all, ever, OR who just want to specifically romance a given LI by their gender of choice. 

At the end of the day, the all-inclusive LI solution is superior to an even mix of LIs that cover the default sexuality triad, (especially since, if the LIs never, ever refer to sexual orientation, allows for the player to recognize that sexual orientation exists in a continuum that far exceeds those three categories), because it favors inclusivity over realism, the latter being a very shaky argument at best, anyway.

Why is this a problem?  The greater difference between playthroughs the better.

Someone else can take this one.  I'm just going to go and bash my head against the wall repeatedly for about ten minutes.  Then I'll probably turn my oven to 450 degrees and lock myself in it for good measure.

[LPPrince]

Paraphrasing shmaraphrasing. Lets just all take a minute to read http://dgaider.tumbl...mances-in-games and hopefully everyone(including myself), regardless of where they stand, learn about where Mr. Gaider stands, and if we continue to agrizzle to disagrizzle, we disagrizzle in a not too heated way.

[BlueMagitek]

Silfren wrote...

Someone else can take this one.  I'm just going to go and bash my head against the wall repeatedly for about ten minutes.  Then I'll probably turn my oven to 450 degrees and lock myself in it for good measure.

The player's choices in character creation and character building, from background to class to gender to skills (if included), should allow for greater variation in the story.  A rogue should have different options from a warrior from a mage.  If a character is skilled in survival, different options should be allowed than if they were skilled in herbology.  If a character is male, they should have different options available than if they were female.

[Hazegurl]

BlueMagitek wrote...

If I recall correctly, Merrill expressed a liking for all the ripped shirtless Qunari.

I know women who define themselves as Lesbians through and through yet think certain sexy men are well....sexy.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Where's that quote of Gaider saying that if the resources were there and they could do it, he'd prefer to have equal measures of straight, same and bisexual romance options, rather than all available to everyone? But that if the resources for that aren't there, they'll go with all romances available to everyone?

I wouldn't know where to look but its out there somewhere, probably in this thread already.

I remember that quote, yes. And in a way, I think it's disappointing that Bioware feels romances, an arguably small facet of their games, must cater equally to all sexual orientations. Even if they do manage this one day it won't make everyone happy because you'll inevitably have people claim they don't like the LIs open to them and would prefer to romance that LI over there who's just not into them because the PC's gender isn't what gets them interested.

In short, they can't win. 

I don't think it's disappointing that Bioware is inclusive for people of different sexual orientations; I think it's a very positive facet of Dragon Age that we can play as a straight or gay main character, and that there is more than one single romance option available.

Don't get me wrong. I think it's fantastic that Bioware is trying to be inclusive. But I'm disappointed that it's apparently such a huge issue for something that's a relatively small part of the game. I like the romances and all, but in the scheme of things they're little more than an emotionally-charged sidequest. In that sense, I can totally understand the position of some of the devs who say they'd rather the games contained no romances at all. It'd get rid of a lot of wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth, even if it's not a solution. (And no, I'm not proposing they should do this. I'm saying I could understand one reason why they would want to.)

As I said previously, I can understand taking issue with the companions being so malleable that they will romance the main character even if the protagonist has ethics and morals that completely contradict their own (i.e. Fenris being in a romance a pro-slavery Hawke, for example), but I don't see the problem with Dragon Age being inclusive for people who are typically marginalized in many areas.

It's more than what other games do, I'll give them that.

[BlueMagitek]

Hazegurl wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

If I recall correctly, Merrill expressed a liking for all the ripped shirtless Qunari.

I know women who define themselves as Lesbians through and through yet think certain sexy men are well....sexy.

Well, Qunari are horned.

[Thomas Andresen]

Silfren wrote...

Someone else can take this one.  I'm just going to go and bash my head against the wall repeatedly for about ten minutes.  Then I'll probably turn my oven to 450 degrees and lock myself in it for good measure.

That's what I've felt like doing for the last few hours.

I really need to requisition a new life.

[AngryFrozenWater]

LPPrince wrote...

Paraphrasing shmaraphrasing. Lets just all take a minute to read http://dgaider.tumbl...mances-in-games and hopefully everyone(including myself), regardless of where they stand, learn about where Mr. Gaider stands, and if we continue to agrizzle to disagrizzle, we disagrizzle in a not too heated way.

Are you proposing an intelligent conversation. The idea!

*reading*

[What a Succulent Ass]

David7204 wrote...

 Consider the perception that women tend to not be engineers. 

The point, son, you missed it, flew right by you.

That isn't a "perception"—that's a fact. Women tend not to go into STEM fields (and as a female engineer, there isn't a time I can remember there were ever more than a handful of us); this is true. It is not damaging, but objective observation. What would be damaging (and bigoted) would be, say, generalisations about female intelligence and capability, especially whilst ignoring or minimising how girls are discouraged from pursuing the sciences as children, receive only twenty percent of the average teacher's attention (compared to their male counterparts), and, if they do choose a career in the sciences, have to contend with the pervasive culture of bullying, misogyny, and discrimination in research and academia.

Socialisation is everything. When people mention dominant notions forced on them by society, they aren't talking about the cultural trends produced by the ideas, but the ideas themselves. Most everything is inculcation, and unlearning them is a long, arduous task that has to be consciously undertaken.

But maybe that isn't what you meant. Like, forreal. I am not even sure what you were trying to say in this post. It's like everyone in this thread is doing the stanky leg, and you came and started doing the decapitated chicken on the dance floor.

[David7204]

It's a fact and a perception. You seem to be implying perceptions can only exist on false premises.

[Silfren]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Someone else can take this one.  I'm just going to go and bash my head against the wall repeatedly for about ten minutes.  Then I'll probably turn my oven to 450 degrees and lock myself in it for good measure.

The player's choices in character creation and character building, from background to class to gender to skills (if included), should allow for greater variation in the story.  A rogue should have different options from a warrior from a mage.  If a character is skilled in survival, different options should be allowed than if they were skilled in herbology.  If a character is male, they should have different options available than if they were female.

Some people only like to play a particular gender.  Others don't care which gender they play, but they want to experience a particular LI as a particular gender.  The much vaunted option of two LIs for hetero, two for bi, two for homosexual does not address this. 

There is not a sufficiently good reason not to make the LIs all-inclusive.  The "but...realism!" argument is an exceedingly stupid one that holds no water in a fictional world that very specifically does NOT have the same real-world hangups about sexual orientation or identity or preference.  Thedas does not have our biases, so there is no reason at all why extra-hetero sexuality would not be much more common...really, there's no reason why Thedas would simply not recognize different categories of sexual orientation at all.  A person can engage in sex with people of any gender without ever once thinking of themselves as being bi at all.  In point of fact this mindset is likely to be more common in a world that doesn't have sexual hangups. 

 The whole thing about class and race doesn't really apply, because as I said before, sexual identity is something that affects people playing DA in a way that playing elves or dwarves or getting the chance to play a warrior, mage, or rogue do not. 

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Silfren wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

So you think that the option of having individual LIs be either homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual (ideally an equal number of characters and genders representing each) would not be as good as having all the LIs romancable no matter what?

Is this because some people will be unhappy that an LI would not be available to their PC?

Yes, exactly.  It's far from a perfect solution, because it doesn't address the issue of players either not wanting to play a given gender at all, ever, OR who just want to specifically romance a given LI by their gender of choice. 

At the end of the day, the all-inclusive LI solution is superior to an even mix of LIs that cover the default sexuality triad, (especially since, if the LIs never, ever refer to sexual orientation, allows for the player to recognize that sexual orientation exists in a continuum that far exceeds those three categories), because it favors inclusivity over realism, the latter being a very shaky argument at best, anyway.

Hrm. Well, I disagree that it's the best possible solution save for those players who desire the power to romance anyone they fancy regardless of the NPCs preferences or stance vis a vis the PC, but so be it. We don't have to agree.

I guess I'm one of those who prefers realism to inclusivity in her RPGs. As shaky as it may be at times.

[Hazegurl]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

If I recall correctly, Merrill expressed a liking for all the ripped shirtless Qunari.

I know women who define themselves as Lesbians through and through yet think certain sexy men are well....sexy.

Well, Qunari are horned.

Horned men are damn irresistible.

[LPPrince]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Paraphrasing shmaraphrasing. Lets just all take a minute to read http://dgaider.tumbl...mances-in-games and hopefully everyone(including myself), regardless of where they stand, learn about where Mr. Gaider stands, and if we continue to agrizzle to disagrizzle, we disagrizzle in a not too heated way.

Are you proposing an intelligent conversation. The idea!

*reading*

I KNOW RIGHT!? I'm a giver.

But yeah, I dig dig dig dig dig this-

David Gaider wrote...

So, no, I’m quite fine with selecting a few characters and having them be romantic options and letting the rest be simply what they are. My preference is that the romances cover a range of styles and sexualities as evenly as we can, and that they have comparable levels of content, and leave it at that. If someone doesn’t find something to their liking in that particular game, chances are we’ll have a whole different batch in the next game (I do find it rather amusing how people always assume we’ll write exactly the same characters in the next game as the current one— even though we never have, the assumption is the same after every game). In the meantime, there are hopefully friendships and rivalries among the followers that you can develop, and reasons to appreciate each of them beyond whether they can be sexed to your liking, as well as that whole other thing we wrote.You know. The plot.

I hope hope hope they get the resources to afford that and they actually decide to go that route.

Relationships that end terribly, relationships that never get off the ground, relationships that are happily ever after, relationships that involve cheating, romance options of homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual natures, etc etc

I didn't get what I wanted in DA2, so I hope I get it in DA:I.