1981 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

David7204 wrote...

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

Congratulations!  You already do!  Yay!  *throws confetti*

[Silfren]

Random Jerkface wrote...

David7204 wrote...

It's also sometimes going to be products of reasoning. Which is my entire point you claim I missed. Not everything is a result of 'indoctrination by the patriarchy,' and that's frankly not only insulting, but an incredibly lazy explanation of such phenomena. 

...My G, did you even read what I wrote? "Product of reasoning" like how? A bunch of n*ggas got in a circle and thought real hard about women not going into engineering?

Let me get into this The Secret secret bullsh*t then, son. All of you need to think me into existence a dollar.

If I could do that, screw you, I'd be thinking dollars into existence for myself.

[BlueMagitek]

Plaintiff wrote...

DA:O had set sexualities and you could still romance Alistair or Morrigan even if they thought you were terrible, based purely on the fact that you were the "right gender", and you plied them with worthless trinkets.

There's a very obvious difference between in-story choices and the meta-story choices made during character creation. Nobody is protesting the notion of LIs rejecting their character based on in-game actions. DA2 already does this, and it does it without arbitrarily excluding homosexual characters from story content.

The games don't gate story content based on race, skin colour, nationality, age, religion, hair colour, eye colour, height, weight or anything else, even though we know for a fact that some of these biases are prevalent in Thedas. So why should gender matter even slightly?

When a PC gets arbitrarily locked out of romance content for being the wrong race, or class, or anything other than his own in-plot actions, then I will accept the gating of content based on gender.

Then what is your argument? That people should be prevented from accessing certain options just 'cause?

Morrigan had her reasons for initiating a romance.  But that is besides the point.  I have made well known my issue with the current systems, and yes, the gift giving ability should be removed.

Nonsense, they both have their place.  Characters should have set preferences and not change based on the meta choices of the player character.  Anders should not be bi if Hawke is male and straight if Hawke is female.  Viconia doesn't like gnomes (or dwarves or elves, if I recall) and will not romance one.  If a character is only into female rogues, they should not accept the flirtations of a male mage PC.

Older games did, but for Dragon Age, currently we have race, gender and class altering the story and locking out different portions of content.  Alistar will not sacrifice himself to save a male Warden, no matter his affection meter, for example.  A non rogue misses out on quests in Denerim.  Only a Human Noble can ascend the Throne of Ferelden.  Do you deny this?

Why?

Because sexuality is a part of a character.  I thought that was fairly obvious.

Modifié par BlueMagitek, 30 juin 2013 - 06:11 .

[Allan Schumacher]

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

[someguy1231]

Here's an ironic thought:

Many Bioware fans are obviously RPG fans. And many RPG fans like to feel like their choices have consequences, not just their dialogue choices but also the class and origin of their characters.

Recently, in ME3's Omega DLC, there's a section in which an Engineer Shepard has a unique interaction while working on a reactor. Many at the ME forum section praised this as a positive RPG element and a meaningful way to work the player's class into the game, and hoped that future games would similarly work the player's class into the story aside from solely their combat abilities.

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.

The irony is palpable.

Modifié par someguy1231, 30 juin 2013 - 06:12 .

[Silfren]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

DA:O had set sexualities and you could still romance Alistair or Morrigan even if they thought you were terrible, based purely on the fact that you were the "right gender", and you plied them with worthless trinkets.

There's a very obvious difference between in-story choices and the meta-story choices made during character creation. Nobody is protesting the notion of LIs rejecting their character based on in-game actions. DA2 already does this, and it does it without arbitrarily excluding homosexual characters from story content.

The games don't gate story content based on race, skin colour, nationality, age, religion, hair colour, eye colour, height, weight or anything else, even though we know for a fact that some of these biases are prevalent in Thedas. So why should gender matter even slightly?

When a PC gets arbitrarily locked out of romance content for being the wrong race, or class, or anything other than his own in-plot actions, then I will accept the gating of content based on gender.

Then what is your argument? That people should be prevented from accessing certain options just 'cause?

Morrigan had her reasons for initiating a romance.  But that is besides the point.  I have made well known my issue with the current systems, and yes, the gift giving ability should be removed.

Nonsense, they both have their place.  Characters should have set preferences and not change based on the meta choices of the player character.  Anders should not be bi if Hawke is male and straight if Hawke is female.  Viconia doesn't like gnomes (or dwarves or elves, if I recall) and will not romance one.  If a character is only into female rogues, they should not accept the flirtations of a male mage PC.

Older games did, but for Dragon Age, currently we have race, gender and class altering the story and locking out different portions of content.  Alistar will not sacrifice himself to save a male Warden, no matter his affection meter, for example.  A non rogue misses out on quests in Denerim.  Only a Human Noble can ascend the Throne of Ferelden.  Do you deny this?

Why?

Because sexuality is a part of a character.  I thought that was fairly obvious.

Actually, I think Alistair will.  He'll make the offer, anyway. 

[BlueMagitek]

someguy1231 wrote...

Here's an ironic thought:

Many Bioware fans are obviously RPG fans. And many RPG fans like to feel like their choices have consequences, not just their dialogue choices but also the class and origin of their characters.

Recently, in ME3's Omega DLC, there's a section in which an Engineer Shepard has a unique interaction while working on a reactor. Many at the ME forum section praised this as a positive RPG element and a meaningful way to work the player's class into the game, and hoped that future games would similarly work the player's class into the story aside from solely their combat abilities.

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.

The irony is palpable.

I like this guy, he gets it.

Silfren wrote...

Actually, I think Alistair will.  He'll make the offer, anyway. 

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

But if you are only going to respond to a single line, please eliminate the rest of the post, you are making it rather messy.

[Silfren]

BlueMagitek wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

Here's an ironic thought:

Many Bioware fans are obviously RPG fans. And many RPG fans like to feel like their choices have consequences, not just their dialogue choices but also the class and origin of their characters.

Recently, in ME3's Omega DLC, there's a section in which an Engineer Shepard has a unique interaction while working on a reactor. Many at the ME forum section praised this as a positive RPG element and a meaningful way to work the player's class into the game, and hoped that future games would similarly work the player's class into the story aside from solely their combat abilities.

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.

The irony is palpable.

I like this guy, he gets it.

Silfren wrote...

Actually, I think Alistair will.  He'll make the offer, anyway. 

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

But if you are only going to respond to a single line, please eliminate the rest of the post, you are making it rather messy.

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.

[David7204]

daaaav wrote...

David7204 wrote...

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

Once again I must draw attention to the difference between sexual orientation and sexuality as a whole. This is OT anyway.

I want both sexuality as a whole and sexual orientation to matter.

[BlueMagitek]

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.

[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.

[Silfren]

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.

I have no idea what you're even trying to say here, but if it's the potshot I think it is, well, I'm fairly sure that Bioware is going to continue in the tradition of all-inclusive LIs, based on what they've said thus far, so I don't think any reconciliation is necessary. 

[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 .

[David7204]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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."

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

[Plaintiff]

someguy1231 wrote...

Here's an ironic thought:

Many Bioware fans are obviously RPG fans. And many RPG fans like to feel like their choices have consequences, not just their dialogue choices but also the class and origin of their characters.

Recently, in ME3's Omega DLC, there's a section in which an Engineer Shepard has a unique interaction while working on a reactor. Many at the ME forum section praised this as a positive RPG element and a meaningful way to work the player's class into the game, and hoped that future games would similarly work the player's class into the story aside from solely their combat abilities.

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.

The irony is palpable.

Does not being an Engineer lock players out of the Omega DLC? No.

Does being the "wrong" class significantly alter the content of the Omega DLC? No.

Can characters who aren't Engineers still acheive the same basic result in the Omega DLC as Engineers do? Yes.

Your analogy is complete nonsense. Players are not blocked from content in the Omega DLC, it merely provides multiple paths to the same end.

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.

[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.

[Thomas Andresen]

someguy1231 wrote...

Recently, in ME3's Omega DLC, there's a section in which an Engineer Shepard has a unique interaction while working on a reactor.

I would have liked it, if the other classes had a similar amount of class-based interaction.

Basically, I'd call it a step in the right direction, but meaningless because it was the only one.

Granted, in Citadel, there were some minor variation in design based on the player class, but nothing that had any impact on the narrative.

[BlueMagitek]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

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). 

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...)?

[daaaav]

Plaintiff wrote...


Does not being an Engineer lock players out of the Omega DLC? No.

Does being the "wrong" class significantly alter the content of the Omega DLC? No.

Can characters who aren't Engineers still acheive the same basic result in the Omega DLC as Engineers do? Yes.

Your analogy is complete nonsense. Players are not blocked from content in the Omega DLC, it merely provides multiple paths to the same end.

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.

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.

You can argue that it shouldn't matter, but the world of Thedas is confused as to whether gender matters or not. 

Modifié par daaaav, 30 juin 2013 - 06:30 .

[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.

[someguy1231]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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."

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.

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

For me, the more impact my choice of gender/class/origin/etc has on the story, the better. One doesn't "resonate" with me any more than another does. To name some examples, a gay LI who can only be romanced by a male player character, a group of unruly  knights who can only be disciplined/reason with if the player is also a Knight, a rich nobleman who can be persuaded to your side only if the player is also a noble, etc, all equally "resonate" with me.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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.

Like I said before, I believe that everything we're capable of choosing about our character should be a significant part of them. Otherwise, what's the point of offering the choice to begin with?

As for the relations, as long as there's balance. Just make at least 1 gay male/female, 1 bi male/female, and 1 heterosexual male/female, with any number of the rest.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

Of course it doesn't. But an RPG can never have too many "RPG elements". Otherwise, why even call it an "RPG"?

[BlueMagitek]

Hazegurl wrote...

Horned men are damn irresistible.

[smilie]http://hollywoodhatesme.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/curry-legend.jpg[/smilie]

I was expecting a picture of Ron Perlman.  Close, but no cigar.

Modifié par BlueMagitek, 30 juin 2013 - 06:33 .