1981 réponses à ce sujet

[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.

[Plaintiff]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Your comparison is also flawed. Omega is not a minor sidequest like the romance content.

They're major enough for you and others to complain that they're "the cancer that is killing Bioware", or somesuch nonsense, and say you want them gone forever.

I do not consider a whole category of dialogue and at least one extra cutscene (with no alternative if a romance is not engaged in) to be "minor content" in the least. There are dozens of sidequests in DA:O, DA2, and the entire ME trilogy that have much less than that.

[someguy1231]

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

And does not being able to pursue a romance with this or that LI lock players out of DA:O or DA2? No.

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

Same point as above.

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

Again, so can players in DA:O and DA2 if they can't pursue a romance with a given LI.

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

In order for a player's choices to matter in an RPG, they're supposed to have content blocked from them. The "multiple paths" you mention is itself an example of blocked content, because what about those paths the player didn't take?

Take a look at the Witcher 2 (I know, I know...) That game blocks a full one-third of the game from the player based on a single choice they make at the end of Act I, yet look how much praise it's gotten, especially from RPG fans.

Plaintiff wrote...
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.

Again, I don't see any difference. "Blocked content" is any content that exists in the game but the player doesn't see due to the choices they make. It's irrelevant to me if that translates to a certain sidequest acting out differently, or a certain sidequest not being available at all. Both are equally valid consequences of choices to me. In fact, making such content either available or unavailable to the player at all due to their choices would only enhance role-playing for me.

[LPPrince]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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

I'd feel like it didn't matter what kind of PC I played in that case, since the game has choices to make, and one of those is gender. I want my choices, even subtle ones, to matter. I never did romance Traynor, and the fact that I couldn't because she was gay(bonus points for no stereotypes, props to Mr. Weekes and the person he asked to help him with character legitimacy) was cooooool. In my opinion of course.

I'm sure that a game could have limitations put on who you could romance based on things other than their/the PC's sexuality, but I feel like leaving sexuality out as a limiter when there are others would be odd.

[Firky]

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. )

[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?

[David7204]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Well, let me just talk about sexual orientation. I heavily dislike the idea that it's an inconsequential part of a person's identity. 

Sexual orientation is not something that appears during romance but curls up quietly in a corner and sleeps everywhere else. Even in relationships with no explicit romance, there's a plethora of subtle cues and actions that I think have a significant effect. I think being attracted to a person has big impacts on how relationships play out. And I'm glad for that.

Sexual orientation being irrelevant by necessity demands those things be made meaningless. And that comes off to me as ridiculous.

Modifié par David7204, 30 juin 2013 - 06:52 .

[LPPrince]

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. )

Hah, it'd be pretty cool if the stereotype was subverted and its the female Inquisitor that bashes skulls and the male Inquisitor who tries to seduce his way in.

One way or another, ENTRY WILL OCCUR

[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.

[Hazegurl]

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.

Number one the term "playersexual" is just your opinion. When I role play MHawke and romance Fenris I don't think of which real life terms to give him nor do I think of what he would say to Fhawke cause in my world she doesn't exist and therefore Fenris is not "bisexual" nor is he "playersexual".  ya know, cause I'm role playing.

Real world sexual orientation shouldn't exist in a fictional world like Thedas. Ya know, cause it's a role playing game not a commentary on real world issues. Who are the ones proclaiming that allowing romances to be available to all is not realistic? Who are taking terms meant for the real world and stapling them onto fictional characters in a world where it just doesn't exist nor does it belong? None of that sounds like arguing for more rpging to me.

Also, I loved that Engineer interrupt. It's only natural that an Engineer would be able to fix it, afterall, it is a world where that is sort of an Engineer's job.

[Plaintiff]

someguy1231 wrote...
And does not being able to pursue a romance with this or that LI lock players out of DA:O or DA2? No.

The Omega DLC is not the entire game of Mass Effect. Omega is a metaphor for romance content, not the entire content of either DA game.

Again, so can players in DA:O and DA2 if they can't pursue a romance with a given LI.

Nonsense. The only decision in DA2 that ultimately affects the ending (aside from siding with the mages or templars), is your character's chosen LI.

In order for a player's choices to matter in an RPG, they're supposed to have content blocked from them.

Yes, choices. Choices in the story, not outside of it.

The "multiple paths" you mention is itself an example of blocked content, because what about those paths the player didn't take?

Again, the keyword being choice. I choose not to take those paths, I am not prevented from accessing them at the outset.

Take a look at the Witcher 2 (I know, I know...) That game blocks a full one-third of the game from the player based on a single choice they make at the end of Act I, yet look how much praise it's gotten, especially from RPG fans.

Again, that is a choice made in the story, by Geralt. It is not predetermined for him because of his gender.

Plaintiff wrote...
Again, I don't see any difference. "Blocked content" is any content that exists in the game but the player doesn't see due to the choices they make. It's irrelevant to me if that translates to a certain sidequest acting out differently, or a certain sidequest not being available at all. Both are equally valid consequences of choices to me. In fact, making such content either available or unavailable to the player at all due to their choices would only enhance role-playing for me.

I have no problem with the story being affected by choices made in the story. I have a problem with choices being blocked to me because of the protagonist's gender. The ability to create my own character already has significant value, in and of itself, it does not need to affect the story, nor should it.

How far does gender segregation in a plot have to go before it becomes unacceptable to you? If Manquisitor gets to go on adventures, while Femquisitor's entire story consists of staying home and making sammiches, will you acknowledge that as problematic? Or is that cool with you?

Where is your limit? What content is acceptable for gating behind gender barirers and what is not?

Modifié par Plaintiff, 30 juin 2013 - 06:59 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Sexual orientation is not something that appears during romance but curls up quietly in a corner and sleeps everywhere else.

Why not?

Even in relationships with no explicit romance, there's a plethora of subtle cues and actions that I think have a significant effect.

What types of effects? This might be becoming a bit to related to real life. If so, I'll shift the discussion to PMs then.

[David7204]

I'm the only person I've seen on the BSN that very heavily advised caution with the class interrupts after Omega. Everyone else seems to be thrilled with the possibility.

Modifié par David7204, 30 juin 2013 - 06:58 .

[Plaintiff]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
They're major enough for you and others to complain that they're "the cancer that is killing Bioware", or somesuch nonsense, and say you want them gone forever.

I do not consider a whole category of dialogue and at least one extra cutscene (with no alternative if a romance is not engaged in) to be "minor content" in the least. There are dozens of sidequests in DA:O, DA2, and the entire ME trilogy that have much less than that.

They are still optional content on the level of a minor sidequest, no matter the obession some members of the fandom have with them. They could be more (Baldur's Gate 2 for instance probably had the best romances) but they are not and should probably stay that way before Bioware's reputation goes from "company that writes above average RPG stories" to "company that writes romance novels disguised as an RPG"

More slippery slope claptrap.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Silfren wrote...

This.  Ever so much this.  I'm getting really damned frustrated at the way so many people conflate rejection on sexual preference grounds with rejection on grounds of PC choices or ideological differences.

I suppose my comment could have been construed as such. Very well, I'll take it, and it's not wrong, but it's not precisely what I was getting at here.

By making the romances inclusive as well as having them make sense, there are certain personality types or sentiments that LIs will never be able to express--or, at least, not without some weird personal arc where they are eg. cured of being gay so they can ride the bi train. I expect Bioware will engineer romances to carefully avoid such things, or 'fix' them, or reject LIs equally, and no, I don't find it realistic.

Some people do have preferences, and it affects who they choose to be with and who they choose not to be with. Sometimes these preferences change, often they do not and it can be a big deal to them. That LIs are contrived to be sexually inclusive no matter what therefore irritates me, because I neither find it realistic nor a fair treatment of the issues at hand, which are by necessity ignored so the player can feel 'included' by sleeping with whomever they desire.

I am more interested with sexual equality in Bioware games than inclusivity, if that makes sense. I want everyone to have a comparable amount of content, but I don't think every PC should get access to the same content. If that disappoints the people who are only willing to play as a one gender PC, I'm sorry. As someone who loves variety in replay, I have never believed that all RPGs should treat every gender/class/race the same. 

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 30 juin 2013 - 07:01 .

[Firky]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

My mind went there first because that's about all I expect from videogame narratives.

I'd argue that something like the discrete Cullen-based content based on gender in Origins would be hard to be unsatisfied with but, technically, why can't a guy have a passing romantic moment with the guy? Which comes back to, "Cullen isn't gay." (Based on available evidence.) So, I don't know. It's a weirdly circular thing.

[Thomas Andresen]

Morocco Mole wrote...
They could be more (Baldur's Gate 2 for instance probably had the best romances) but they are not and should probably stay that way before Bioware's reputation goes from "company that writes above average RPG stories" to "company that writes romance novels disguised as an RPG"

They were never intended to be more, so whether they could potentially be more is completely irrelevant.

That Baldur's Gate 2 had the best romances is your opinion.

[someguy1231]

Hazegurl wrote...
Real world sexual orientation shouldn't exist in a fictional world like Thedas. Ya know, cause it's a role playing game not a commentary on real world issues. Who are the ones proclaiming that allowing romances to be available to all is not realistic? Who are taking terms meant for the real world and stapling them onto fictional characters in a world where it just doesn't exist nor does it belong? None of that sounds like arguing for more rpging to me.

Uh, you do know that "real world sexual orientation" is all over Thedas, right? Last time I checked, bisexuals existed in the real world, and that's what many people want all the LIs to be.

Also, can you show me where it was ever offiically declared that everyone is Thedas is bisexual/pansexual/whatever you want to call it? In DA:O Morrigan was only romanceable by male players, and Alistair only by female players, so that clearly implies that not everyone in Thedas is open to romance with everyone regardless of gender.

As I said before, I'm in favor of making the player's starting choices impacting the game as much as possible. Yes, having gender affect what LIs are available to you is one of them.

Hazegurl wrote...
Also, I loved that Engineer interrupt. It's only natural that an Engineer would be able to fix it, afterall, it is a world where that is sort of an Engineer's job.

And I'd like that impact to be explored further, not just with class, but also with origin, race, and yes, gender.

[daaaav]

Plaintiff,

Do you support segregated content for mages and non mages? Surely the  "decision" to be a mage is as inescapable as the "decision"  to be male or female? I understand that the players themselves are not mages but folk play characters of opposite gender to their own all the time.

Modifié par daaaav, 30 juin 2013 - 07:09 .

[Plaintiff]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Silfren wrote...

This.  Ever so much this.  I'm getting really damned frustrated at the way so many people conflate rejection on sexual preference grounds with rejection on grounds of PC choices or ideological differences.

I suppose my comment could have been construed as such. Very well, I'll take it, and it's not wrong, but it's not precisely what I was getting at here.

By making the romances inclusive as well as having them make sense, there are certain personality types or sentiments that LIs will never be able to express--or, at least, not without some weird personal arc where they are eg. cured of being gay so they can ride the bi train. I expect Bioware will engineer romances to carefully avoid such things, or 'fix' them, or reject LIs equally, and no, I don't find it realistic.

Some people do have preferences, and it affects who they choose to be with and who they choose not to be with. Sometimes these preferences change, often they do not and it can be a big deal to them. That LIs are contrived to be sexually inclusive no matter what therefore irritates me, because I neither find it realistic nor a fair treatment of the issues at hand, which are by necessity ignored so the player can feel 'included' by sleeping with whomever they desire.

I am more interested with sexual equality in Bioware games than inclusivity, if that makes sense. I want everyone to have a comparable amount of content, but I don't think every PC should get access to the same content. If that disappoints the people who are only willing to play as a one gender PC, I'm sorry. As someone who loves variety in replay, I have never believed that all RPGs should treat every gender/class/race the same. 

As a gay man, I emphatically don't want "fair treatment" of the issue. Making a big deal out of being gay (or being straight, or being anything) is not the way to be equal or inclusive.

[Hazegurl]

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

Tim Curry is better.

[David7204]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Why not?

The same reasons we might treat an inanimate object we find compelling differently than from one we don't. We find something good and desirable, we want to preserve it and be exposed to it. We don't necessarily have to, but it's natural and justified to do so. We can't appreciate beauty without that appreciation inevitably bleeding into our actions. 

As for a concrete example, that's a bit tricky since it's going to vary a great deal from person to person and going to be hard to pin down anyway. I think a decent example would be that I would probably be more patient with someone I'm attracted to than someone who I'm not. 

Modifié par David7204, 30 juin 2013 - 07:22 .