1981 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

someguy1231 wrote...

Silfren wrote...
1 and 2 are already true and have been for both Origins and DA2. As for 3...

Regardless, the mere fact that, of all the romanceable companions, all can be romanced by a player of any gender felt contrived and too player-centric to me.

Silfren wrote...
Am I the only person here who can see the inherent issues with gender itself having significant impacts on the story, and why, being a woman, that bothers the hell out of me?

Just because we're working for gender equality in the real world doesn't mean we can't tell stories where it's still a serious problem. Besides, gender having an impact on the story need not imply that one gender is treated or is considered worse than the other.

Without trying to be snarky, are you just oblivious to the fact that Bioware has stressed that Thedas is a place that does NOT reflect gender inequality?  They kind of fail rather badly on the delivery, but nevertheless that is their intention.  That kind of precludes using the DA setting to tell stories where it's still a problem.  

And unless you can give me concrete examples of how gender could have this significant impact on the plot in a way that does not invalidate the above point about Thedas not having gender hangups any more than it has sexuality hangups, well...I guess women are better positioned then men to understand why the idea would raise alarm bells for people used to being shafted in the gaming industry.

Modifié par Silfren, 30 juin 2013 - 08:48 .

[Silfren]

someguy1231 wrote...

Silfren wrote...
1 and 2 are already true and have been for both Origins and DA2. As for 3...

Regardless, the mere fact that, of all the romanceable companions, all can be romanced by a player of any gender felt contrived and too player-centric to me.

I don't really understand the player-centric objection at all.  Aren't ALL rpg's player-centric?  Isn't the point kind of to play a bad-ass who single-handled solves the world's problems?

Modifié par Silfren, 30 juin 2013 - 08:49 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Plaintiff wrote...

Would you be able to accept a fantasy world where it was established as a core aspect of the plot and setting that the entire society was bisexual in orientation?

I was wondering if someone would ask this.

For me, at least, the answer is 'Yes'. If the game's lore established something like that from the start, I'd accept it as a matter of course.

[someguy1231]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

As I've been saying, I believe that in an RPG the player should feel like they're part of the world, not that the world revolves around them. If the world blocks certain content and opens up other content to me due to my class or race, that makes the world resonate with me because it makes the choices I made at the character creation page matter. The same principle applies to my character's gender.

In what ways do you prefer gender to matter? (List all of them, preferably).

Aside from LIs that are clearly ******- or heterosexual:

-Ability to join a certain group or organization that is exclusively a certain gender (i.e. a female gang of thieves, a group of male builders, an elite order of knights/mages/priests/monks that only accept men or women, etc)
-Unique persuasion options with certain characters due to the player's gender (i.e. flirting with another character to goad them into a certain end, but only works if the player is the right gender)
-Unique sidequests only available due to the player's gender (i.e. the ones given by the groups mentioned earlier, or the matriarchal Chantry giving more content to a female players, to use a DA-specific example, etc.)
-Weapons or armor that can only be worn/used by a certain gender due to magic/enchantments/etc.

(again, I'm speaking of RPGs in general here, not DA specifically)

Modifié par someguy1231, 30 juin 2013 - 09:07 .

[Silfren]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Would you be able to accept a fantasy world where it was established as a core aspect of the plot and setting that the entire society was bisexual in orientation?

I was wondering if someone would ask this.

For me, at least, the answer is 'Yes'. If the game's lore established something like that from the start, I'd accept it as a matter of course.

What about a world where the pigeon-holing concepts of bi/hetero/homosexuality did not exist?  I've seen the point get raised several times, here and elsewhere, but it seems to get overlooked.  Societies that do not care about sexuality, by which I mean it's just a non-issue for the world as far as who has sex with whom and how, could very well NOT have conceptual labels for orientation.  Could you accept a world where people were just considered sexual creatures, period?  Would it be necessary for the lore to spell this out for you in the beginning of the game?  And how would such a spelling out be handled, since sexual activity is not actually the point of the game anyway?

[someguy1231]

Silfren wrote...

Without trying to be snarky, are you just oblivious to the fact that Bioware has stressed that Thedas is a place that does NOT reflect gender inequality?  They kind of fail rather badly on the delivery, but nevertheless that is their intention.  That kind of precludes using the DA setting to tell stories where it's still a problem. 

I wasn't speaking about Thedas specifically. I was talking about stories in RPGs in general. I am aware that Bioware likes to believe that gender inequality does not exist in Thedas, although the execution is not perfect.

Silfren wrote...
And unless you can give me concrete examples
of how gender could have this significant impact on the plot in a way
that does not invalidate the above point about Thedas not having gender
hangups any more than it has sexuality hangups, well...I guess women are
better positioned then men to understand why the idea would raise alarm
bells for people used to being shafted in the gaming industry.

Although I was not speaking of Thedas specifically, how about this: The Chantry is generally considered a matriarchal or at least female-dominated institution, with almost all positions of power held by women, including the entire priesthood. If the player is female, they should have a series of sidequests open to them to ascend the Chantry hierarchy to become a priestess. If the player is male, give them a different series of sidequests of roughly equal length in which they also try to ascend the church hierarchy, are denied further advancement because they're male, and work to change this in response. There, different content, opened up or closed off due to the player's gender.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Random Jerkface wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Like I said earlier, Zevran can be questioned on his preferences in DA:O. He says he prefers women, but that won't stop him from enjoying the company of men if he chooses.

Man, this was wrong beyond belief. I only found this out today because I stumbled across it online, but he evidently likes men because he had to be trained to seduce both men and women?

They had to "justify" his same-sex attraction by saying it was sexually abused into him? It was really that rill?

He was raised in an environment, an Antivan brothel, where sex happened in such way that he got a very open-minded view of it, then bought by a guild of assassins who found that open-mindedness very useful. Whether he had it sexually-abused into him is, I think, something only David Gaider can confirm or deny. I didn't take it that way, I confess. Not that sexual abuse couldn't have happened, but I pictured Zevran as liberal due to how he saw sex treated during his childhood, not because it was imposed on him by force.

[Allan Schumacher]

-Weapons or armor that can only be worn/used by a certain gender due to magic/enchantments/etc.

I'm going to cherry pick this one as it's easier to relate for this question. Would you prefer to have the following, even if it didn't align with the setting?


I guess where I've also been going with this is that, you're not interested in simply being rejected, but specifically that being rejected was attributed to your choice of sex?

What are your thoughts on how DAO did it?

[ultimatekotorfan]

Maria Caliban wrote...

If the character is going to shut down the PC, I'd rather it be because of my PC's words and actions, not because I hit the wrong button at character creation.

This.

[someguy1231]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

-Weapons or armor that can only be worn/used by a certain gender due to magic/enchantments/etc.

I'm going to cherry pick this one as it's easier to relate for this question. Would you prefer to have the following, even if it didn't align with the setting?

I guess where I've also been going with this is that, you're not interested in simply being rejected, but specifically that being rejected was attributed to your choice of sex?

What are your thoughts on how DAO did it?

Yes, that is correct. It lets me know that my choice of gender matters, and reminds me that the world doesn't revolve around me.

I thought DAO handled it fairly well. Good examples include being able to do the Dark Ritual with Morrigan if you're male, becoming Queen with Alistair if you're a noble human female, unique flirtatious options with some characters, and other various dialogue options.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Silfren wrote...

What about a world where the pigeon-holing concepts of bi/hetero/homosexuality did not exist?  I've seen the point get raised several times, here and elsewhere, but it seems to get overlooked.  Societies that do not care about sexuality, by which I mean it's just a non-issue for the world as far as who has sex with whom and how, could very well NOT have conceptual labels for orientation.  Could you accept a world where people were just considered sexual creatures, period?

Sure could. I don't see why not, so long as it's treated consistently.

Would it be necessary for the lore to spell this out for you in the beginning of the game?  And how would such a spelling out be handled, since sexual activity is not actually the point of the game anyway?

If it's not the point of the game, then I don't think I'd need the lore to spell it out for me. I could probably come to the conslusion naturally by seeing some well-done character interaction near the beginning of the game, which could convey social norms by showing me what they are rather than telling me in, say, a Codex entry.

But I am not every player.

[Allan Schumacher]

Yes, that is correct. It lets me know that my choice of gender matters, and reminds me that the world doesn't revolve around me.

Juuuust to be clear (since I may not have been), even if the distinction goes against the setting, you'd still want it?

I thought DAO handled it fairly well. Good examples include being able to do the Dark Ritual with Morrigan if you're male, becoming Queen with Alistair if you're a noble human female, unique flirtatious options with some characters, and other various dialogue options.

How about the situation with the romances?

Would you prefer a situation like DA2 (where it's possible on any given playthrough to have one romance), or DAO (where you're actively denied the choice of even trying)?

[Thomas Andresen]

someguy1231 wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Am I the only person here who can see the inherent issues with gender itself having significant impacts on the story, and why, being a woman, that bothers the hell out of me?

Just because we're working for gender equality in the real world doesn't mean we can't tell stories where it's still a serious problem. Besides, gender having an impact on the story need not imply that one gender is treated or is considered worse than the other.

Except that most literary experts consider being progressive on matters that are "serious problems" in real life to be far superior to just highlighting said "serious problems". You might even go so far as to say that being progressive is the only acceptable way for literature to deal with subjects touched by bigotry and privilege.

someguy1231 wrote...
Besides, gender having an impact on the story need not imply that one gender is treated or is considered worse than the other.

But it does, and it will. Because perceived implications aren't irrelevant, and perceived implication is largely a result of the preconceptions that the audience brings with them.

[Ieldra]

If I may make one more attempt to clarify my stance on this issue:

(1) If the premise is "the game world adapts itself regarding an NPC's sexual orientation according to the PC's gender" (i.e. characters are "playersexual"), then there are no problems if you stick to a single playthrough and never communicate with others about alternate possibilities. In that case, some characters can have a defined orientation, others may not, it doesn't really matter.

(2) If in-world, "everyone is bi", that means that among a randomly selected group of people in this universe, all are attracted to both genders. Then my immediate response is "Humans aren't that way. Why is it different in this world? I want an explanation." IMO such a setup requires sexuality being a theme in the story.

The problem on the players' side is this: if you do multiple playthroughs, (1) can come across as (2). Now, responding to this with "adapt your mindset to the idea that every playthrough is an AU" is a perfectly valid reply, and I actually feel it is a flaw on my side that I sometimes feel unable to adapt to it and feel that DA2's romances are less real because they feature different variants of characters, but we have little control over what we feel.

In the end, I don't argue "Don't do this". DA2 was the first game which did the "playersexual" thing, and I'm open to further experiments with it, even though at the moment, I would prefer NPCs with defined sexual orientations. The topic remains an issue. I would, however, argue very strongly against a canonical "everyone is bi" setup unless it's a theme in the story, and that regardless of whether or not romance is in the story at all. It is a worldbuilding issue. Humans aren't that way, and where they are, it requires an explanation. If it's just done to facilitate romances, then this creates the impression that the worldbuilding follows romance preferences, which again raises the expectation that it should be a theme. If you don't want the story to be about romance and sexuality, don't do the "everyone is bi" thing. "Playersexual" as such is unproblematic from a worldbuilding perspective, which is what mostly concerns me here.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 juin 2013 - 09:53 .

[Thomas Andresen]

Ieldra2 wrote...
If I may make one more attempt to clarify my stance on this issue:

(1) If the premise is "the game world adapts itself regarding an NPC's sexual orientation according to the PC's gender" (i.e. characters are "playersexual"), then there are no problems if you stick to a single playthrough and never communicate with others about alternate possibilities. In that case, some characters can have a defined orientation, others may not, it doesn't really matter.

(2) If in-world, "everyone is bi", that means that among a randomly selected group of people in this universe, all are attracted to both genders. Then my immediate response is "Humans aren't that way. Why is it different in this world? I want an explanation." IMO such a setup requires sexuality being a theme in the story.

As I've pointed out earlier:

• Does it have to be one of those two? Can it not be neither?
• Do you really think that a every person's sexual orientation is always immutable?

Sexuality and sexual orientations isn't really as clear cut as you appear to want it to be.

[Xilizhra]

(2) If in-world, "everyone is bi", that means that among a randomly selected group of people in this universe, all are attracted to both genders. Then my immediate response is "Humans aren't that way. Why is it different in this world? I want an explanation." IMO such a setup requires sexuality being a theme in the story.

For one thing, not all of them are humans. For another, that's not even correct; there are only two humans in DA2 to whom that distinction applies.

[someguy1231]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Yes, that is correct. It lets me know that my choice of gender matters, and reminds me that the world doesn't revolve around me.

Juuuust to be clear (since I may not have been), even if the distinction goes against the setting, you'd still want it?

Unless the people in the setting are part of a Hive Mind or some other Borg-esque collective, there's bound to be at least a few people who go against the grain of what a setting claims to be. Learning that a fictional world isn't quite what it claims to be among 100% of the populace helps makes it more immersive and complex, provided that it's made clear that these people are the exception to the rule.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
How about the situation with the romances?

Would you prefer a situation like DA2 (where it's possible on any given playthrough to have one romance), or DAO (where you're actively denied the choice of even trying)?

DAO, without a doubt. While I appreciated that DA2 tried to make romances feel less like a shallow multiple-choice test, I still preferred DAO's approach of giving LIs clearly-established sexualities and also accounting for confrontations between simultaneous LIs.

[Allan Schumacher]

DAO, without a doubt. While I appreciated that DA2 tried to make romances feel less like a shallow multiple-choice test, I still preferred DAO's approach of giving LIs clearly-established sexualities and also accounting for confrontations between simultaneous LIs.

Framed differently: You prefer not being given the option to do something?

Note that this isn't rejection, this is the game fundamentally denying you a choice.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 30 juin 2013 - 10:03 .

[someguy1231]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

DAO, without a doubt. While I appreciated that DA2 tried to make romances feel less like a shallow multiple-choice test, I still preferred DAO's approach of giving LIs clearly-established sexualities and also accounting for confrontations between simultaneous LIs.

Framed differently: You prefer not being given the option to do something?

Note that this isn't rejection, this is the game fundamentally denying you a choice.

Yes, provided the game makes it clear that the option would be there if my gender/class/origin/etc were different, and also provides some other option in its place, which would also be mutually exclusive.

Modifié par someguy1231, 30 juin 2013 - 10:06 .

[Rixatrix]

In an effort to but down the length of my posts, I tried to go for concise... Hope that is okay.

LarryDavid wrote...
I was only talking about bread.

Haha, it happens.  

Basically what I tried/try to do is make you accept that there are situations where 'equal treatment' is open for several interpretations. Because when you accept that 'equal treatment' can mean different things from different valid points of view, you can only conclude that 'what is fair' is subjective.

Once again, agree to disagree?  "Equal" is "=." I'll agree that the equal solution isn't always the satisfying solution, but that doesn't mean that the satisfying solution is thus the equal solution.  If you have $50 you want to give to your two kids, but Kid A needs $30 to cover the rest of their rent and Kid B needs $20, giving them each $25 would be the equal solution ($25 = $25), but the not the most satisfying one for every party involved.  This isn't in any way related to the topic of this thread, but hopefully it illustrates the distinction between "equal" and, say, "satisfying" or "preferred."

Phd wages

I don't see how this applicable to this discussion, but here's my bit...  While I was working on my MBA after law school, students getting their Master's in Library Science and students getting their MBA's both worked for the school and earned the same wage.  They didn't have their degrees yet (so their starting salary doesn't matter, really), and they were doing the same work.  They got the same pay.  Equal.

As for the availability problem... The concept of availability here is key.  Take Merrill, for example.  There are people who:

1. Want Merrill to be attracted to one sex only
2. Want Merrill to be available to male and female PCs

If she is attracted to one sex only, players playing PCs of the other sex get no access.  
If she is bi/pan/playersexual, players who wanted her to be attracted to one sex only still have access.  However,their desire that she be attracted to their PC's sex only is not met.  

Given a choice between "I want access to Merrill's content" and "I want access to Merrill's content and I want others to not have access to her content (by locking her to a single-sex orientation)," there is no contest.  Consider the distributions - catering to one group means denying the most fundamental component (access) to the other.  Catering to the other means denying a desire, not access - not only that, but a desire which strips the most basic offering to another group.

subjective concept of equal treatment

Once again, this is the impasse.  "Equal" is not subjective.  Preferences are.

cookie with topping... blueberries... cookie... muffin... cookie with topping... blueberry muffin... cookie with topping... 'consuming'

You really must stop with the delicious diction!  It's really late, I am already in bed, but I am now contemplating baking some cookies.  Or muffins.  Or cookies with toppings.  Or blueberry muffins.  Mmmm.

Anywayz, always happy to agree to disagree with a reasonable person.

A pleasure.

[Allan Schumacher]

someguy1231 wrote...

Yes, provided the game makes it clear that the option would be there if my gender/class/origin/etc were different, and also provides some other option in its place, which would also be mutually exclusive.

Did DAO make it clear?  In other words, was it internal (within the game) or external (forums, or something similar) that let you know that, say, Alistair could not be romanced by a male character?

[nightscrawl]

daaaav wrote...

/sigh with all due respect to Mr Gaider, which is it? Is Thedas an egalitarian paradise or is this mess a product of the writers using a technique to substitute for insufficient rescources? The highlighted quote would certainly suggest the latter. The problem with the egalitarian solution is that in this case, the citizens of Thedas cannot teach us real human beings how they achieved this remarkable state of being. I would like to live in a world where sexual orientation is about as relevant socially as someones preference in clothing colors but unfortunately, citizens of Thedas are mum on the subject.

This doesn't necessarily have to be the case. It could certainly be a combination of wanting Thedas presented a certain way regarding sexuality, as well as working within the resources. Excluding the half-a-romance of Sebastian, DA2 had the same number of romances as DAO, four total. If they didn't want "fairness to win out," as he wrote in another thread, then they could have done the DA2 romances with the exact same spread as DAO. They purposely chose not to do that though.

[someguy1231]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

Yes, provided the game makes it clear that the option would be there if my gender/class/origin/etc were different, and also provides some other option in its place, which would also be mutually exclusive.

Did DAO make it clear?  In other words, was it internal (within the game) or external (forums, or something similar) that let you know that, say, Alistair could not be romanced by a male character?

I thought the game made it clear enough, at least for the most significant parts. In my first playthrough I was female, and it was pretty easy to infer that, if I were male, I could've done the Dark Ritual with Morrigan, for example.

[Allan Schumacher]

Fair enough.


Would it then be safe to say that, provided alternative situations for your sex to provide some level of unique content, that something like the DA2 romanceable characters would be less of an issue?

[Thomas Andresen]

someguy1231 wrote...

I thought the game made it clear enough, at least for the most significant parts. In my first playthrough I was female, and it was pretty easy to infer that, if I were male, I could've done the Dark Ritual with Morrigan, for example.

But did the game make this clear for you before you had to make the choice of your player character's gender?