1981 réponses à ce sujet

[nightscrawl]

Cheylus wrote...

I agree, but there is still a lot of problematic sexual themes in ME that doesn't revolve directly around Shepard. On the other hand, no problematic sexual themes in Dragon Age.

Uh, I would say that the several instances of rape in both games count toward that. Also, depending on your play, the whole Dark Ritual can be considered that as well.

[Ziggeh]

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...

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.

That's fairly critical.

As the developer you're making a choice between something that's objective (access) and somethings that's subjective (restrictions).

While I can empathise with people saying that it affects their sense of realism, there is almost no choice they can make that will not affect somebodies - the tipping point of such things is so subjective that it can't realistically be a major factor in the decision.

[Ziggeh]

Ravensword wrote...

It doesn't matter, but people will complain any way.

True, but the specific point being made was that everyone is bi, where as the case is more that "more people than would be probable in our society" are. It doesn't really affect the point much, but it's worth noting.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 30 juin 2013 - 11:17 .

[Plaintiff]

nightscrawl wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

They could've done it, too, since the Human Noble origin included the chance for a PC of either gender to have a homosexual encounter. And I think one of the Dwarven origins allowed for it too, but I never played them so I don't quote me on that.

OMG really?? Were you able to flirt with the son of Mom's friend?? I so need to start my male HN again o_o.

Yes, you can, and he can come to your room at night, and get murdered by Howe's men as a result. Just like Iona.

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...

The complaint here will be that none of those characters you mentioned are romanceable.

And this matters why? If we're talking about setting integrity, "romanceable" is not a trait that matters to the universe.

It matters because it raises the question why the members of this randomly selected set of characters who are attracted to the PC are all bi, while other randomly selected sets aren't, and also because the set of LIs is experienced as representative. And before you say "it happens", no, things never "just happen" in stories. The setup carries a message about the world, whether it is intended as "it just happens" or not.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 juin 2013 - 11:23 .

[Cheylus]

nightscrawl wrote...

Cheylus wrote...

I agree, but there is still a lot of problematic sexual themes in ME that doesn't revolve directly around Shepard. On the other hand, no problematic sexual themes in Dragon Age.

Uh, I would say that the several instances of rape in both games count toward that. Also, depending on your play, the whole Dark Ritual can be considered that as well.

Yes, I wasn't accurate enough.
It's actually the two things I mentionned in my former post page 7 or 8, along with the presence of brothels.
Rape in DA only look like a convenient plot device if you ask me (with the exception of darkspawn). Again, sexuality of asaris, fertility of krogans, inter-species relationship are major themes in ME; rape and the Dark Ritual (optionnal) aren't.

Modifié par Cheylus, 30 juin 2013 - 11:28 .

[Thomas Andresen]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Is it - because it is highly implausible that suddenly *everyone* discovers the same food as amazing, and I would suspect some hidden hand doing something behind the scenes if it happened. I would require an explanation.

Neither Merrill nor Fenris makes a move on Hawke unless Hawke flirts with them first. So the hand behind the scenes would be you deciding that flirting with them was something you wanted to do. Both Isabella and Anders have sexual history with either sex before Hawke, so whether or not they make a move on Hawke doesn't say much about their sexuality.

Ieldra2 wrote...
Also, I was not speaking about character development, but about differences between different playthroughs as different AUs. If in one playthrough, Merrill likes tea and in another she does dislike it, then this results in a dissonance. That dissonance can be resolved in different ways, including mentally adapting to the concept of different playthroughs as AUs, but you can't pretend there isn't one.

Why would any other playthrough than the one you are playing right now matter for your enjoyment of your current playthrough? The only cases in which I think about my other playthroughs than my current one is either when I'm planning my next playthrough, or when thinking about a choice I made that I'd like to repeat again. I certainly never think about other people's playthroughs.

I can say with absolute certainty that I have never even thought of comparing differences in non-player characters between playthroughs. Nor do I really feel any compulsion of doing so now.

[Plaintiff]

WHY do we need "problematic sexual themes" in Dragon Age?

[Ziggeh]

Ieldra2 wrote...

It matters because it raises the question why the members of this randomly selected set of characters who are attracted to the PC are all bi, while other randomly selected sets aren't, and also because the set of LIs is experienced as representative.

It's not random, it's just that the selection was made outside of the gameworld. And in terms of the story they only represent the subset who are romancable, rather than society as a whole. I'm not clear on why for you the distinction is important, if you're talking about the nature of the setting, rather than the subset?

[Xilizhra]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

The complaint here will be that none of those characters you mentioned are romanceable.

And this matters why? If we're talking about setting integrity, "romanceable" is not a trait that matters to the universe.

It matters because it raises the question why the members of this randomly selected set of characters who are attracted to the PC are all bi, while other randomly selected sets aren't, and also because the set of LIs is experienced as representative. And before you say "it happens", no, things never "just happen" in stories. The setup carries a message about the world, whether it is intended as "it just happens" or not.

So what you want, primarily, is for there to be some kind of in-universe explanation for it?

[Ziggeh]

Plaintiff wrote...

WHY do we need "problematic sexual themes" in Dragon Age?

I'd say mostly because "they liked each other so they got married" isn't a strong narrative, but I assume you're talking about social perception, rather than relationship issues?

[Ieldra]

Thomas Andresen wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Is it - because it is highly implausible that suddenly *everyone* discovers the same food as amazing, and I would suspect some hidden hand doing something behind the scenes if it happened. I would require an explanation.

Neither Merrill nor Fenris makes a move on Hawke unless Hawke flirts with them first. So the hand behind the scenes would be you deciding that flirting with them was something you wanted to do. Both Isabella and Anders have sexual history with either sex before Hawke, so whether or not they make a move on Hawke doesn't say much about their sexuality.

Ieldra2 wrote...
Also, I was not speaking about character development, but about differences between different playthroughs as different AUs. If in one playthrough, Merrill likes tea and in another she does dislike it, then this results in a dissonance. That dissonance can be resolved in different ways, including mentally adapting to the concept of different playthroughs as AUs, but you can't pretend there isn't one.

Why would any other playthrough than the one you are playing right now matter for your enjoyment of your current playthrough? The only cases in which I think about my other playthroughs than my current one is either when I'm planning my next playthrough, or when thinking about a choice I made that I'd like to repeat again. I certainly never think about other people's playthroughs.

I can say with absolute certainty that I have never even thought of comparing differences in non-player characters between playthroughs. Nor do I really feel any compulsion of doing so now.

I envy you. I would rather like to dismiss my knowledge of other playthroughs when I play, but there are times when I can't. I don't need to compare. I remember, and the knowledge is present whether I want it or not, and the more I've played different variations, the more they are all present when playing the next game.   

This is, btw, related to the question I've been discussing somewhere else: Can character traits you aren't experiencing in your playthrough be treated as nonexistent in your continuity, i.e. does everyone of us have slightly (or radically) different variants of companions in their game, depending on which variants of their dialog you got? I say it should work that way - and that would mean playersexuality is a non-issue - but there are people for whom it doesn't work that way. Having said that, telling branched stories through video games facilitating player decisions (including the selection of the protagonist) is a radically new way of storytelling. If Bioware's experiments with this lead to people adapting how they experience their stories I'd be the last person to complain about it. We're not there yet, as evidenced by this discussion.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 juin 2013 - 11:37 .

[Thomas Andresen]

Ziggeh wrote...

I'd say mostly because "they liked each other so they got married" isn't a strong narrative, but I assume you're talking about social perception, rather than relationship issues?

And any tension between a couple has to be rooted in something sexual, is that it?

[Ziggeh]

Thomas Andresen wrote...

And any tension between a couple has to be rooted in something sexual, is that it?

Clearly not, but you're rather limiting the palette if you're removing sexual problems from a sexual relationship.

(I suspect we're talking about different things)

[Plaintiff]

In any case, Dragon Age already HAS "problematic sexual themes". The issue of interspecies breeding is contentious, particularly for the Elves, rape is present in the setting, Dwarven society supports polygamy, and the sexual exploitation of the lower castes.

Don't really need homophobia on top of that.

[GodWood]

You speak as if polygamy is a bad thing.

[Plaintiff]

Ziggeh wrote...

Thomas Andresen wrote...

And any tension between a couple has to be rooted in something sexual, is that it?

Clearly not, but you're rather limiting the palette if you're removing sexual problems from a sexual relationship.

(I suspect we're talking about different things)

Well the only "sexual problem" for homosexuals in the vast majority of fiction that includes them is "I have sexual desires for other members of my sex AND I JUST CAN'T DEAL WITH THAT BECAUSE BEING GAY IS SO EDGY AND TRAGIC YOU GUYS".

Not to mention the prevalence in fiction of homosexual relationships that end tragically just because.

[Xilizhra]

GodWood wrote...

You speak as if polygamy is a bad thing.

Specifically when tied to sexism/classism, as it is in dwarven society.

[Ieldra]

Wait....if dwarven society supports polygamy, shouldn't we be able to romance Sigrun *and* Oghren in DAA with a dwarven Warden....

*runs away*

Edit:
I didn't realize that, btw. Where is that told? Wasn't it more "a kings has a mistress" - which says nothing much about the general attitude towards polygamy?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 30 juin 2013 - 11:55 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Plaintiff wrote...

Don't really need homophobia on top of that.

Zevran's dialogue in DAO has already established that not everyone in Thedas agrees with same sex relationships. So something's there, whether or not we need it.

[Plaintiff]

GodWood wrote...

You speak as if polygamy is a bad thing.

Well, everybody else is acting like homoseuxality needs to be some BFD. Seems pretty hypocritical to treat polygamy like it ain't no thang.

I don't personally give a crap, the problematic aspect is how it exploits the non-noble castes. 

[GodWood]

Xilizhra wrote...

GodWood wrote...

You speak as if polygamy is a bad thing.

Specifically when tied to sexism/classism, as it is in dwarven society.

He mentioned no such things, only that "Dwarven society supports polygamy".

And is it tied to sexism? Classism yes but I can't recall anything particularly sexist.

[Plaintiff]

GodWood wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

GodWood wrote...

You speak as if polygamy is a bad thing.

Specifically when tied to sexism/classism, as it is in dwarven society.

He mentioned no such things, only that "Dwarven society supports polygamy".

And is it tied to sexism? Classism yes but I can't recall anything particularly sexist.

Finish reading a sentence, man.

[Nightdragon8]

Xilizhra wrote...

GodWood wrote...

You speak as if polygamy is a bad thing.

Specifically when tied to sexism/classism, as it is in dwarven society.

yea but considering that they are under constant Darkspawn threat, unlike the surface, stopping polygamy would be a bad thing...