1981 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

Dobbysaurus wrote...
It doesn't have to strip away the LGBT presence altogether.

But it would. That is exactly what would happen. To pretend otherwise is foolish.

Just romance options, and yes, even the straight ones.

The difference being that romance content is the only place where LGBT characters and themes are present, whereas removing straight romance options still leaves a plethora of straight characters whose sexuality is clearly demonstrated. Like Aveline, who is first seen fighting alongside her lover, who is a man.

[Rixatrix]

Eveangaline wrote...

Dobbysaurus wrote...
[snip]

Thing is, removing the romances from the game do remove pretty much all the LGBT content. In the game's you run into plenty of people who are married/in love, and essentially all those couples are straight (certainly all the ones that actually say it out loud are, the one exception being Branka and the woman she was with). You're always returning the lost trinkets of dead husbands to their wives or helping a couple and their child escape or dealing with drama in families and all those are pretty much straight families. Even if you take out the romances, there'll be straight people around every corner in the game. Not going to be many if any explicitely gay/bi people.

Edit: Don't know what happened to the formatting a moment ago

Don't.  What you're responding to isn't even a serious argument.  It's like someone saying, "Gay marriage is problematic.  Let's just do away with marriage altogether!  Then everyone is equally miserable!"  At best, it's a tasteless joke.  At worst, it's trollbait.

FWIW, I agree with what you said, though.

[Allan Schumacher]

Dobbysaurus wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Dobbysaurus wrote...

Just remove romances all together. There, problem solved. Equality for everyone.

This adds nothing to the discussion. 

It seems like nothing adds to the discussion according to you. So maybe, just go talk to yourself? 

It is somewhat like solving the problem by nuking the site from orbit.  I suppose it's the only way to be sure, but (by your own admission) it's a solution that isn't what many people would like.

Your hostility to end your sentence, however, is unwarranted.  Please do not do that again.

[Plaintiff]

Sopa de Gato wrote...

I just find it kind of funny that people keep harping on "We want choice to matter!", just not when it comes to the character having any sort of set sexuality or even being locked out because of opposing viewpoints, because that would be a bad thing if PC X can't hump NPC Y.

If you are locked out of content because of decisions you made in the character creator which you now cannot undo, then that is not a choice.

Case in point: Bioware made it clear before DA2 was even released that Carver or Bethany would die based on your character's choice of class, which is irreversible. More people complain about that than ever complained about romances because they wanted to be able to choose who would live or die, in the moment that the incident occurred.

I think part of what irritated a lot of people about it is not only the gay/bi/player - sexual nature of it (though they do exist) but that they see Bioware trying harder and harder to push this out into the open in a time where you can do less and less with these characters gameplay wise. You can't change their armor, (sometimes) can't change their weapons, can't get rid of them from your party, are pretty much forced to go along with anything stupid they do that a PC with an INT over 8 would be able to see coming, and on top of that just don't measure up to the level of characters in previous installments.

People that think equal representation is less important than playing dress-ups don't really deserve to be catered to.

Hell, I didn't even have a problem with Merill or Fenris (player)sexuality and the way they were written - though I still do think it's lazy- but Anders had about the subtlety of a hand grenade. He's gay. Did he mention that? Because he's gay. The very first thing you do is go to rescue his lover. Then he slaps you with a massive penalty to rivalry points in the very first conversation if you turn him down.

Yeah, and straight men never talk about their exes, or how much they love boobies. And if their sexual advances are rejected, they never sulk, or whine, or get violent.

More choice for romances is a good thing, but the "everything for everyone" approach DAII had that even ME3 didn't think was a good idea, greatly decreased player options when it comes to NPCs in general, questionable writing, and what a lot of people see as too much attention being put toward sex and romance in general is not a good combination.

The Mass Effect series clearly designed its romance content with the foremost priority of titillating straight males, so of course it didn't think equal representation was a good idea.

ME2 had six romanceable companions, but that's not "too much attention being put towards sex and romance"? It's only crossing the line when you make some of them gay or bisexual?

Modifié par Plaintiff, 28 juin 2013 - 06:21 .

[Silfren]

daaaav wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Some people have already stated it, but I guess I'll do it too-

Bisexuality and Playersexuality are different.

Bisexuality is fine, just as any sexuality(besides player-based, imo) is.

But playersexuality just feels off.

Sexuality I'd say affects someone's character, as its part of who they are. A character that's potentially romanceable I'd say is better written if their sexuality is taken into account, for example Zevran.

I like to think of Zevran and Leliana as bisexual, as it felt like their sexuality was part of who they were, while Merrill and Fenris for example just felt playersexual.

I think there's a bit of a delicate balance/fine line between the two though, especially when it comes to stereotypes.

If romances aren't gonna be split hetero/******/bi going forward and will all be player-based, I'd at least like to have those playersexual characters express interest in other romantic partners.

Basically-

I'd appreciate it if potential romance options were interested in characters besides the PC, like people in or even out of the party, regardless of their sexuality. As well as having someone's sexuality better reflected as part of who they are.

This, this and this again. Characters whose sexualities are determined by the player are precluded from having a sexuality at all until that decision is made (unless they are bisexual). 

I think this is something of a gameplay issue.  The LIs have to be available to the PC by design, which puts limits on how their sexuality can be written...but this would be an issue even we didn't have all bisexual/playersexual PCs.  If you play a male-gendered PC, all the straight female LIs are going to be written so that their sexuality is determined by the PC's choices.  The only thing that can really change is how well the writing handles the challenge, and personally I think that DA2 did a pretty decent job.

[Allan Schumacher]

Plaintiff wrote...

Dobbysaurus wrote...
It doesn't have to strip away the LGBT presence altogether.

But it would. That is exactly what would happen. To pretend otherwise is foolish.

The difference being that romance content is the only place where LGBT characters and themes are present, whereas removing straight romance options still leaves a plethora of straight characters whose sexuality is clearly demonstrated. Like Aveline, who is first seen fighting alongside her lover, who is a man.

As much as I stinkeye the nuking of the site from orbit solution, I do have to come to his defense here.

It's perfectly valid to still have LGBT characters and themes without romances.  It just means that we'd have to do it differently.  Steve Cortez would be a great example, if his content remained the same but he was simply not a romanceable character.  He'd be a person that had a husband, and would occasionally talk up all the cute guys in the pub with Shepard (a depiction I would say would actually be quite natural, in my own personal experiences).


I think to require that LGBT can only be done via romance is a rather rigid way of thinking.  Ideally, we're at a point where LGBT content can exist everywhere and everyone just doesn't even bat an eye at it, because it's considered normal and inoffensive to everyone.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 28 juin 2013 - 06:23 .

[Plaintiff]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
It's perfectly valid to still have LGBT characters and themes without romances.  It just means that we'd have to do it differently.

Which is my point. Assuming that stripping the romances would not mean stripping LGBT content means assuming Bioware would suddenly make LGBT NPCs more visible than they've been previously, which strikes me as unlikely.

Steve Cortez would be a great example, if his content remained the same but he was simply not a romanceable character.  He'd be a person that had a husband, and would occasionally talk up all the cute guys in the pub with Shepard (a depiction I would say would actually be quite natural, in my own personal experiences).

A character like Steve would be great, I'm merely skeptical that one would pop into existence if romances were removed from Dragon Age.

I think to require that LGBT can only be done via romance is a rather rigid way of thinking.  Ideally, we're at a point where LGBT content can exist everywhere and everyone just doesn't even bat an eye at it, because it's considered normal and inoffensive to everyone.

I also want to roleplay my own character as homosexual and have him express homosexual desires, an opportunity that is unlikely to arise if romances are removed.

[Ravensword]

Plaintiff wrote...

Dobbysaurus wrote...

Just remove romances all together. There, problem solved. Equality for everyone.

Yes, strip LGBT presence from your games completely. That will fix everything. Not.

Don't be so dramatic. :wizard:I'm sure there are plenty of LGBT gamers who play these games, and not just for the roances. I don't really concern myself w/ the sexuality of my PC in games like these. I don't need romances to validate the sexuality of my PC; I assign whatever sexuality I damn well please. Fallout: New Vegas implemented this pretty well, even going a step further by allowing to chose certain perks that can define your character's sexuality w/o having to RP.

[Plaintiff]

Ravensword wrote...
Don't be so dramatic. :wizard:I'm sure there are plenty of LGBT gamers who play these games, and not just for the roances.

... So what? That's not what I was talking about.

I don't really concern myself w/ the sexuality of my PC in games like these.

I concern myself with the sexuality of every character in every game. I also concern myself with their gender and race, because the ingrained cultural assumption that a character is a straight white male unless indicated otherwise is something I want to change.

I don't need romances to validate the sexuality of my PC; I assign whatever sexuality I damn well please.

I can imagine my character to have any sexuality I want, but that doesn't actually make the LGBT community more visible in media, which is what I want.

Fallout: New Vegas implemented this pretty well, even going a step further by allowing to chose certain perks that can define your character's sexuality w/o having to RP.

I wouldn't say it was implemented "pretty well", but something is better than nothing.

[Silfren]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Dobbysaurus wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Dobbysaurus wrote...

Just remove romances all together. There, problem solved. Equality for everyone.

This adds nothing to the discussion. 

It seems like nothing adds to the discussion according to you. So maybe, just go talk to yourself? 

It is somewhat like solving the problem by nuking the site from orbit.  I suppose it's the only way to be sure, but (by your own admission) it's a solution that isn't what many people would like.

Your hostility to end your sentence, however, is unwarranted.  Please do not do that again.

I'm curious, Allan, about your take on this?  I can appreciate some of the points being made, though to my mind the issue seems to be more about the complications of writing characters specifically intended to be romantically influenced by the PC than by any question of sexual orientation.  I can't imagine it would be easy to write a character along the lines of, say, Aveline, with a clearly (rigidly) defined sexuality and independent romance arc if that character is also meant to be a potential romance option.  Certainly I don't think that having them be bisexual/playersexual creates a problem that doesn't otherwise exist if they're strictly defined as either/or the way Origins characters were.  Being an LI just comes with inherent limitations. 

[keightdee]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I think to require that LGBT can only be done via romance is a rather rigid way of thinking.  Ideally, we're at a point where LGBT content can exist everywhere and everyone just doesn't even bat an eye at it, because it's considered normal and inoffensive to everyone.

Moreover, how or with who one has sex is only one facet of a person's personality, right? Just as we know Aveline is loyal and strong and dates men because of how we see her interacting with other characters, we know that Anders is compassionate and driven and dates men and women. Even if Anders wasn't a romanceable character in DA2, the player could sense (or have an explicit conversation with him about) his previous relationship with Karl. This only adds to Anders' characterization and the presence of QUILTBAG people in Thedas.

I think Plaintiff has a solid point here, too. Without leaning on the romances as an inclusivity crutch, your team would have to do a little more work to make QUILTBAG folks visible in Thedas. I'm sure it can be done but, like Plaintiff, I raise an eyebrow at the likelihood.

And really, it just seems to me like you all are talking past each other and actually agree. 

Ravensword wrote...

I don't really concern myself w/ the sexuality of my PC in games like these. I don't need romances to validate the sexuality of my PC; I assign whatever sexuality I damn well please.

Good for you? That has absolutely no bearing on what anyone can or should do in their games.

[Ninja Mage]

I'd like to have a male party member that brags about sleeping with men and doesn't blame it on his messed up childhood or horrible wife etc...aka Zevran

[Silfren]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Dobbysaurus wrote...
It doesn't have to strip away the LGBT presence altogether.

But it would. That is exactly what would happen. To pretend otherwise is foolish.

The difference being that romance content is the only place where LGBT characters and themes are present, whereas removing straight romance options still leaves a plethora of straight characters whose sexuality is clearly demonstrated. Like Aveline, who is first seen fighting alongside her lover, who is a man.

As much as I stinkeye the nuking of the site from orbit solution, I do have to come to his defense here.

It's perfectly valid to still have LGBT characters and themes without romances.  It just means that we'd have to do it differently.  Steve Cortez would be a great example, if his content remained the same but he was simply not a romanceable character.  He'd be a person that had a husband, and would occasionally talk up all the cute guys in the pub with Shepard (a depiction I would say would actually be quite natural, in my own personal experiences).


I think to require that LGBT can only be done via romance is a rather rigid way of thinking.  Ideally, we're at a point where LGBT content can exist everywhere and everyone just doesn't even bat an eye at it, because it's considered normal and inoffensive to everyone.

I can't speak to anything outside of DA, but I do think that Plaintiff has a point.  Outside of the romances, there has not actually been a lot of LGBT content. 

Can your statement be taken to mean that Bioware is at least trying to expand LGBT content beyond the romances for DA:I?  Or is it way too early to say anything yet?

[Drasanil]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
I think to require that LGBT can only be done via romance is a rather rigid way of thinking.  Ideally, we're at a point where LGBT content can exist everywhere and everyone just doesn't even bat an eye at it, because it's considered normal and inoffensive to everyone.

Whilst I agree with your sentiment, I feel DA2's playersexual NPCs undermine that very notion in that it feels cheap and forced. Like something you put in because you had to as opposed to because that's just how things are. Ideally I'd like each NPC to be who they are independantly of who the PC is. I would have rather had 2 Straight and 2 Gay NPCs than 4 Bis.

Heck, I would hope DAI is even more discerning taking into account an NPC's cultural bias and such. Such as having a perfectly hetero elf/dwarf campanion turning down your advances because their identity means something to them. Or conversly, having demi-human refusing a hetero relationship but perfectly willing to accept a same-sex human partner because it's not betraying their culture (ie: no human babies) etc etc...  

[keightdee]

Silfren wrote...

Can your statement be taken to mean that Bioware is at least trying to expand LGBT content beyond the romances for DA:I?  Or is it way too early to say anything yet?

Yeah, I think a large part of the disconnect here is that Allan knows significantly more about forthcoming content than any of us can begin to surmise, so the conversational playing field in totally uneven.

[keightdee]

Drasanil wrote...

Ideally I'd like each NPC to be who they are independantly of who the PC is. I would have rather had 2 Straight and 2 Gay NPCs than 4 Bis.

This statement implies that these four characters could not all be bi-pan-whateversexual on their own, and that it's only the influence of the player that makes them so. Is that what you mean to say? That you believe it incredibly unlikely four bisexual people would hang out? 

[Paul E Dangerously]

Plaintiff wrote...

People that think equal representation is less important than playing dress-ups don't really deserve to be catered to.

Yeah, and straight men never talk about their exes, or how much they love boobies. And if their sexual advances are rejected, they never sulk, or whine, or get violent.

The Mass Effect series clearly designed its romance content with the foremost priority of titillating straight males, so of course it didn't think equal representation was a good idea.

ME2 had six romanceable companions, but that's not "too much attention being put towards sex and romance"? It's only crossing the line when you make some of them gay or bisexual?

1) Yes, I think character sexuality and romace arcs as a whole should come in as a second - and a distant second - to the game aspects of a role playing game. This isn't a visual novel or a dating sim. The first game in the series let me give my companions better armor, choose if I wanted them in the party at all, work with a broader variety of class abilities and specializations, have more indepth conversations with my NPCs, and have a major input in story events involving those NPCs. The second does not. It does, however, make a huge point of it's "equal representation" and it's reaching out to the LGBT community , which seems to be the default go-to defense of criticism of the reaction to the last few Bioware games.

2) Anders as a character acted nothing like this in the previous game. The sexuality by itself is debatable, but a clingy, easily offended person he was not. The writing here is also especially questionable, because the first thing he does in a conversation after losing a person he was apparently very close to is to hit on Hawke. Unless you know the conversation tree in advance you're likely to get thrown down that path, and there's no good way to let him down (or even a neutral "Sorry, not interested"), you're basically forced to react like he's the most disgusting thing on the planet. I'm not sure what you call that, but it's not good writing.

3) I wasn't talking ME2, but ME3. It did have love interests that a character could be locked out of, and it worked just fine.

[Silfren]

keightdee wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Can your statement be taken to mean that Bioware is at least trying to expand LGBT content beyond the romances for DA:I?  Or is it way too early to say anything yet?

Yeah, I think a large part of the disconnect here is that Allan knows significantly more about forthcoming content than any of us can begin to surmise, so the conversational playing field in totally uneven.

Hey, that's all to the good.  It's not Allan's fault if he can't actually say anything yet about what may be in the game (especially since things could well change from whatever's in place now).  But if it's true that we'll be seeing even more progressive content, I'll take whatever hints he's willing to throw.

[Drasanil]

keightdee wrote...

Drasanil wrote...

Ideally I'd like each NPC to be who they are independantly of who the PC is. I would have rather had 2 Straight and 2 Gay NPCs than 4 Bis.

This statement implies that these four characters could not all be bi-pan-whateversexual on their own, and that it's only the influence of the player that makes them so. Is that what you mean to say? That you believe it incredibly unlikely four bisexual people would hang out? 

Please, you are quite obviously being trite. Don't insult my, your or any other reader's intelligence .The meaning of my post was quite clear and if you think all four romanceable NPCs in DA2 were genuinely bi as opposed to meta-PCsexual you are far beyond naive. 

[daaaav]

keightdee wrote...

Drasanil wrote...

Ideally I'd like each NPC to be who they are independantly of who the PC is. I would have rather had 2 Straight and 2 Gay NPCs than 4 Bis.

This statement implies that these four characters could not all be bi-pan-whateversexual on their own, and that it's only the influence of the player that makes them so. Is that what you mean to say? That you believe it incredibly unlikely four bisexual people would hang out? 

Doesn't imply that at all! Why is everyone so determined to find these implications? The issue that many people bring up is that for characters to be romantically involved with all player characters, they must either be implicitly bisexual or asexual until the player gives them a "que". This robs certain characters of important backstory and characterisation.

[Allan Schumacher]

I can't speak to anything outside of DA, but I do think that Plaintiff has a point. Outside of the romances, there has not actually been a lot of LGBT content.

Part of that reason, I would assume, is because we do have romances. I mean, imagine if LGBT content existed, as did romances, but an LGBT romance did not exist. I think some people would be disappointed.

Although it's not completely devoid. Branka/Hespith and Leliana/Marjolaine for example. A thread was started that detailed some of them (focused on lesbians), although the tone was more disappointment because the author felt that our depiction always had the relationships filled with drama and ultimately tragic.

Can your statement be taken to mean that Bioware is at least trying to expand LGBT content beyond the romances for DA:I? Or is it way too early to say anything yet?

I wouldn't say that. I don't know all the stuff that is planned (or even all the stuff that currently exists). Unfortunately I spend little time in the game directly.

My point was more that the use of LGBT need not be confined to romances, and that they have only really existed as romances isn't really proof of that. It just means that that's the principal place we've put them, at this time.

[Plaintiff]

Because who they dated in high school is SUCH important backstory.

[Catroi]

who the **** cares? there has been lesbians in bioware games since KotOR and gays since Jade Empire and no one ever complained about these

[Allan Schumacher]

I wouldn't say it was implemented "pretty well", but something is better than nothing.

I don't know, maybe as a heterosexual male (and Obsidian fanboy) my perspective is somewhat skewed, but I *loved* the depiction of both Arcade Gannon as well as Veronica in terms of their sexuality. It was played *so* low key and was not their defining trait by any means.

Whilst I agree with your sentiment, I feel DA2's playersexual NPCs undermine that very notion in that it feels cheap and forced. Like something you put in because you had to as opposed to because that's just how things are. Ideally I'd like each NPC to be who they are independantly of who the PC is. I would have rather had 2 Straight and 2 Gay NPCs than 4 Bis.

See, this is unfortunate. My perspective is more "We're trying to not overlook LGBT anymore people." Are LGBT people offended by what we did in Dragon Age 2?

[Chaos Lord Malek]

I would definitely tone down romances, and i fully agree with what BlueMagitek said in the first response. The NPC companions are too much tied down to the player. Alistrair felt like Warden's Yes Man, Aveline was totally dumb as well("We are going to help this murderers murder a few more people, Guard Captian!"), i think Morrigan was good because again she has her agenda, reasons and such, even though she was utter ****.

How about having characters that just going to screw you over (like Yoshimo) - i think even Zevran was like this, but it should be more difficult and complicated to turn them over to your side(if possible at all).

Simply put, companions should react more severely to what you doing.