1981 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
The solution, then, is not to keep making exclusive romances, but to have women generally reject Shepard more often, for a variety of reasons.

God this.

Male Shepard did not need to have just about every female throwing her panties at him. I found that far far more aggravating immersion breaking and plain annoying than all bi LIs could ever be.

This, among other things.  I just want sexuality in the games in general to be more complex than "here are your 4 LIs for this game.  They will like you so long as you chose the flirt option.  That is all.  Carry on." 

Or just reduce the number of available LIs for Male Shepard, like ME3 did for Female Shepard, to reinforce the notion that not every woman in the galaxy wants to bear his children.

[Hazegurl]

CrimsonNephilim wrote...

Abraham_uk wrote...

 I'm struggling to guage what people's position on sexuality is?


Is there a sizable group of gamers who are outright against any sexuality out of heterosexuality?
Is there a sizable group of gamers who are discomforted by the OPTION to have a homosexual romance?

Or is the issue with the actual representation of homosexual/bisexual characters in video games?
Is it a question of having more realistic dialogue (which is hard to do) for homosexual/bisexual romances.

Perhaps it's an issue to do with LGBT's being quite literally offended by the representation of homosexual/bisexual characters.

Are some gamers just not used to the idea that the person that they're attracted to is also into the same sex?
Are some gamers not used to the idea of homosexual exclusive love interests.
Are some gamers just annoyed that they couldn't romance Traynor as a man?

Are some gamers just struggling with the sudden decision to make Kaidan and Ashley bisexual without any surprise, forshadowing, buildup or any reaction?
______________________________________________________________________________________

Too Long; Didn't Read

Quite honestly I am confused. Really confused.
What is the issue here?
Someone please spell it out in plain English?

Pretty much where I am on this subject and curious as to why people find it difficult to just avoid Romance plots/possibility of LI being into the same sex if it bugs them so much. I'll admit when I played DA2 and found out that all the LIs were Bi and that Kaidan was also made Bi in ME3, I had a short "WTF" moment, but not in a bad why. I was on the side of "Huh, ok. That's interesting. Whatever." and carried on with my game.

I think it's just a matter of some people wanting BioWare to acknowledge their own perspective on the characters cause they want everyone to rpg like them. I think it's silly really. For example, you see Kaidan as bi I see him as 100% gay so now I'm going to whine to bioware to make Kaidan say he is gay to please me. Or actually it's really, "Kaidan is straight cause he could only be romanced by FemShep now he's suddenly gay/bi! This is a retcon! Lazy writing Bioware!" *forum rage*

[hoorayforicecream]

Abraham_uk wrote...

Quite honestly I am confused. Really confused.
What is the issue here?
Could someone please spell it out in plain English?

Seems to be the usual problem. Some people seem to believe that all (romanceable) characters are heterosexual unless explicitly stated otherwise, and it breaks their immersion if things don't actually conform to this preconception. Then they complain by saying the characters are "inconsistent" because they aren't heteronormative by default and it doesn't gel with their world view.

[Xilizhra]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

I don't want Kaidan or Merrill or Fenris or whoever to say they are gay or bisexual or whatever. I want my PC to be able to ask about it. To this, Fenris and Merrill and Kaidan can say whatever they want from "I am *insert thing here*" to "I don't know" to "none of your business." I don't want my PC to *have* to be tacitly accepting without the capacity to express surprise/confusion/curiosity/or heaven forbid even disgust.

I see no gain whatsoever in ensuring a possible lack of acceptance, especially with the last bit.

[BlueMagitek]

Xil, you're incapable of seeing a great many things that exist outside your point of view. Anything from not being upset about Thessia, to the option to laugh or agree with Joker's jokes, to Dragon Age.

Different players have different opinions and even though they may (and may in fact are almost certain to) contrast yours doesn't mean that they should not be in the game.

For example, as a City Elf, you are able to tell off a Chantry Mother in Ostagar that you disagree with her because of the Dales and Creators and what have you. This is despite the City Elf having a Chantry led wedding in the Alienage and is most likely under educated to the point that they wouldn't know what the Creators are or where they came from. BUT there is the possibility that maybe they did listen to all the tales from the Elders and decided that they preferred the Dalish way. It could happen. And so that dialog is there.

If it really bothers you, don't choose it.

[Xilizhra]

Xil, you're incapable of seeing a great many things that exist outside your point of view. Anything from not being upset about Thessia, to the option to laugh or agree with Joker's jokes, to Dragon Age.

Congratulations, you used the same example twice. The options weren't a good use of resources then and the one you refer to now isn't a particularly good one either.

For example, as a City Elf, you are able to tell off a Chantry Mother in Ostagar that you disagree with her because of the Dales and Creators and what have you. This is despite the City Elf having a Chantry led wedding in the Alienage and is most likely under educated to the point that they wouldn't know what the Creators are or where they came from. BUT there is the possibility that maybe they did listen to all the tales from the Elders and decided that they preferred the Dalish way. It could happen. And so that dialog is there.

Amusingly wrong. The Creators never come up, the PC is just snarky about the Chantry destroying the elven homeland.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 04 juillet 2013 - 02:49 .

[BlueMagitek]

Did I? Ah well. And I don't see how it isn't a good use of resources. Allowing the character to express an opinion on a situation tends to be one of the staples of RPGs. The Role Playing portion of it. While Mass Effect did give you a significantly more prebuilt character than Dragon Age, Shepard had been able to, for the most part, determine how he felt about a situation. A lot of that is washed away in ME 3 and just claiming "poor use of resources" is a poor excuse, in no small part due to being extremely subjective. I could easily claim that Wrex, seen by a minority of players, is a waste of resources!

It has been some time since I played DA:O. Still, I doubt the City Elf would care all too much about history. But the option is still there.

And I see that you have not given an opinion on the ability to not choose the offending option.

[Xilizhra]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Did I? Ah well. And I don't see how it isn't a good use of resources. Allowing the character to express an opinion on a situation tends to be one of the staples of RPGs. The Role Playing portion of it. While Mass Effect did give you a significantly more prebuilt character than Dragon Age, Shepard had been able to, for the most part, determine how he felt about a situation. A lot of that is washed away in ME 3 and just claiming "poor use of resources" is a poor excuse, in no small part due to being extremely subjective. I could easily claim that Wrex, seen by a minority of players, is a waste of resources!

It has been some time since I played DA:O. Still, I doubt the City Elf would care all too much about history. But the option is still there.

And I see that you have not given an opinion on the ability to not choose the offending option.

We've not yet seen any cultural context in DA2 that'd make expressing disgust make any sense; it'd be like freaking out over someone's eye color. Magic and race are the qualifiers of bigotry in this universe; sexual orientation seems to be a nonfactor.

[BlueMagitek]

And here you are ignoring my statements again!

As a few posters have noted, you were allowed to express atheism despite it not making quite a lot of sense world-wise back in Dragon Age Origins. What is the significant difference between these two subjects?

[Xilizhra]

BlueMagitek wrote...

And here you are ignoring my statements again!

As a few posters have noted, you were allowed to express atheism despite it not making quite a lot of sense world-wise back in Dragon Age Origins. What is the significant difference between these two subjects?

For the human noble, it was, according to Gaider, an oversight. For mages, they're more educated than many others and would have more direct reasons to doubt the existence of the Maker, as magical events seem less like proof of such when you know more about magic. Everyone else can have different gods.

Also, of course, a desire to express a lack of religious affiliation is far more palatable than a desire to express disgust at homosexuality.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 04 juillet 2013 - 03:10 .

[Ravensword]

Oh, I don't see what's wrong w/ expressing atheism. Atheists have been around since time immemorial.

[BlueMagitek]

Not even going to pretend? Fair enough.

I can understand Morrigan not having an Andrastian style view. But for a Circle-trained Mage? I disagree heavily. Every Circle Mage almost certainly has very healthy knowledge of Andraste, and most likely believes in her and the Maker even if they don't wish to follow the Chantry.

You can also be rather racist back in DA:O, exceptionally cruel to casteless and poor elves. Would you see these actions taken out as well? Are they not, after all, "[not] a good use of resources"?

Ravensword wrote...

Oh, I don't see what's wrong w/ expressing atheism. Atheists have been around since time immemorial.

For certain characters, it may make sense.  But for others, I don't believe so much.  If nothing else, feigning belief would be the way it went.

Modifié par BlueMagitek, 04 juillet 2013 - 03:13 .

[Xilizhra]

Not even going to pretend? Fair enough.

Pretend what?

I can understand Morrigan not having an Andrastian style view. But for a Circle-trained Mage? I disagree heavily. Every Circle Mage almost certainly has very healthy knowledge of Andraste, and most likely believes in her and the Maker even if they don't wish to follow the Chantry.

Glorious assumptions without actual, well, fact backing them up. Merely living in a religious environment doesn't make you religious.

You can also be rather racist back in DA:O, exceptionally cruel to casteless and poor elves. Would you see these actions taken out as well? Are they not, after all, "[not] a good use of resources"?

They seem to have largely been taken out in DA2, so I'm not too worried either way.

For certain characters, it may make sense. But for others, I don't believe so much. If nothing else, feigning belief would be the way it went.

Grey Wardens don't have to feign anything. Neither, I suspect, do Inquisitors.

[LobselVith8]

BlueMagitek wrote...

And here you are ignoring my statements again!

As a few posters have noted, you were allowed to express atheism despite it not making quite a lot of sense world-wise back in Dragon Age Origins. What is the significant difference between these two subjects?

Atheism has existed for centuries in the real world. It makes sense for the setting for people to express disbelief in the Maker and a higher power, especially for elves and mages who have every reason to have disdain for the organization and the religion that sacked their homeland.

[Ravensword]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

Oh, I don't see what's wrong w/ expressing atheism. Atheists have been around since time immemorial.

For certain characters, it may make sense.  But for others, I don't believe so much.  If nothing else, feigning belief would be the way it went.

But it wouldn't make sense for the PC who is an Inquisitor, right?

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Atheism has existed for centuries in the real world. It makes sense for the setting for people to express disbelief in the Maker and a higher power, especially for elves and mages who have every reason to have disdain for the organization and the religion that sacked their homeland.

I'm still waiting to hear you complain about the complete lack of Dalish atheists. 

[Xilizhra]

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Atheism has existed for centuries in the real world. It makes sense for the setting for people to express disbelief in the Maker and a higher power, especially for elves and mages who have every reason to have disdain for the organization and the religion that sacked their homeland.

I'm still waiting to hear you complain about the complete lack of Dalish atheists. 

I'm fairly sure you can play as one in DAO, and there aren't really any atheists who are explicitly identified as such in-game aside from some DAO PCs and Morrigan.

[BlueMagitek]

Xilizhra wrote...

Pretend what?

They seem to have largely been taken out in DA2, so I'm not too worried either way.

Well, you aren't actually answering the main questions that I pose, instead only responding in pointless derailments.  For example, instead of responding to any of my questions in your responses, you've only gone off about the atheism thing which, in the end, doesn't really matter to the discussion.  It was just an example.

Ah, you went back to edit your post.  Alright.  It is more palatable to you.  Which is the point.  The importance of being able to allow your character to have opinions, to be a certain way is subjective.  You have expressed very much bias (Thessia, sexuality, religion) when it comes to what a character should be allowed to say.  I believe the opposite.  The more opinions that a character is allowed to express at a situation (perhaps a crude joke is funny!  It is okay to be a mage.  The Chantry is right.  The Chantry is wrong.  The Stone is the one true religion.  Elves really do excel at poverty.  Elves are oppressed and need a Human Protagonist to save them as they cannot save themselves, etc), the better.

So when you claim that the ability for a character to have an opinion, specifically an opinion that you disagree with, is a waste of resources, I take some offense. 

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...
I'm fairly sure you can play as one in DAO, and there aren't really any atheists who are explicitly identified as such in-game aside from some DAO PCs and Morrigan.

There's no part of DA:O when you can call bull**** on the creators. That's what I'm getting at. I don't object to atheist options in-game - I'm happy to express my IRL views, after all - but this focus on the Chantry is actually ignoring the biggest source of actual pro-religious dogma in the setting, which are the Dalish views on the Creators. 

The Catholic Church parallels and rights abuses with the Chantry do a good job of showing the downside of organized religion - but the happy-go-lucky spiritual Dalish portrayal is, IMO, a rather big problem in terms of positive portrayals of atheism. 

[LobselVith8]

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Atheism has existed for centuries in the real world. It makes sense for the setting for people to express disbelief in the Maker and a higher power, especially for elves and mages who have every reason to have disdain for the organization and the religion that sacked their homeland. 

I'm still waiting to hear you complain about the complete lack of Dalish atheists. 

I didn't address a Dalish or Dwarven protagonist, but I'm more concerned with my agency over my character. Who, unfortunately (in Inquisition), is limited to a human with the Inquisitor. When racial options return, we can certainly revisit the issue.

Now, perhaps we should return to the topic at hand?

Modifié par LobselVith8, 04 juillet 2013 - 03:41 .

[BlueMagitek]

Ravensword wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

For certain characters, it may make sense.  But for others, I don't believe so much.  If nothing else, feigning belief would be the way it went.

But it wouldn't make sense for the PC who is an Inquisitor, right?

I have no idea how tied up to religion the Inquisitor would be.  From what I've gathered, the Inquisitor is allowed to express doubt, but not outright disbelief, so he is most likely going to have *some* belief, though I'm certain it will not be pro-Chantry.