1981 réponses à ce sujet

[nightscrawl]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Greater control over the protagonist would be ideal. Speaking of Dragon Age II and sexuality, it did remind me of how Hawke looks 'interested' in Isabela at the conclusion of her initial quest, which I imagine would be strange if the player is playing a gay Hawke, or for a player who thinks that his (or her) protagonist wouldn't have a romantic interest in Isabela.

I've actually never liked this (regardless of Hawke gender). I'm willing to fudge it and say it is just surprise to move on in my own play, but there is a small smile there, so the reaction seemed pleased more than surprised at Isabela's remark. If you really want to stretch it I suppose you can say that Hawke is simply flattered, but the automatic reaction assumes a great deal about our character that should be left to RP.

[David Gaider]

Gotholhorakh wrote...
Any character, belonging to any of us may view homosexuality in any way they like, from "mmmm lick my beard bro" to "ew GTFO *stab*", and it would be morally neutral for the human being to choose it for their PC, and morally neutral for the developer to offer it.

Not quite. There is an element of responsibility which we must assume-- just because a choice could conceivably be made doesn't mean we should provide it, no matter how "morally neutral" one might believe such choices to be. Certainly in the context of our world, such neutrality simply does not exist outside of a privileged viewpoint.

Insofar as homosexuality goes, I would never propose that players be forced into a position where they must react favorably to it-- not in a game where choice exists, anyhow-- but I'm also not going to offer an "ew GTFO *stab*" option, either. If someone's looking for that in the name of "roleplaying", they should probably look elsewhere.

[Gotholhorakh]

David Gaider wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...
Any character, belonging to any of us may view homosexuality in any way they like, from "mmmm lick my beard bro" to "ew GTFO *stab*", and it would be morally neutral for the human being to choose it for their PC, and morally neutral for the developer to offer it.

Not quite. There is an element of responsibility which we must assume-- just because a choice could conceivably be made doesn't mean we should provide it, no matter how "morally neutral" one might believe such choices to be. Certainly in the context of our world, such neutrality simply does not exist outside of a privileged viewpoint.

Well there we stray into worldviews or political views which not everybody agrees with - I'm not sure I want to get into the idea of "privilege" as things quickly get out into the woods - since it's your creation and obviously you have to sleep at night I guess that's who gets to ponder that.

I will say I don't think you need to put morally neutral in quotes there, because I don't think I ever saw a groundswell of people saying "you know those developers must be awful, awful people, because they let you just murder your friend".. I think if an onus develops to offer only "socially responsible" (eg politically correct or ideologically sound according to X) choices in RPGs in general then the genre is probably stuffed.

Insofar as homosexuality goes, I would never propose that players be forced into a position where they must react favorably to it-- not in a game where choice exists, anyhow-- but I'm also not going to offer an "ew GTFO *stab*" option, either. If someone's looking for that in the name of "roleplaying", they should probably look elsewhere.

I'm not sure how it follows that this particular thing is morally unconscionable when you can literally commit murder as you please in an RPG, but OK. Although I'm not invested in the romance aspect of the games as such and really prefer to ignore them, it seems like there are people who would be likely to pick either choice in the community, and that really the sticking point for both is that they just can't stand the other choice existing and never the twain shall meet.

My point WRT that "schism" is that people seriously shouldn't be seeing it as a moral judgment of development, or of other players that choices they just couldn't abide in real life, exist in role playing games.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 05 juillet 2013 - 06:09 .

[Lebanese Dude]

Some posters have the hubris to suggest that homosexuality is something that can be agreed upon. Disgusting.

As long as ignorant people like that exist, I'm glad Bioware is taking the "no opinion" path when dealing with the topic of homosexuality in game relationships. 

Seriously. Everyone with a fair mind knows slavery is wrong. That s why it is included in games. It's no longer being discussed in any world stage. People are free to experiment with it. 

This does not apply to homosexuality.

Modifié par Lebdood, 05 juillet 2013 - 06:35 .

[Il Divo]

David Gaider wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...
Any character, belonging to any of us may view homosexuality in any way they like, from "mmmm lick my beard bro" to "ew GTFO *stab*", and it would be morally neutral for the human being to choose it for their PC, and morally neutral for the developer to offer it.

Not quite. There is an element of responsibility which we must assume-- just because a choice could conceivably be made doesn't mean we should provide it, no matter how "morally neutral" one might believe such choices to be. Certainly in the context of our world, such neutrality simply does not exist outside of a privileged viewpoint.

Insofar as homosexuality goes, I would never propose that players be forced into a position where they must react favorably to it-- not in a game where choice exists, anyhow-- but I'm also not going to offer an "ew GTFO *stab*" option, either. If someone's looking for that in the name of "roleplaying", they should probably look elsewhere.

Still, if we're going down the responsibility route, what separates this from the other severely repugnant actions players have been able to commit in Dragon Age, as well as prior Bioware efforts? Genocide, stuffing souls into empty suits of armor, murder, general exploiting of the weak, etc. These are all pretty crazy things.to allow players to do, if we're worried about responsibility.  

That said, allowing for a homophobic character isn't on my priority list, so there's many other things I'd rather see Bioware work on than providing for every conceivable role-playing option.

[AlexanderCousland]

I really wouldn't call "GTFOH" a homophobic reaction to a Homosexual advance, the Stabbing bit is way extreme though. You should IMO be able have a positive or negative reaction to any advance Heterosexual or Homosexual, it would add a little bit more depth into the players perception of their own character (making him/her feel more "ours").

[Lebanese Dude]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

Lebdood wrote...

Some posters have the hubris to suggest that homosexuality is something that can be agreed upon. Disgusting.

As long as ignorant people like that exist, I'm glad Bioware is taking the "no opinion" path when dealing with the topic of homosexuality in game relationships. 

Seriously. Everyone with a fair mind knows slavery is wrong. That s why it is included in games. It's no longer being discussed in any world stage. People are free to experiment with it. 

This does not apply to homosexuality.

Yet you are free to enable slavery in both DAO and DA2.  Examples:  Giving Fenris back to Denarius.  Keeping the elven girl you save from the serial killer as a slave.  Letting the slaver in the elven alienage keep the slaves. 

Your point being?

First of all, slavery is one of the main topics Dragon Age is exploring in its fantasy setting. Thus you are free to roleplay someone being with or against it.

Racism, slavery, murder. These are ideas that are agreed upon by everyone (who isn't a colossal prig) to be reprehensible. Thus any video game company ( or any form of entertainment really) can use them for their own purposes since they are at no risk of offending anyone by providing these outlets in fantasy environments.

On the other hand, sexuality is STILL a hotly "debated" topic that involves segregating a specific portion of the human population with no logic or rationale behind it besides the "Ick Factor".  This is where the line is drawn.

As long as people have an issue with homosexuality, it is not responsible nor acceptable for a video game company to display it in any other light besides neutral or accepting. 

If you really seek to roleplay someone who has a problem with homosexuality, feel free to head-canon it. 

Modifié par Lebdood, 05 juillet 2013 - 07:06 .

[Lebanese Dude]

FreshIstay wrote...
You should IMO be able have a positive or negative reaction to any advance Heterosexual or Homosexual

Although this is logically fair-minded, it still would not be a good idea. Inaction should be considered the same as a negative reaction as long as sexuality is not a major topic being discussed in the dragon age universe.

[Maria Caliban]

FreshIstay wrote...

You should IMO be able have a positive or negative reaction to any advance Heterosexual or Homosexual...

I want to be an advance homosexual.

Like the Charizard form of lesbian.

[Xilizhra]

Maria Caliban wrote...

FreshIstay wrote...

You should IMO be able have a positive or negative reaction to any advance Heterosexual or Homosexual...

I want to be an advance homosexual.

Like the Charizard form of lesbian.

Shredded by rocks? I know that's less of a thing nowadays, but I'd say... Salamence, maybe. Salamence lesbian.

[Hazegurl]

Why would anyone want a stabbing action because a npc tells them they are into the same gender? Would you want a stab action every time you come across an npc of a different race? Sure one can argue about all the other things we get to do in the game but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Otherwise it's not even role playing anymore. It's just players using the game to express their own IRL issues.

[Gotholhorakh]

Hazegurl wrote...
Why would anyone want a stabbing action because a npc tells them they are into the same gender?

Holy smokes, batman! Neither option was being put forward literally, it was colourful exaggeration to make the point.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 05 juillet 2013 - 08:32 .

[AlexanderCousland]

Maria Caliban wrote...

FreshIstay wrote...

You should IMO be able have a positive or negative reaction to any advance Heterosexual or Homosexual...

I want to be an advance homosexual.

Like the Charizard form of lesbian.

Lame attempts at sarcasm<_<

[Blue Gloves]

Maria Caliban wrote...

FreshIstay wrote...

You should IMO be able have a positive or negative reaction to any advance Heterosexual or Homosexual...

I want to be an advance homosexual.

Like the Charizard form of lesbian.

you made me giggle.

[Battlebloodmage]

Maria Caliban wrote...

FreshIstay wrote...

You should IMO be able have a positive or negative reaction to any advance Heterosexual or Homosexual...

I want to be an advance homosexual.

Like the Charizard form of lesbian.

lol. 

[TheLastArchivist]

I believe Dragon Age Origins offered a wide range of sexual and friendship options. Of course, it's impossible for a game to include just about every genre of romance or sexual fetish the player wishes to experience in it, but regardless of the companion with which you got involved,you had a lot of liberty to choose how to make the relationship evolve.

For instance, people who were quite young, orthodox in their tastes or slightly asexual must've felt very confortable with Alistair, while people with kinky tastes or homosexual tendencies went for Zevran. They were both opposites in every way and the relationship you pursued with them was gratifying.

Another great trait of Origins was the option of having an exclusively sexual relationship with one of the characters (Zevran). Yes, some people feel only lust for each other and do not wish to lie to their partner solely to have access to the sex. With Zevran, you could admit your lust for him and not expect him to regret what he did and demand a compromise of love from you. The same goes for Morrigan, who was very practical due to her mission in the plot. She just couldn't delude herself with everlasting love or marriage.

Also, you had the liberty to say no to Leliana or Zevran if they tried to engage in a gay relationship with you and still not lose their friendship.

Which is why it's kinda difficult to understand why people create mods such as the one where no companions feel jealous if you pursue more than one relationship. Being able to deal with feelings and choices where someone else's feelings are concerned, even the ones of a virtual character, is to be expected when you engage in a mature relationship. I guess people who appeal to this sort of "trick", in order to date whoever they want without consequences (a.k.a. hearing the enraged complaint of a companion who knows they're being betrayed by the Warden with another one) never had to deal with this choice in real life, otherwise they would see it is quite unnecessary.

In Dragon Age 2, the romance was not quite as developed. And things were kind of hurried for most characters (except for Fenris or Isabela. You can see the relationship with them evolving slowly, in the right rythm). Right in Act 1, Anders already makes a pass at you and, if you reject him, he feels enraged. This was something that Bioware really should avoid in the future. Many people wanted the romance with him to evolve just as naturally as it did with Fenris, for example, in order to savour the small moments of conquest, but were frustrated. With Anders, the sensation was that he was meant to be your LI, regardless of the choices you made in the game. He seemed forced upon Hawke, instead of being someone who slowly sees your qualities and begins to consider you for his LI.

This is something to be taken into consideration in the future, when the romance options in DA: Inquisition are created. People fall in love with other with people who have personality and an established character. And they always want the sensation that they conquered that person. Otherwise, there's no game of conquest and the romance is merely taken for granted.

Modifié par LegendofKirkwall, 07 juillet 2013 - 04:50 .

[Exaltation]

I hope DAI will include same sex relationship,anyhow there always will be modders to make our dreams come true lol.

[Fredward]

Whoooooooo threadomancy whoooooo...!

[Jestina]

Attraction should be defined when a character is made. I don't like when attractions are changed from game to game just to pander players. Playing a male character, I got ninja'd by Zev in DA:O and then Kaidan drops a bombshell on my male character in ME3. The Kaidan one was handled so badly, my renegade character should have had the punch him in the face option. It's like my male character can't have male friends, because I don't want to accidentally step on an option that triggers romance.

[Fredward]

^ I'm curious, how was Kaidan's handled badly?

[Jestina]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
^ I'm curious, how was Kaidan's handled badly?

If you're friendly with Kaidan, you go have a meal with him and he dumps it on you. I don't recall any mention of it being a date...until it was bombshelled on my character. I was like...WHOA, where did he get this impression of my Shep at? Why didn't I just leave this creepo on Virmire? My male Sheps almost always stay single and tiptoe through the romance minefield, but sometimes you accidently step on a mine.