252 réponses à ce sujet

[Battlebloodmage]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Good for you guys.

[Battlebloodmage]

krul2k wrote...

wasnt the issue with SWTOR not bioware but lucasarts at the time? no sure but didnt they say there "was no gay" in star wars or some crap like that, and wouldnt the issue now be Disney (if there is a issue) and the fact if they have or have not a issue with the issue of there being an issue on the issue hahaha uhum sorry

Nope, there was a lesbian only romance in Knight of the old Republic series, and there is already a gay couple in the game. Speaking of which, George Lucas is a proponent of gay rights, and he had donated money several times already. Disney is pretty pro-gay in their policy like with gay days at Disneyland, and Marvel as one of their subsidiary has several gay characters in it. I think the SWTOR team just didn't want to risk adding gay characters with such a big project.  

[Battlebloodmage]

krul2k wrote...

Battlebloodmage wrote...

krul2k wrote...

wasnt the issue with SWTOR not bioware but lucasarts at the time? no sure but didnt they say there "was no gay" in star wars or some crap like that, and wouldnt the issue now be Disney (if there is a issue) and the fact if they have or have not a issue with the issue of there being an issue on the issue hahaha uhum sorry

Nope, there was a lesbian only romance in Knight of the old Republic series, and there is already a gay couple in the game. Speaking of which, George Lucas is a proponent of gay rights, and he had donated money several times already. Disney is pretty pro-gay in their policy like with gay days at Disneyland, and Marvel as one of their subsidiary has several gay characters in it. I think the SWTOR team just didn't want to risk adding gay characters with such a big project.  

strikes me as bloody wierd then m8, never knew the reasons they was never added in swtor tbh, just assumed it was something out of there hands, but with ya saying it wasnt well as i said strikes me as wierd

Like I said in an earlier post, it has to do with the teams. The general assumption is that all Bioware games are made by the same people and that's why if ME sucks, it's the fault of Bioware as a whole, and somehow Dragon Age series must suck as well by associations when the 2 series are made by 2 different teams. It's just kinda ridiculous that when people claim they refuse to buy DAI because of ME3 ending. What does one have to do with the other besides the name brand? In the end, the decision to not add gay relationship has to do with the risks and the decisions made by the SWTOR team which has nothing to do with LucasArts or DA teams. Who knows? Maybe because Bioware Austin is based in Texas, and their thinking is more conservative. This is an assumption on my part of course, so it may or may not be true. 

Modifié par Battlebloodmage, 13 août 2013 - 12:09 .

[devSin]

Filament wrote...

Well, except when he tells you about Karl and all. I just have to disagree that the line was not meant as flirtation given the context and his character.

Karl is not even mentioned until after the supposed flirtation.

And at this point in the game, I truly am not aware what context you're referring to. We just killed Karl, returned, and now he's speaking of Justice. Hawke has the option to be supportive ("we can't always know the consequences of our actions, we can only make them with a true heart"—which is about Anders allowing Justice to possess him), at which point Anders suggests that Hawke also has a soft heart under that gruff exterior ("hey, you're a softie too!"). The conversation immediately breaks as Anders apologizes for being presumptuous and then asks if he's making Hawke uncomfortable.

And he's not. He's really not. But you instead have to give a nonsensical response that doesn't seem to address what's being asked (and if it was intended that another question is actually being asked, then it should not have been expressed so poorly).

Filament wrote...

All this seems contingent on your understanding that no flirting was involved. Your paraphrasing of his flirtation makes BioWare's paraphrasing seem tame, but that is essentially the better interpretation, I think.

I don't understand what you're suggesting here, as far as anybody's "paraphrasing" goes.

The paraphrase for Hawke's response is either "Yes." or "No." (and one other one that I don't remember). The actual line is "I don't want you thinking about me like that!" or "Am I making you uncomfortable?" (the latter with a clear implication of some man-love). (Although I don't know the paraphrase, the third was "Doesn't mean I want you to stop".)

I'm not sure how either of those are relevant to the question "Am I making you uncomfortable?" and I dispute that they even make any sense.

Filament wrote...

Still, it's true that if you were able to take an alternative understanding, then your Hawke should be able to express that obliviousness too. I guess you could call that bad writing, but I understand that writers can't account for everything players might want their PC to express. And I guess they thought it was obvious enough here what was going on.

I don't think it's an unreasonable interpretation given the actual conversation, and I think it's an instance where they should have been more careful (and literally no other companion has ever done this—not Zevran or Fenris or Isabela or anybody).

Modifié par devSin, 13 août 2013 - 12:31 .

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Foshizzlin wrote...

I love how a thread on BSN about gamer panels becomes a discussion about gay rights and gay presence in video games.

Instead of, y'know, the actual topic of the thread.

Welcome to life.

[devSin]

Filament wrote...

But why does he think he's making Hawke uncomfortable? Because he realizes he has just made a possibly untoward advance. He may be overly self-conscious in this regard, in your opinion, but him pointing it out to Hawke can be seen as revelatory in itself (ie no such advance would have been perceived had he not mentioned it, but because he did, now Hawke knows).

Truthfully, because I think it's copy/pasted from some other context where it makes more sense (perhaps from the female track).

It seems more to be put in there as a way to eject from the conversation before having to hear anything gay (that's what it comes across as).

And even if he did make an advance, the way the responses are expressed is just not adequate. What if I don't mind that he thinks that way about me? You either have to lead him on (since it's not really qualified in any clear way where your discomfort is supposed to be) or act like it's somehow offensive (again, this may be a case of really bad adaptation from the female track).

And more importantly, the expression has nothing to do with romance or flirtation. He simply goes on to tell you how Karl was his first and it was an important bond to him. You have the opportunity to flirt later, but this instance does nothing to advnace any sort of romantic interest.

Filament wrote...

Maybe.

I think truly.

My most generous assessment without knowing all of the possible permutations was that Jennifer wanted to have her cake and eat it too. She wanted Anders to make the advance, but she didn't want to scare off the straight players, and what she ended up with is something that fails in both respects.

To me, that's the lesson to take from Anders. If you're going to flirt, then flirt. I could have easily dealt with the option of telling him to step off if he made a pass at me, but when it's presented as simple validation of homosexuality (which I admit is heavily dependent on interpretation, but still something I think could and should have been avoided), it's another thing entirely.

Modifié par devSin, 13 août 2013 - 12:54 .

[berelinde]

At this point, I think the devs are aware of the issues people took with the way same-sex content was initiated in DA2. David seemed to imply that going forward, the protagonist will need to show interest to see more content. What I liked about his phrasing was that it could be applied to any orientation. He made it less about orientation and more about comfort level. I like that.

[MarchWaltz]

phunx wrote...

Why is gay toggle a horrible idea?

1. Gays (and other minorities) have been ignored and pushed to the side for a really long time. It's just an in-game way of doing so; it's not there, if I don't see it - out of sight, out of mind.

2. Toggle is like a switch, it suggest there are 2 possible sexualites: straight and gay. That is, as we all know, not true. Erases bisexuals and others with fluid sexualities.

3. It's just flat out insulting.

I see it as an immersion idea. There is no "toggle" in real life...I accidently hit on homosexual women and been hit on by homosexual men. I did not have my "toggle" on or off.

Yes, it is a game, but still. If you do not like getting hit on by your opposite sex, just say no and move on to saving the world.

[devSin]

Filament wrote...

I don't really see either "Am I making you uncomfortable?" or "I don't want you thinking of me that way" to be very problematic. In fact, take away the heart icon and the first option could very well be interpreted to fit a character who actually doesn't know what the heck Anders is talking about, and deflects the question with humor. The second answer is also fine (again, we are assuming the advance was made here), even if he doesn't appreciate it.

If you ignore context, sure. But isn't that what you're accusing me of doing?

I can force any number of interpretations on it that wouldn't be troublesome. Which is fine, if the conversation is "how not to be bothered by something", but it's not what I was intending to discuss.

Filament wrote...

I think you're one of the few who has ever come out with this peculiar understanding of this dialog scenario. Most people stop at "I don't like having to be so rude" or "ew gay." They don't deny that he was flirting altogether. Yes, he was subtle about it. I maintain that that's just his personality. Perhaps the real issue here is "I don't like characters like that." ie characters who make oblique, context dependent comments and are easily offended.

I've never really paid much attention to the discussion about it in the past, but this is how it felt to me at the time. (I don't deny that he was intended to have flirted, but I don't think he was actually successfully shown to have flirted—which is why it always boils down to a poorly constructed exchange.)

I don't believe it's an issue of personality, unless you're referring to Hawke's personality. I don't think any of those responses were appropriate to respond to someone who made "oblique, context-dependent comments", and especially somebody who was "easily offended" (I suppose you could label it as a variation of "I don't like having to be so rude", though I find more issue with the other two responses). It would likely have been fine if Jennifer had qualified the question "Does it bother you if (say something about me finding you attractive or whatever)?" opposed to "Am I making you uncomfortable?" (so again: poorly constructed).

Modifié par devSin, 13 août 2013 - 01:43 .

[devSin]

Filament wrote...

So it would have been fine if he had been more direct in his question... like I said.

No, it just needed to feel as though the question being answered was the one actually being asked.

In any event, I guess it doesn't really matter if the remarks being attributed to David are accurate.

Modifié par devSin, 13 août 2013 - 02:02 .

[ElitePinecone]

Battlebloodmage wrote...
Who knows? Maybe because Bioware Austin is based in Texas, and their thinking is more conservative. This is an assumption on my part of course, so it may or may not be true. 

Uh. Almost all of SWTOR's senior leadership right through its development were originally Bioware Edmonton employees who had worked on KOTOR and Bioware's earlier games. The Austin studio was seeded by employees who had been in the company in Canada for a long time already. 

Reading between the lines it sounds like the studio simply didn't have the time, the resources or the money to implement same-sex romances in the base game (or, they believed the amount of time/money/resources it would take to achieve them wasn't worth it). It's no less disappointing as a consumer, but to claim that it's some sort of deliberate snub out of prejudice is going a bit far. 

People making a game do need to make money, and if the costs of producing a whole bunch of same-sex content for eight separate characters were considered too high to justify the investment, that's their perogative as a development studio. It did mean I lost interest in the game quite quickly, but the initial absence of s/s content has to be put into perspective.

[Xilizhra]

How could it possibly be a significant cost? Just do the same thing DA2 did. Star Wars is a space fantasy society, no one's going to be bothered by homosexuality not being an issue unless they just dislike it personally.

[ElitePinecone]

The impression I got is that they were struggling to cope with the amount of work required for romances and companion dialogue generally, for eight protagonists, though we'll probably never be entirely clear about the decision-making process involved in the initial absence of s/s.

It's really easy to say that it wouldn't be a huge cost if they just made every companion open to both genders as in DA2, but this clearly isn't what they decided to do, and isn't what happened. If their intention was to design unique romance arcs for the same-gender romances, it would've required an amount of time and work that - in hindsight - couldn't be done (or wasn't a priority) in the development of the base game.

Given that they *didn't* go with the DA2 option, creating a new companion character to use in a same-gender romance arc is - according to Bioware - quite a bit of extra work once the game has already shipped.

The fact that they didn't take a relatively cheaper DA2-style option during development of having some/all of the companions open to both genders doesn't *at all* imply that there was a deliberate shafting of s/s romances - it could mean the team's preference was for unique arcs with unique characters, and they didn't have the time or resources to do this effectively.

Ultimately we don't actually know the reasoning, but I think assuming that the team should've gone with a DA2-style system is a bit premature. For all we know they examined such a system and rejected it entirely. There are arguments to be made against it, after all (which we've heard ad nauseum).

[Xilizhra]

I still consider it inexcusable enough that I won't play the game... although were there ever any added in later updates?

[ElitePinecone]

That was its own controversy, unfortunately.

Bioware Austin were in the unenviable position of having to produce *something* to satisfy people who were (entirely justifiably) upset at the lack of s/s romances more than a year after launch, but couldn't commit to actually making a companion romance arc in a reasonable timeframe. I don't know if people wanted/expected s/s with existing characters (which I guess would involve tweaking every romance plot in the game) or entirely new ones, but it sounds like making new companion romances (even if they're new companions) is a heck of a lot more difficult than just doing it from the outset while the game is still in development.

Ultimately it's a problem of their own making, and whatever the actual original reasoning for not including SGRAs in SWTOR, I don't think it was necessarily handled in the best way. The press for Makeb was pretty scathing, fairly or unfairly, and I think (at the very least) fans who bought SWTOR could continue to feel disappointed in the progress of s/s content nearly two years after launch.

The process Bioware goes through would (I think) be quite different for each dev team, as David pointed out at the conference, but I think there are some interesting insights when comparing how the DA, ME and SWTOR teams have all approached including s/s romances (and s/s characters more generally, even).

[Xilizhra]

Well, if this game is still being developed, I suppose it's not completely beyond redemption, though I see no reason to believe that they had good reasons for not including s/s content to begin with unless they fully explain the thought process behind this.