1220 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Silfren wrote...

You must be new here.  Not sidelining those of us who aren't white straight male gamers is using your game to make a political statement, and that's just contemptible.  Catering to the Approved Status Quo, however, is NOT making any kind of a statement and it's totally okay.

I really don't see what that has to do with anything here? It's a little depressing that someone so apparently dedicated to egalitarianism is quick to stereotype anyone who disagrees with them.

Maybe you should consider my post in context, then.  You'd see exactly what it is has to do with.

[Kalas Magnus]

sure why not. 

although, id prefer biower forcuses more on the gameplay

Modifié par Kalas Magnus, 07 septembre 2013 - 05:22 .

[DaringMoosejaw]

Royal-Archer wrote...

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If we must have openly ******/bisexual characters in a medieval world, then can they at least all be playersexual, so that it can be left to the player's discretion? (except in cases like Sebastian -- it makes sense that only a female Hawke could romance him. The others you could at least somewhat believe.)

For example; if I have a male Hawke who romances Merrill and/or Isabela exclusively, then Fenris and Anders are both heterosexuals in my game. It is fine for someone else to pursue same-sex romances, but it doesn't take place in my game. . therefore I don't view those characters as bisexual simply because the option is presented. Obviously I understand characters that are actually sexually explorative/immoral (based on your point of view), like Isabela and Zevran, but characters like Leliana or Fenris should definitely be left to the player's discretion. (which they really were, and I like that)

So, in my game it doesn't take place and in your game it does. Everyone's happy, and we don't have to restrict a video game character to something unnecessarily "realistic."

I really do feel that is the best way to make everyone happy in this situation. :/ 

The main reasoning I see which I can understand, at least from the straight male point of view, is that even if it only happens once - a guy friend of yours hitting on you, and you having to turn him down, sort of makes everything afterward extremely awkward. I even feel the same way when I have to, in game, turn down female friends as well.

A way to avoid this is to make it so those 'heart' options that trigger romances are entirely initiated by the player - if you don't pick it, it's never brought up. In DA:II, just being nice to Anders without picking the heart options will get you to a spot where you /have/ to turn him down if you don't want to pursue a relationship with him. I even recall a dialogue with Fenris, after you give him the book, he tells you he can't read. You have an option to tell him hey, I could help you - but it's a flirt option, otherwise you have to tell him he's on his own there which I think is a shame. Sometimes the non-flirt option isn't even friendly.

[werewoof]

Royal-Archer wrote...

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If we must have openly ******/bisexual characters in a medieval world, then can they at least all be playersexual, so that it can be left to the player's discretion? (except in cases like Sebastian -- it makes sense that only a female Hawke could romance him. The others you could at least somewhat believe.)

For example; if I have a male Hawke who romances Merrill and/or Isabela exclusively, then Fenris and Anders are both heterosexuals in my game. It is fine for someone else to pursue same-sex romances, but it doesn't take place in my game. . therefore I don't view those characters as bisexual simply because the option is presented. Obviously I understand characters that are actually sexually explorative/immoral (based on your point of view), like Isabela and Zevran, but characters like Leliana or Fenris should definitely be left to the player's discretion. (which they really were, and I like that)

So, in my game it doesn't take place and in your game it does. Everyone's happy, and we don't have to restrict a video game character to something unnecessarily "realistic."

I really do feel that is the best way to make everyone happy in this situation. :/ 

maybe this isnt what you're getting at but this really comes off just as "i'm uncomfortable with sexualities aside from my own and i want to be able to hide them because i dont wanna get hit on by icky ****** anders" or whatever

i say this because i see it a lot, can we have a homosexual content toggle, can we not have queer characters flirt with you, can we blah blah blah 

turning down advances is awkward but the desire to erase any sexuality but your own because it bothers you to see the implications of it is downright selfish

[Vivienne de Fer]

Kalas Magnus wrote...

just make everyone playersexual. problem solved.

Royal-Archer approves +50

Seriously, guys. Stop complaining about how video games aren't catered to you and how "straight male gamers" are the root of all evil. The playersexual thing gives everyone a chance to pursue whatever romance they want to with whatever character they want to. You're not being limited. Making it realistic to modern life is not making it realistic to a medieval fantasy setting, and making it realistic at all in this aspect is just silly. Everyone just be happy sheesh xD

maybe this isnt what you're getting at but this really comes off just as "i'm uncomfortable with sexualities aside from my own and i want to be able to hide them because i dont wanna get hit on by icky ****** anders" or whatever

i say this because i see it a lot, can we have a homosexual content toggle, can we not have queer characters flirt with you, can we blah blah blah 

turning down advances is awkward but the desire to erase any sexuality but your own because it bothers you to see the implications of it is downright selfish

I'm sorry? lol

What I was presenting was what I feel as a solution. Some people want one thing, others want another thing; and saying one opinion is better than another is not equality. 

Modifié par Royal-Archer, 07 septembre 2013 - 05:28 .

[DaringMoosejaw]

tiktac wrote...

hence why i avoided saying white in mine but that being said you cant deny that this industry is heavily, disproportionately geared towards white straight males and everyone else just gets the scraps. just look at how many of the people disagreeing with more s/s LI's and LI's aimed at women are just doing so because they're so used to video games being made for them and them only that the mere existence of something they arent personally interested in or sexually attracted to showing up in their game offends them.

Straight males, sure, in the context you're bringing up I can see as we're talking about sexual oritentation and the guy is referencing a female LI. White, however, has nothing to do with sexual orientation in this conversation. Disproportionately white characters in the industry I can certainly agree with as being a problem, but what basis does that have here?

Modifié par DaringMoosejaw, 07 septembre 2013 - 05:30 .

[DaringMoosejaw]

Silfren wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Silfren wrote...

You must be new here.  Not sidelining those of us who aren't white straight male gamers is using your game to make a political statement, and that's just contemptible.  Catering to the Approved Status Quo, however, is NOT making any kind of a statement and it's totally okay.

I really don't see what that has to do with anything here? It's a little depressing that someone so apparently dedicated to egalitarianism is quick to stereotype anyone who disagrees with them.

Maybe you should consider my post in context, then.  You'd see exactly what it is has to do with.

Did. Still don't see what race has to do with it. Sexual orientation, gender? Sure. Is there a problem in the gaming industry with too many white characters and not enough viewpoints from different cultures? Sure. But why does someone against options for people with different orientations have to be white? Maybe I'm misconstruing your intent, but I can't read it differently from what I've read.

Modifié par DaringMoosejaw, 07 septembre 2013 - 05:29 .

[Vivienne de Fer]

Morocco Mole wrote...

player sexuality doesn't create anything. There are no "true" gay characters, or straight, or bi and it makes characters far less defined as characters because a vital part of their personality (their sexuality) is decided by your gender.

This argument is just silly. What on earth does this particular feature (asigning each character a sexuality for the sake of diversity) add to the game? Is leaving it up to the player's preference really that bad?

[Silfren]

hhh89 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

Player sexuality is terrible.

What Bioware should do is give equal representation to all sexualities

.....and the easiest way to do that is by making the LIs playersexual.  This is literally the only realistic way to even attempt equal representation.

Why would having 6 LI (2 hetero, 2 homosexual and 4 bisexual) will not rapresent equal rappresentation.
While I do prefer the approach I mentioned, I don't mind DA2's approach. I'm just curious of the reason you believe the former is not a good approach to rapresent equality.

For personal reasons, I object to the idea that having x number of of hetero-, bi-, and homosexual options somehow totally represents all sexualities.  It doesn't, because sexuality isn't something that can be neatly sliced into three separate types.  If we assume that the ultimate goal is maximum representation, that ain't gonna cut it by a long shot.  
However I should stress that I hardly think that Bioware's aim should be to include every possible sexual permutation in its characters.  This is just my reaction to the idea that 2 each of three flavors is somehow the perfect solution because it totally covers everybody.  

As far as I can tell, the goal seems to be making the game as accessible as possible to players' preferred way of playing.  In terms of who can romance which LI and how, this is best achieved through the playersexual concept.  

[dragondreamer]

I *still* haven't properly romanced either Alistair or Morrigan, not because I don't want to, but because the Wardens I've had with the best chemistry with either were gated out because A&M were heterosexual romance only. So far my Wardens keep ending up with Zevran (sometimes when I didn't even romance anyone), and thankfully he's awesome, but I still wish I'd had more choices. It's also unfortunate that the heterosexual LIs were also the ones with the most plot significance. I found DA2 much more enjoyable where romance was concerned.

[Shadow Fox]

Royal-Archer wrote...

Kalas Magnus wrote...

just make everyone playersexual. problem solved.

Royal-Archer approves +50

Seriously, guys. Stop complaining about how video games aren't catered to you and how "straight male gamers" are the root of all evil. The playersexual thing gives everyone a chance to pursue whatever romance they want to with whatever character they want to. You're not being limited. Making it realistic to modern life is not making it realistic to a medieval fantasy setting, and making it realistic at all in this aspect is just silly. Everyone just be happy sheesh xD

maybe this isnt what you're getting at but this really comes off just as "i'm uncomfortable with sexualities aside from my own and i want to be able to hide them because i dont wanna get hit on by icky ****** anders" or whatever

i say this because i see it a lot, can we have a homosexual content toggle, can we not have queer characters flirt with you, can we blah blah blah 

turning down advances is awkward but the desire to erase any sexuality but your own because it bothers you to see the implications of it is downright selfish

I'm sorry? lol

What I was presenting was what I feel as a solution. Some people want one thing, others want another thing; and saying one opinion is better than another is not equality. 

Dragon Age was never that in the slightest.

[Angrywolves]

I hope posters will be careful and tolerant of divergent views so we can keep the thread from getting locked.
Doesn't sound like me, does it ?
rotfl.
I didn't like the way it was done with DA2.
There should be some straight , some gay, some bi.
Not going to be perfect for everybody.

[Vivienne de Fer]

Morocco Mole wrote...

This argument is just silly. What on earth does this particular feature (asigning each character a sexuality for the sake of diversity) add to the game? Is leaving it up to the player's preference really that bad?

Because it is assigning character's a token sexuality for the sake of diversity.

Which caters to a specific type of player only. Instead of making everyone happy, letting everyone play the game the way they want to, we put resources into actively denying players' aspects of the romance feature in the game?

[Silfren]

Royal-Archer wrote...

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If we must have openly ******/bisexual characters in a medieval world, then can they at least all be playersexual, so that it can be left to the player's discretion? (except in cases like Sebastian -- it makes sense that only a female Hawke could romance him. The others you could at least somewhat believe.)

And now I'm going to say it again: the implication that people being something other than straight somehow does not make sense if the setting is allegedly medieval, is the most idiotic objection there is.  Non-straight people have ALWAYS existed, they didn't spring into existence in modern times.  Also, Dragon Age is not the real world medieval period.  Thinking that a fictional medieval setting MUST follow a real-world track is about as fallacious as it gets, and also shows that the people making this argument don't know the first damn thing about the DA universe.

Modifié par Silfren, 07 septembre 2013 - 05:38 .

[Statare]

I'm torn on the issue. On one hand, player-sexual LIs offer more opportunity for more types of people. On the other hand, a player-sexual LI tends not as deep as a pre-determined sexuality. Kaidan, for example, was way more boring than Cortez.

Yet, I know some people who did not feel right romancing Cortez (his back story and the probable fate of Shepard made the relationship feel a little cruel). So, if there is only one LI for certain sexualities, you could be left out of the loop if for some reason you don't like that LI. While player sexual-romances open more doors than they close, you could easily end up with romances that seem bland and uninspired.

As these are romances, it should be about whether you like the character or not, hence why having only 1 option for certain sexualities is terrible and reduces a possibly intriguing story to simply being about sex. Having a few well written player-sexual options can be a way to alleviate the possible pigeonhole problem and allow exclusive sexualities to be written.

In my opinion, player-sexual LIs can be empowering. But even so, Zevran and Isabela were more empowering because they were written to be bisexual/bi-amorous. Traynor and Cortez were more empowering because they were written to be gay. Anders/Fenris and Merrill seemed so neutral, but you could easily chose which LI fit your interests and that choice was empowering.

Also... it's a little unreasonable to want to hide a sexuality you do not identify with from being expressed in a game. How often do women have to turn down the advances by men they may not be into? How often do gay men have to turn down flirts from ladies? Pretty often, more so for women. It is an issue of straight-male privilege to assume that they should be able to turn off the possible awkwardness of being hit on by gay men because more often than not that character is flirting with female characters who may very well not be into it. It's hypocritical to not want someone else to do what you would do. Straight men are not always instigators and should not feel entitled to initiate. A little awkwardness is innevitable when dealing with other people.

Modifié par Statare, 07 septembre 2013 - 05:44 .

[DaringMoosejaw]

Royal-Archer wrote...

Which caters to a specific type of player only. Instead of making everyone happy, letting everyone play the game the way they want to, we put resources into actively denying players' aspects of the romance feature in the game?

I don't mean to patronize you, but you're not going to get anywhere with this guy. He's here for his own amusement.

[Shadow Fox]

Silfren wrote...

Royal-Archer wrote...

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If we must have openly ******/bisexual characters in a medieval world, then can they at least all be playersexual, so that it can be left to the player's discretion? (except in cases like Sebastian -- it makes sense that only a female Hawke could romance him. The others you could at least somewhat believe.)

And now I'm going to say it again: the implication that people being something other than straight somehow does not make sense if the setting is allegedly medieval, is the most idiotic objection there is.  Non-straight people have ALWAYS existed, they didn't spring into existence in modern times.  Also, Dragon Age is not the real world medieval period.  Thinking that a fictional medieval setting MUST follow a real-world track is about as fallacious as it gets, and also shows that the people making this argument don't know the first damn thing about the DA universe.

Plus wasn't homosexuality accepted in Greece and Rome?

[sandalisthemaker]

Silfren wrote...

Royal-Archer wrote...

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If we must have openly ******/bisexual characters in a medieval world, then can they at least all be playersexual, so that it can be left to the player's discretion? (except in cases like Sebastian -- it makes sense that only a female Hawke could romance him. The others you could at least somewhat believe.)

And now I'm going to say it again: the implication that people being something other than straight somehow does not make sense if the setting is allegedly medieval, is the most idiotic objection there is.  Non-straight people have ALWAYS existed, they didn't spring into existence in modern times.  Also, Dragon Age is not the real world medieval period.  Thinking that a fictional medieval setting MUST follow a real-world track is about as fallacious as it gets, and also shows that the people making this argument don't know the first damn thing about the DA universe.

This.
Since the dawn of human civilization, there have been homosexual individuals, in roughly the same percentages of the population as there are today.

Modifié par sandalisthemaker, 07 septembre 2013 - 05:46 .

[werewoof]

Royal-Archer wrote...

Kalas Magnus wrote...

just make everyone playersexual. problem solved.

Royal-Archer approves +50

Seriously, guys. Stop complaining about how video games aren't catered to you and how "straight male gamers" are the root of all evil. The playersexual thing gives everyone a chance to pursue whatever romance they want to with whatever character they want to. You're not being limited. Making it realistic to modern life is not making it realistic to a medieval fantasy setting, and making it realistic at all in this aspect is just silly. Everyone just be happy sheesh xD

maybe this isnt what you're getting at but this really comes off just as "i'm uncomfortable with sexualities aside from my own and i want to be able to hide them because i dont wanna get hit on by icky ****** anders" or whatever

i say this because i see it a lot, can we have a homosexual content toggle, can we not have queer characters flirt with you, can we blah blah blah 

turning down advances is awkward but the desire to erase any sexuality but your own because it bothers you to see the implications of it is downright selfish

I'm sorry? lol

What I was presenting was what I feel as a solution. Some people want one thing, others want another thing; and saying one opinion is better than another is not equality. 

yeah and i do see the playersexual thing as a solution as well, but not in the same way. not because heterosexist straight men deserve the opportunity to hide the scary queer content and ignore it, they don't, if they're that offended by the existence of something other than their own identity then thats their problem and bioware shouldnt waste time trying to hold their lil hands through the scary things. 

furthermore -

"stop complaining that video games aren't catered to you" - it's not that they aren't catered to us, its that we're usually cut out altogether. our mere existence is an affront to a lot of the gaming community.

"Making it realistic to modern life is not making it realistic to a medieval fantasy setting, and making it realistic at all in this aspect is just silly." - pretty goddamn sure there weren't dragons and elves in medeival settings either but hey, realism is delightfully subjective to what straight dudes are most comfortable with in their video games, aint it? 

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

tiktac wrote...

hence why i avoided saying white in mine but that being said you cant deny that this industry is heavily, disproportionately geared towards white straight males and everyone else just gets the scraps. just look at how many of the people disagreeing with more s/s LI's and LI's aimed at women are just doing so because they're so used to video games being made for them and them only that the mere existence of something they arent personally interested in or sexually attracted to showing up in their game offends them.

Straight males, sure, in the context you're bringing up I can see as we're talking about sexual oritentation and the guy is referencing a female LI. White, however, has nothing to do with sexual orientation in this conversation. Disproportionately white characters in the industry I can certainly agree with as being a problem, but what basis does that have here?

i assume they meant that it's all part of the larger problem. the industry is run mostly by white straight males and aimed at white straight males. while this topic isn't about race specifically, it still plays into the power dynamic of the industry and the society it's trying to cater to. 

Modifié par tiktac, 07 septembre 2013 - 05:51 .

[Vivienne de Fer]

Silfren wrote...

Royal-Archer wrote...

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If we must have openly ******/bisexual characters in a medieval world, then can they at least all be playersexual, so that it can be left to the player's discretion? (except in cases like Sebastian -- it makes sense that only a female Hawke could romance him. The others you could at least somewhat believe.)

And now I'm going to say it again: the implication that people being something other than straight somehow does not make sense if the setting is allegedly medieval, is the most idiotic objection there is.  Non-straight people have ALWAYS existed, they didn't spring into existence in modern times.  Also, Dragon Age is not the real world medieval period.  Thinking that a fictional medieval setting MUST follow a real-world track is about as fallacious as it gets, and also shows that the people making this argument don't know the first damn thing about the DA universe.

Let's keep things on topic. We're not debating anything other than whether or not love interests in a video game should be open to everyone or actively closed off.

[Statare]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Royal-Archer wrote...

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If we must have openly ******/bisexual characters in a medieval world, then can they at least all be playersexual, so that it can be left to the player's discretion? (except in cases like Sebastian -- it makes sense that only a female Hawke could romance him. The others you could at least somewhat believe.)

And now I'm going to say it again: the implication that people being something other than straight somehow does not make sense if the setting is allegedly medieval, is the most idiotic objection there is.  Non-straight people have ALWAYS existed, they didn't spring into existence in modern times.  Also, Dragon Age is not the real world medieval period.  Thinking that a fictional medieval setting MUST follow a real-world track is about as fallacious as it gets, and also shows that the people making this argument don't know the first damn thing about the DA universe.

Plus wasn't homosexuality accepted in Greece and Rome?

Whether our modern notions of sexuality existed in the past is a matter of philosphical debate and brings to mind scholars like Foucault.

The argument that because homosexuality wasn't as visible in the middle ages and thus should not be in a game like DA is a poor argument because sexualtiy was taboo in general in our past. DA is not trying to be like the middle ages or your character would have to get married before having sex and viewing sex as a pleasurable act and not a reproductive necessity would be frowned upon. Technically in the middle ages, having sex for pleasure and not for the purpose of making a baby was sodomy.

DA is not about roleplaying we are characters in Europe during the Middle Ages. We are humans, elves, dwarves, or qunari living in the fantastical world of Thedas with it's own cpncepts of sexuality that more reflect our modern notions than notions from our past.

Modifié par Statare, 07 septembre 2013 - 05:52 .