1220 réponses à ce sujet

[Paul E Dangerously]

greengoron89 wrote...
Also, Jacob always sucked as a character. Stereotypical "token black guy." Where is the outcry over that?

I liked Jacob. He's a geniunely nice guy in a game where most of your other party members are brooding, violent, or standoffish.

[Ryzaki]

Steelcan wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

What, you guys think you won or something?  
I'll catch you lot when the next thread pops up. 

We united to drive out David, thats a victory

Indeed.

Why he keeps coming to this forum yet refuses to play the game baffles me.

[Hellion Rex]

greengoron89 wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

What, you guys think you won or something?  
I'll catch you lot when the next thread pops up. 

We look forward to it. Cheers.

Same to you. Thank you for a very interesting night.

[sandalisthemaker]

greengoron89 wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

What, you guys think you won or something?  
I'll catch you lot when the next thread pops up. 

We look forward to it. Cheers.

Hahahaha

Peace out, all.

Modifié par sandalisthemaker, 08 septembre 2013 - 05:36 .

[werewoof]

greengoron89 wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

What, you guys think you won or something?  
I'll catch you lot when the next thread pops up. 

We look forward to it. Cheers.

see yall next time, it's been an entertaining night 

[wsandista]

Taste the sexy.

[andrew252]

i can post links in these threads right?

[Former_Fiend]

This thread moves too fast. I go to the john, come back and find it's jumped four pages and Davy Boy's run off.

[David7204]

Conversation is entertaining. This nonsense is just tedious.

[andrew252]

Filament wrote...

devSin wrote...

That seems an extremely lopsided argument to try to make when you have nothing to gain by playing something other than what you are

I would say there is a heck of a lot to gain by playing characters who aren't yourself in an RPG. There is(/can/should be) a ton of content that is restricted based on "who you are." Laidlaw even recentlyindicated a philosophy shift where this sort of content is A Good Thing and not something to be avoided, with respect to race specifically. Yet we've decided romance content shouldn't be part of that category.

Sure, it's also about representation.

But I don't see any way for a gay person to play a gay character in your scenario where you couldn't just say "you don't have to play gay because you're gay: you have equal choices!"

It's an argument that fundamentally favors the straight character (and therefore the straight player, if we accept "self-insert" as a primary motivation), and tries to abstract the inequality with "gay people can get straight married" logic (it really does seem to fit, sorry). If you want the choices, don't play that way; if you choose to play that way, accept less.

I'm just not seeing the doublespeak you seem to be seeing here, sorry. This isn't about the character's choices. It would only be the same if I were suggesting the gay character to have a straight romance with a straight character. I am instead suggesting that the player is not the character, and that the player need not constrain themselves to playing only a particular type of character, and in so doing, limit their own options artificially. And that they need not "accept self-insert as their primary motivation" so as to see this as an injustice.

It took me this long to derail this war i wont have you start....
EDIT:Stop right there Laughing man!

Modifié par andrew252, 08 septembre 2013 - 05:53 .

[Ieldra]

Orian Tabris wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Orian Tabris wrote...
What I mean by the bolded, is that bisexuals - like everyone else - should have to deal with what they are dealt, instead of trying to please everyone, ignoring the fact that the game is a story, not a fanfic written by the players. Bisexuals will (or at least should) be willing to choose who they romance based on the available remaining options... not just have free range.

The lore argument? Lore as in, the fact that not every person in DA agrees with everyone else. That is, the point of having characters with different opinions, is to give the story some believabilty (and somewhere to go with a story).

except the restricted LIs don't effect just bisexuals so it's baffling me why you're attempting to single them out.

As for pleasing everyone sure. That could just as easily be used as reasoning for them having all bi LIs. Why bother trying to please the people that insist on straight and gay only LIs.

There's only a handful of LIs ANYWAY. Being stuck with one option (or none if you don't like the one you got like m/m players or f/f players were stuck with in DAO) sucks.

And that means the LIs can't be for both genders...again why exactly? You don't have to agree with everyone to be attracted to both genders.

I singled them out because they will most likely accept what they are given, while those of us more rigid in our orientation, are less likely to accept it. They are more open, thus they need less attention and pandering.

It is actually the other way round. They are usually pandered to, so they have less reason to raise their voices.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

David7204 wrote...

Conversation is entertaining. This nonsense is just tedious.

You were defeated Davey flee to your tower!

[andrew252]

No stop! this conversation must be purged!

[devSin]

Filament wrote...

I would say there is a heck of a lot to gain by playing characters who aren't yourself in an RPG. There is(/can/should be) a ton of content that is restricted based on "who you are." Laidlaw even recentlyindicated a philosophy shift where this sort of content is A Good Thing and not something to be avoided, with respect to race specifically. Yet we've decided romance content shouldn't be part of that category.

I think that's a rather large leap to try to make Mike's comments about reactive or divergent content fit the idea that less access to choice is acceptable because you can always play as something else.

Filament wrote...

I'm just not seeing the doublespeak you seem to be seeing here, sorry. This isn't about the character's choices. It would only be the same if I were suggesting the gay character to have a straight romance with a straight character. I am instead suggesting that the player is not the character, and that the player need not constrain themselves to playing only a particular type of character, and in so doing, limit their own options artificially.

But the player does not have those options unless they play a straight character.

As I've said, if the situation were different (if there was actually a baseline of equality), I might be more sympathetic, but as it is, it seems little more than a justification for inequality. I know that's not your intent, but if only one of the players is being "constrained" (the one who's trying to play a gay character, naturally), I truly don't see what point you're attempting to make.

I do agree that a system where equal choice is provided doesn't necessitate everybody being given the same choice (i.e., not every character needs to be bisexual). But I don't think that's a place we're at yet, so I have trouble seeing your argument in that light (if that's indeed where you're coming from).

Modifié par devSin, 08 septembre 2013 - 06:26 .

[devSin]

How is it tying the player with the character? The character is the one who's gay and is the one who is restricted.

The player can choose to play a straight character, but so what? How does that help the gay character?

As I've said, it seems to carry the assumption that the player is gay (or straight, as appropriate). And then I again question why would there even be the possibility of playing a gay character (or at least having it acknowledged and respected by the game)? The thrill of pretending to be gay (while restricting your access to choice)? With your assertion, that seems to be the only legitimate reason for having homosexuality in the game at all.

To answer your question, I don't think the position of having equal but exclusive options is unfair (it's not my preference, as I really want for everybody to be happy, but it wouldn't bother me). In that case, I absolutely think it's reasonable to suggest that somebody not limit themselves to a particular character when exploring the game (same as gender or race or any other attribute).

Modifié par devSin, 08 septembre 2013 - 06:32 .

[Ieldra]

About playing characters who aren't self-inserts, here's an example:

I don't want to play a gay man. Why? Because seeing two men being intimate gives me a queasy feeling in the stomach. I place no particular importance in that fact, and I don't judge anyone's sexual orientation because of that. How others have sex and with whom is not my business to judge as long as it's consensual. Still, that feeling exists and influences my preferences, and while what others do is of little concern to me, what *my* characters do concerns me very much, and I have no interest in playing a character whose actions evoke those feelings in me.

Now consider that it may be the same for people with other sexual orientations. Forcing them to play characters with sexual orientations that make them feel bad, that I would consider fundamentally undesirable.

"Playing characters who aren't self-inserts" is something I very much propose, and frequently do. But there are some traits of my protagonists which I never change because if I did so, that protagonist would cease to be a character I want to play, and I would lose all motivation for continuing their story.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 08 septembre 2013 - 06:44 .

[devSin]

Filament wrote...

Because you keep saying stuff like "unless they play a straight character" as if that's problematic, as if that's not a perfectly viable choice from the player's point of view. Or "the one who plays a gay character" as if the player's options are defined by the character they choose to play.

The player's options are defined while they're playing that character.

Obviously, when they're not playing that character, they have access to different options.

The issue I have is that it seems to suggest having fewer options for one character is fine because you will have more options when you play the other character—sure, you can play male Shepard to get access to more tail than you could pin on a donkey, but is that really a solution to female Shepard having access to so little herself?

Modifié par devSin, 08 septembre 2013 - 06:44 .

[Fredward]

Ieldra2 wrote...
"Playing characters who aren't you" is something I very much propose, and frequently do. But there are some traits of my protagonists which I never change because if I did so, that protagonist would cease to be a character I want to play, and I would lose all motivation for continuing their story.

Yep. I mean I toyed with the idea of making a Hawke that always used the polite dialogue option yet was a complete sociopath Chantry supporter type. That would eventually kill her sister because the Maker wills it. She would also romance Sebastian. Because chaste marriages are the ****. I think that would've made an interesting story but some things just don't... mesh, yah know? I can't play a character I dislike, or one whose actions make me uncomfortable and still enjoy the game.

[andrew252]

whelp i tried

[SirGladiator]

More and more games are adding romance options these days, and almost all of them are using the DA2 model, because it's the best one out there. By giving players the options they want, it's more fun, if you take away the options it's less fun. One can make long, detailed arguments in favor or against the DA2 model, but ultimately all that matters is the fact that it's simply more fun to be able to romance whoever you want to. 'More fun' is always better than 'less fun' in a game, because games are about having fun .

The actual topic of this thread was Male and Female LI ratio, that seems to have been veered away from lately, but it's important to note that in DA2 there were two female LI teammates, and 3 male LI teammates (there was a female LI in one of the DLC, but as awesome as she was she wasn't an actual teammate, nor did she exist anywhere outside of the DLC area so she didn't even qualify in the 'Kelly' from ME2 sense) . If there's going to be an imbalance like that again, it's only fair there be more female LIs than male LIs this time, just to even things up. Of course hopefully there won't be an imbalance, but given that there have been more male LI teammates than female in the DA Universe up to this point, it's certainly important not to further expand that gender gap. Also, the one (and only) thing that DA could learn from the ME series, is that non-teammates can still make for fun LIs. I'm primarily thinking of Kelly from ME2, she was so awesome. If we could have a girl like Kelly working for us in DAI, that would be great. She doesn't have to be helpless like Kelly either, she could be like, one of our agents or something, somebody with major abilities that simply doesn't use them as part of the official main team. That'd be something I'd definitely like to see.