549 réponses à ce sujet

[Kali073]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Just to throw my opinion into the ring, I have to say I have no problem with the concept of "playersexual" characters. If for no other reason, they are not in my game. For example, in Dragon Age 2 I have a heterosexual romance with Merrill. Just because she has the capacity to be in a homosexual relationship doesn't matter. In my game and thus Dragon Age universe, she's straight. Yet the option exists for those who want otherwise to have it. Good for them. Why should I let how someone else plays interfere with my viewpoints of the characters in my version? It doesn't affect the character development prior to romance, and even afterwords only a few lines of dialogue, yet gives more options to the players in a game genre that flourishes on options.

I believe having the romances as bisexual is the best option. I never do the same-sex romances, I'm not interested in them, but I do feel that those that do want same-sex realtionships should have as many options as the straight ones do.

I remember ME3, playing as a straight femShep didn't give you many choices. Thane dies during the game, Garrus is only romancable if you romanced him in ME2, Kaidan could have died in ME1... leaving femShep with absolutely zero love interests. It was especially irritating because straight male Shepard had a lot more love interests. They did add Vega as a love interest in the Citadel (but that was played out in a way that felt kinda creepy - like you were forcing yourself on him) and a drunken one-night stand with Javek (with no possibility of romance).

I didn't think that was particularly fun, and I can imagine those that like same-sex romances have that problem way too often. Ideally there would be several love interest so we could have romances with set sexualities while still having a variety of choices for each orientation. However, Bioware probably won't (or can't because of budget/time/etc.) give us enough romancable npc characters for that to be possible for something that is optional content.

The best option is to have all the love interests as bisexuals. It might bother some people because of role-playing or bigotry or whatever reasons, but it's a matter of fairness. Let's say Bioware decides to do set sexualities, and all but one of them is a same-sex one. I don't think those of us who like straight romances would be very happy with that, so why should those that like same-sex romances have to be satisfied with that?

As LDS Darth Revan said, if you don't like the playersexuality just pretend it doesn't exist in your playthrough.

EDIT:

Maybe having romances be available because of your actions through the game would be better? Like, NPC's that are 'evil' won't want to romance someone who is sickingly sweet?

Modifié par Kali073, 15 décembre 2013 - 02:10 .

[WildOrchid]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...



Because not everyone is or has to be bi. 

Some people, including characters, are straight. 

Why should every character be made to appeal to everyone. Why not just make good characters for their own merits?

Why can't someone like Traynor be romanceable by a dude? Why do you have to be a female to romance her?

Not everyone is straight or has to be.

Some people, including characters are gay/bi.

Why should all be straight and have only 2-1 gays at most. Funny how you say "good character" since everyone is straight in your games. When we ask about represation, you people always go whining about "why eveyone must be gay" boo hoo.

Why can't someone like Ash/Miri/Jack/Tali to be romanceable by a woman? Why do you have to be a dude to romance them?
Notice how many ****ing romances are available to you and to us is only one?

[Akka le Vil]

Blackrising wrote...

Depends on what you see as gameplay and what you see as story. The romance dialouges and cutscenes are
certainly part of the story, but the romance mechanics themselves and the existent or non-existent gender checks are gameplay.

And it's not like there aren't enough examples of convenience in the story itself. It's kind of hard to make a story without a certain amount of convenient coincidences.

All the more reason not to add any more. Also, the contrived convenience in the story are usually precisely
called out as being plot hole, which is viewed as a bad thing. Kinda makes my point.

Blackrising wrote...

Another thing I don't understand. How does bisexuality = watered-down characterisation? (Unless you meant these examples ina  general sense, in which case I retract my question.)

I already answered this exact same question.
Here :

They aren't "bisexual", they are "playersexual".

The first is a set preference that is acceptable. I don't remember anyone complaining about Zevran being bi, because it was PART of his character. Liara "bi" ? It's okay and normal, her entire species have no concept of sex
preference. Isabella ? She obviously goes for whatever that move. Leli ? She's bi, that's all, it's both always here (not a retcon/character dependant) and still natural and not something that needs a pretext. All of these examples are okay because they are part of the character. Though of course, it can't be used for everyone as it quickly breaks the suspension of disbelief.

The second is not a preference, it's a lazy way to gut characters from one of their core preference and just water down things around to pander to idiots who just want to get their way even if it weakens the characters.

Blackrising wrote...

You still haven't answered what you base this perceived improbability on. If you think it too convenient, fair enough, although it only becomes a problem upon meta-gaming, since you can't very well know whether a character would also go for your character if they were the opposite gender.

The why it's improbable is pretty obvious - non-straight people are a small minority, bisexual even more so, and unless there is a specific in-game reason why the PC's party would have such a proportion of bisexuals, then it's just a contrived convenience that hampers the believability.

Oh, and please don't draw the "it's Thedas, not Earth" cop-out to counter the fact that straight people are a majority. It's just a very, very weak attempt at bypassing believability by making outlandish claims - we expect people on Thedas to be and act as regular humans, so to have an exception just for the sexual orientation would be just piling another case of contrived convenience on top of another.

Blackrising wrote...

Uh, well, considering you just called four people being bisexual 'most stupid' and then proceeded to insult him, I am inclined to believe it is well within his rights to feel 'persecuted'.

Don't act dumb. Plaintiff freely throw the "bigot" accusation even when the arguments made are completely unrelated.
Also, you can call someone who is gay an idiot, without the reason why he is an idiot having anything to do with him being gay. Stupidity is universal, and it's one of the most dishonest (and, ultimately, counter-productive) method to try to use the bigot/racist card whenever contradicted.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 15 décembre 2013 - 02:14 .

[wright1978]

Kali073 wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Just to throw my opinion into the ring, I have to say I have no problem with the concept of "playersexual" characters. If for no other reason, they are not in my game. For example, in Dragon Age 2 I have a heterosexual romance with Merrill. Just because she has the capacity to be in a homosexual relationship doesn't matter. In my game and thus Dragon Age universe, she's straight. Yet the option exists for those who want otherwise to have it. Good for them. Why should I let how someone else plays interfere with my viewpoints of the characters in my version? It doesn't affect the character development prior to romance, and even afterwords only a few lines of dialogue, yet gives more options to the players in a game genre that flourishes on options.

I believe having the romances as bisexual is the best option. I never do the same-sex romances, I'm not interested in them, but I do feel that those that do want same-sex realtionships should have as many options as the straight ones do.

I remember ME3, playing as a straight femShep didn't give you many choices. Thane dies during the game, Garrus is only romancable if you romanced him in ME2, Kaidan could have died in ME1... leaving femShep with absolutely zero love interests. It was especially irritating because straight male Shepard had a lot more love interests. They did add Vega as a love interest in the Citadel (but that was played out in a way that felt kinda creepy - like you were forcing yourself on him) and a drunken one-night stand with Javek (with no possibility of romance).

I didn't think that was particularly fun, and I can imagine those that like same-sex romances have that problem way too often. Ideally there would be several love interest so we could have romances with set sexualities while still having a variety of choices for each orientation. However, Bioware probably won't (or can't because of budget/time/etc.) give us enough romancable npc characters for that to be possible for something that is optional content.

The best option is to have all the love interests as bisexuals. It might bother some people because of role-playing or bigotry or whatever reasons, but it's a matter of fairness. Let's say Bioware decides to do set sexualities, and all but one of them is a same-sex one. I don't think those of us who like straight romances would be very happy with that, so why should those that like same-sex romances have to be satisfied with that?

As LDS Darth Revan said, if you don't like the playersexuality just pretend it doesn't exist in your playthrough.

EDIT:

Maybe having romances be available because of your actions through the game would be better? Like, NPC's that are 'evil' won't want to romance someone who is sickenly sweet?

Yep agree completely, as per Darth Revan that i can compartmentalise playthrough experiences. Hence why i can accept playersexual romances since they provide choice without having to sacrifice content.

Regarding your other point, yes i'm far more interested in the concept of Li's being unhappy in romances if the stance i take on issues is different than to their fundamental beliefs than about fixing their sexuality.

[billy the squid]

Blackrising wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Blackrising wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

hhh89 wrote...
I said it might. And in both games the party isn't really formed by people with the same interests.
Though I didn't mean to say that groups formed by gay, lesbian of bisexuals people aren't possible or improbable. I was mostly referring to how the D parties were formed, of people with different and often opposite interests.

Well, sure, but the circumstances of both Dragon Age narratives are inherently improbable, even within the context of the setting.

Frankly, the argument from "believability" is flawed at base. Anyone working from that position has already fundamentally misunderstood the nature and purpose of fiction.

Great, put in the most stupid points you want because it's fictional, great to see you remain as obtuse as ever. Look up the word verisimilitude.

But then again considering your persecution complex is in full swing at the moment I'm really not suprised.

Uh, well, considering you just called four people being bisexual 'most stupid' and then proceeded to insult him, I am inclined to believe it is well within his rights to feel 'persecuted'.

Except they're not, the characters are all player sexual and will jump into bed with the player at the drop of a hat in DA2, regardless of what stance you take. It might suit your tittilation for a romance simulator, but it remains none the less utterly stupid to expect every charcter to adore the player regardless of who they are, what they do, or what they say. That is why a determined orientation is necessary if the writers are not going to put any effort into establishing a NPC's stance on a particular topic. 

So, what was your point again? Or does pointing out asinine reasoning in the above equate to persecution.

Just because you view them as playersexual does not mean that they are.
The fact that the LIs were willing to look past whatever actions Hawke took is an entirely different topic than the one we are currently discussing. In fact, I agree that certain actions or decisions should make the LI unwilling to enter into a romantic relationship. Something we are obviously going to get in DA:I, so further discussion is unnecessary. Since they have already stated that they are going to tweak the romance mechanics for DA:I (which, presumably, does mean that LIs will have firm opinions and will not be interested in someone who continuously defies that stance), then by your logic, determined orientations are not necessary, yes?

And anyway, none of that was the point of my post. I wasn't responding to your opinion about romance. My point was that Plaintiff has every reason to feel attacked when you do, in fact, insult him and have done so on other occasions in the past. As have other people, which is why I am not surprised that he reacts the way he does.

No, they are. This is non negotiable and not a matter of view or opinion. Every NPC in DA2 will sleep with the player regardless, that is specifically player sexual, and only the delusions would say otherwise.

As to the first point, yes. If the NPC is not boiled down to a walking click romance option, then it's not necessarily a specific requirement for the orientation to be pre determined, they can be, but it's not always necessary as the specific stance on certain topics precludes opening that romance option. It's a gameplay mechanics issue. If the Backstory specifies a certain relationship orientation then leave it as that, if it doesn't then it can remain open, limiting contradictions and retconns.

Plaintiff has made a monument to his own stupidity with his comments, I'm calling a spade a spade. If you want to white knight for Plaintiff after his comments, have at it, just don't be suprised when you're caught in the cross fire as well by claiming persecution when it's such utter crap.

Modifié par billy the squid, 15 décembre 2013 - 02:19 .

[ignoreality]

Plaintiff wrote...
Yes, and I notice that the people who insist that sexuality is somehow integral to character are precisely the people that want to deprive others of same-sex content.
Why, it's almost as if people are using the argument as a flimsy cover up for their own homophobia!

Anyone who has known a person who came out of the closet late in their life can attest that the "sexuality is integral to character" is utter crap.

LDS Darth Revan wrote...
Just to throw my opinion into the ring, I have to say I have no problem with the concept of "playersexual" characters. If for no other reason, they are not in my game. For example, in Dragon Age 2 I have a heterosexual romance with Merrill. Just because she has the capacity to be in a homosexual relationship doesn't matter. In my game and thus Dragon Age universe, she's straight. Yet the option exists for those who want otherwise to have it. Good for them. Why should I let how someone else plays interfere with my viewpoints of the characters in my version? It doesn't affect the character development prior to romance, and even afterwords only a few lines of dialogue, yet gives more options to the players in a game genre that flourishes on options.

This should be the end of thread, really.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

WildOrchid wrote...

Not everyone is straight or has to be.

 

Indeed

Some people, including characters are gay/bi.

Yes, indeedy. Which brings me to look at your next post in sadness.

Why should all be straight and have only 2-1 gays at most. Funny how you say "good character" since everyone is straight in your games. When we ask about represation, you people always go whining about "why eveyone must be gay" boo hoo.

What is representation? Equal? Hardly. The thing is, it's not equal, nor will it ever be. Simply put, there are more straight people in the world than all the gay and bi people combined. 

You're being represented. You have 1-2 gay/bi characters. To say you aren't being represented is ludicrous.

And you're reducing my statement of good characters to an argument where a good character must be straight. That's not true. Since you assume a negative generalization and an attack on me, do I really need to offer the kindness of a response?

Why can't someone like Ash/Miri/Jack/Tali to be romanceable by a woman? Why do you have to be a dude to romance them?

Someone like them can certainly be romanceable by women. But for them specifically, they're straight. That's who they are. They're straight, not bi, and not gay. Does every strong woman you see have to be romanceable to you? That's how the characters were written. Just as Traynor is gay. That's how she was written. 

You have to be a dude because lo and behold, they only like dudes. Easy concept right?

Notice how many ****ing romances are available to you and to us is only one?

Yes. And I think it more than represents us just fine. You have a romance. If you don't like it, don't do it. I'd rather not have a universe where everyone is gay or bi just to appeal to everyone. You're being represented fairly.

Being gay does not mean you are owed something by the world.

[Stalker]

In regards of balance, I only hope they are not continuing like DA2 where every character is deliberately made bisexual/universal to appeal to every kind of player and thous hit on every kind of protagonist.
It's awkward and unbelievable.

Modifié par Mr Massakka, 15 décembre 2013 - 02:25 .

[Akka le Vil]

ignoreality wrote...

Anyone who has known a person who came out of the closet late in their life can attest that the "sexuality is integral to character" is utter crap.

You realize how stupid what you just said sounds and is ?
If sexuality was such an unimportant facet of the person, then people wouldn't even need to go out of the closet. Duh.

I mean, the entire subject of the thread is about the sexual orientation of NPC, and people seems pretty opinionated about the stuff. Kinda prove you wrong from the beginning.

This should be the end of thread, really.

Only if you agree with him, which is obviously not the case for many. Duh, again.

[CuriousArtemis]

I KNOW that Fenris is straight in other people's games, but I never let that bother me. Even though it makes me scrunch my face up to imagine him with a woman. Isn't that big of me? 

[Blackrising]

Akka le Vil wrote...

All the more reason not to add any more. Also, the contrived convenience in the story are usually precisely
called out as being plot hole, which is viewed as a bad thing. Kinda makes my point.

Fair enough, but I do have a problem with the assumption that the only thing convenient and unbelievable enough to actively argue against and want to abolish is the sexuality sitatuation.

Akka le Vil wrote...

I already answered this exact same question.
Here :

They aren't "bisexual", they are "playersexual".

The first is a set preference that is acceptable. I don't remember anyone complaining about Zevran being bi, because it was PART of his character. Liara "bi" ? It's okay and normal, her entire species have no concept of sex
preference. Isabella ? She obviously goes for whatever that move. Leli ? She's bi, that's all, it's both always here (not a retcon/character dependant) and still natural and not something that needs a pretext. All of these examples are okay because they are part of the character. Though of course, it can't be used for everyone as it quickly breaks the suspension of disbelief.

The second is not a preference, it's a lazy way to gut characters from one of their core preference and just water down things around to pander to idiots who just want to get their way even if it weakens the characters.

That is your opinion on playersexuality, and that is fine, but we were talking about the possibility of the fours LIs being bisexual (and making it clear that they are) in DA:I. And you were against that, too.

Akka le Vil wrote...
The why it's improbable is pretty obvious - non-straight people are a small minority, bisexual even more so, and unless there is a specific in-game reason why the PC's party would have such a proportion of bisexuals, then it's just a contrived convenience that hampers the believability.

Oh, and please don't draw the "it's Thedas, not Earth" cop-out to counter the fact that straight people are a majority. It's just a very, very weak attempt at bypassing believability by making outlandish claims - we expect people on Thedas to be and act as regular humans, so to have an exception just for the sexual orientation would be just piling another case of contrived convenience on top of another.

Non-straight people are not a 'small' minority. That may be the way it seems due to a society that is still largely heteronormative, but claiming that the BIG majority is 100 % straight is inaccurate, I think.
Notice that I am talking about 100 % heterosexuality. Sexuality is rarely black and white. People may identify as one thing, but acknowledge that they are open to the other. They may have a strong preference, but not define themselves. They may have a million of other feelings and notions and yet still say 'Im straight/gay/bisexual' when asked, simply because it's easier to do so.
Plus, the LIs in Dragon Age are still only FOUR people per game. FOUR. There is nothing unusual about FOUR people in any given group being open to relationships with a gender they do not usually prefer or being outright bisexual.

Akka le Vil wrote...
Don't act dumb. Plaintiff freely throw the "bigot" accusation even when the arguments made are completely unrelated.
Also, you can call someone who is gay an idiot, without the reason why he is an idiot having anything to do with him being gay. Stupidity is universal, and it's one of the most dishonest (and, ultimately, counter-productive) method to try to use the bigot/racist card whenever contradicted.

I'm not saying I always agree with him. I'm also not saying that he was insulted due to being gay. But he does get a lot of flak and when I look at some of the posts on these forums, I believe he has ample reasons to become paranoid. It seems to me that for every person that has a valid reason for rejecting the bisexual approach, there is another one that is really just being a di**.

Modifié par Blackrising, 15 décembre 2013 - 02:35 .

[The Elder King]

@MassivelyEffective0730: what do you think it Bioware will follow the six LI route (2 hetero, 2 homosexuals and two bisexuals)in DAI?

[Lebanese Dude]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...
Just to throw my opinion into the ring, I have to say I have no problem with the concept of "playersexual" characters. If for no other reason, they are not in my game. For example, in Dragon Age 2 I have a heterosexual romance with Merrill. Just because she has the capacity to be in a homosexual relationship doesn't matter. In my game and thus Dragon Age universe, she's straight. Yet the option exists for those who want otherwise to have it. Good for them. Why should I let how someone else plays interfere with my viewpoints of the characters in my version? It doesn't affect the character development prior to romance, and even afterwords only a few lines of dialogue, yet gives more options to the players in a game genre that flourishes on options.

I said the very same thing earlier. Alternate realites.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

hhh89 wrote...

@MassivelyEffective0730: what do you think it Bioware will follow the six LI route (2 hetero, 2 homosexuals and two bisexuals)in DAI?

I think the game would be in San Francisco.

[ignoreality]

Akka le Vil wrote...

ignoreality wrote...

Anyone who has known a person who came out of the closet late in their life can attest that the "sexuality is integral to character" is utter crap.

You realize how stupid what you just said sounds and is ?
If sexuality was such an unimportant facet of the person, then people wouldn't even need to go out of the closet. Duh.

I shall provide an example, then.

You've known a guy for 10 years and it never occurred to you that he is gay. Suddenly wham, he declares he is and always has been gay. Is he now a different person? Has his character changed in any way? Are you going to treat him differently now?

People only need to go out of the closet because of widespread homophobia and bigotry. Hopefully 50 years from now "coming out of the closet" will be as obsolete a concept as racial segregation is today.

[wolfhowwl]

Blackrising wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...
Don't act dumb. Plaintiff freely throw the "bigot" accusation even when the arguments made are completely unrelated.
Also, you can call someone who is gay an idiot, without the reason why he is an idiot having anything to do with him being gay. Stupidity is universal, and it's one of the most dishonest (and, ultimately, counter-productive) method to try to use the bigot/racist card whenever contradicted.

I'm not saying I always agree with him. I'm also not saying that he was insulted due to being gay. But he does get a lot of flak and when I look at some of the posts on these forums, I believe he has ample reasons to become paranoid. It seems to me that for every person that has a valid reason for rejecting the bisexual approach, there is another one that is really just being a di**.

Someone who constantly cries bigotry over videogame romances and makes inflammatory posts like "I persist in the futile hope that the individuals I clash with will eventually either grow brains or die." is going to get a lot of flak and probably deserves it.

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 15 décembre 2013 - 02:46 .

[The Elder King]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

@MassivelyEffective0730: what do you think it Bioware will follow the six LI route (2 hetero, 2 homosexuals and two bisexuals)in DAI?

I think the game would be in San Francisco.

Well, judging by your response you don't think is going to happen. In that case, you shoudo be prepared to have four playersexual/bisexual LI. They're not returning to DAO's approach.

[Blackrising]

billy the squid wrote...

Blackrising wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Blackrising wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

hhh89 wrote...
I said it might. And in both games the party isn't really formed by people with the same interests.
Though I didn't mean to say that groups formed by gay, lesbian of bisexuals people aren't possible or improbable. I was mostly referring to how the D parties were formed, of people with different and often opposite interests.

Well, sure, but the circumstances of both Dragon Age narratives are inherently improbable, even within the context of the setting.

Frankly, the argument from "believability" is flawed at base. Anyone working from that position has already fundamentally misunderstood the nature and purpose of fiction.

Great, put in the most stupid points you want because it's fictional, great to see you remain as obtuse as ever. Look up the word verisimilitude.

But then again considering your persecution complex is in full swing at the moment I'm really not suprised.

Uh, well, considering you just called four people being bisexual 'most stupid' and then proceeded to insult him, I am inclined to believe it is well within his rights to feel 'persecuted'.

Except they're not, the characters are all player sexual and will jump into bed with the player at the drop of a hat in DA2, regardless of what stance you take. It might suit your tittilation for a romance simulator, but it remains none the less utterly stupid to expect every charcter to adore the player regardless of who they are, what they do, or what they say. That is why a determined orientation is necessary if the writers are not going to put any effort into establishing a NPC's stance on a particular topic. 

So, what was your point again? Or does pointing out asinine reasoning in the above equate to persecution.

Just because you view them as playersexual does not mean that they are.
The fact that the LIs were willing to look past whatever actions Hawke took is an entirely different topic than the one we are currently discussing. In fact, I agree that certain actions or decisions should make the LI unwilling to enter into a romantic relationship. Something we are obviously going to get in DA:I, so further discussion is unnecessary. Since they have already stated that they are going to tweak the romance mechanics for DA:I (which, presumably, does mean that LIs will have firm opinions and will not be interested in someone who continuously defies that stance), then by your logic, determined orientations are not necessary, yes?

And anyway, none of that was the point of my post. I wasn't responding to your opinion about romance. My point was that Plaintiff has every reason to feel attacked when you do, in fact, insult him and have done so on other occasions in the past. As have other people, which is why I am not surprised that he reacts the way he does.

No, they are. This is non negotiable and not a matter of view or opinion. Every NPC in DA2 will sleep with the player regardless, that is specifically player sexual, and only the delusions would say otherwise.

As to the first point, yes. If the NPC is not boiled down to a walking click romance option, then it's not necessarily a specific requirement for the orientation to be pre determined, they can be, but it's not always necessary as the specific stance on certain topics precludes opening that romance option. It's a gameplay mechanics issue. If the Backstory specifies a certain relationship orientation then leave it as that, if it doesn't then it can remain open, limiting contradictions and retconns.

Plaintiff has made a monument to his own stupidity with his comments, I'm calling a spade a spade. If you want to white knight for Plaintiff after his comments, have at it, just don't be suprised when you're caught in the cross fire as well by claiming persecution when it's such utter crap.

Except the LIs going for the PC whatever they DO has nothing to do with sexuality and is therefore not part of the definiton of 'player sexuality'. And I'm sorry, but please dial back on the aggressive tone. I'd rather talk to someone who does not put other people down constantly.

But how can a background completely determine someone's sexual orientation, at least as far as we get to know it? We never know every single detail about a characters life before they met the PC. If we did, that would be a very very long game. Now if a NPC has, in the past, specifically said 'Sorry, not into men/women', then them not going for that gender is obviously fine. But just having had a relationship with a man/woman in the past does not automatically make them a hundred percent anything.

You are simply being insulting and aggressive, something that I do not think is necessary. You are free to disagree with him, with me and every other person on this board if you like, but throwing around petty insults seems like a rather immature way of dealing with disagreements. I did not claim persecution, or at least it was not my intention to. I used the word (and in ' ' , too) because you used it and I found it rather unfitting and exaggerated. It was sarcasm, if anything. And believe me, acting the part of the White Knight is not my intention. I am pretty sure he can do that himself. (But he doesn't seem to be around right now, so...)

[Blackrising]

wolfhowwl wrote...

Blackrising wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...
Don't act dumb. Plaintiff freely throw the "bigot" accusation even when the arguments made are completely unrelated.
Also, you can call someone who is gay an idiot, without the reason why he is an idiot having anything to do with him being gay. Stupidity is universal, and it's one of the most dishonest (and, ultimately, counter-productive) method to try to use the bigot/racist card whenever contradicted.

I'm not saying I always agree with him. I'm also not saying that he was insulted due to being gay. But he does get a lot of flak and when I look at some of the posts on these forums, I believe he has ample reasons to become paranoid. It seems to me that for every person that has a valid reason for rejecting the bisexual approach, there is another one that is really just being a di**.

Someone who constantly cries bigotry over videogame romances and makes inflammatory posts like "I persist in the futile hope that the individuals I clash with will eventually either grow brains or die." is going to get a lot of flak and probably deserves it.

Then one would think that throwing around further insults in response is rather counter-productive, no?

[Akka le Vil]

ignoreality wrote...

I shall provide an example, then.

You've known a guy for 10 years and it never occurred to you that he is gay. Suddenly wham, he declares he is and always has been gay. Is he now a different person? Has his character changed in any way? Are you going to treat him differently now?

No, he's not a different person once he goes out of the closet.
He's a pretty different person, though, with a vastly different set of experiences and the difference it would make on personnality, as the person he would have been if he had been straight.

Again, read yourself : if the guy goes out of the closet, it's precisely because he can't stand his repressed life anymore. That's the OPPOSITE of sexual orientation having negligible impact on who he is. You're just proving my point.

[Ianamus]

Blackrising wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...
The why it's improbable is pretty obvious - non-straight people are a small minority, bisexual even more so, and unless there is a specific in-game reason why the PC's party would have such a proportion of bisexuals, then it's just a contrived convenience that hampers the believability.

Oh, and please don't draw the "it's Thedas, not Earth" cop-out to counter the fact that straight people are a majority. It's just a very, very weak attempt at bypassing believability by making outlandish claims - we expect people on Thedas to be and act as regular humans, so to have an exception just for the sexual orientation would be just piling another case of contrived convenience on top of another.

Non-straight people are not a 'small' minority. That may be the way it seems due to a society that is still largely heteronormative, but claiming that the BIG majority is 100 % straight is inaccurate, I think.
Notice that I am talking about 100 % heterosexuality. Sexuality is rarely black and white. People may identify as one thing, but acknowledge that they are open to the other. They may have a strong preference, but not define themselves. They may have a million of other feelings and notions and yet still say 'Im straight/gay/bisexual' when asked, simply because it's easier to do so.
Plus, the LIs in Dragon Age are still only FOUR people per game. FOUR. There is nothing unusual about FOUR people in any given group being open to relationships with a gender they do not usually prefer or being outright bisexual.

I was really pleased with the approach used in Dragon Age 2, and that everybody had an equal number of options, but even I don't think that it's the right approach overall. It is if we can only have four LI's, because choice comes first, but I can see where some people are coming from when they do not like it. 

There are two different issues and arguments here- on the one hand the issue of representation, and on the other hand the issue of choice- and these are actually fighting against each other, not working with each other. In order to give choice all romance options are made bisexual- which is subsequently removing representation. We don't see any homosexual characters who are party members, and even some presumably heterosexual companions like Aveline can express an interest in Hawke's of both gender if the flirt options are picked. 

I have no issue with bisexual companions (I'd be a very large hypocrite if I did), but I do accept that it is the least common orientation and that having the majority of companions be, or be hinted at being, bisexual does reduce representation of other orientations (at least when it comes to companions/LI's). It's a balance between representation and choice, and while I do personally believe that choice is more important in an ideal world both could be equal.

I think that Mass Effect 3 handled it very well (other than the s/s only options being the ones who were NPC's), and I loved the fact that Samantha rejected my Shepard. I really liked her charcter, and I liked the fact that she was her own charcter and simply wasn't interested in my male Sheaprd, but was still a good friend. I'm not sure if Inquisition will do something similar, but I'd be very happy if it does. 

Modifié par EJ107, 15 décembre 2013 - 03:09 .

[WildOrchid]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...


Yes. And I think it more than represents us just fine. You have a romance. If you don't like it, don't do it. I'd rather not have a universe where everyone is gay or bi just to appeal to everyone. You're being represented fairly.

Being gay does not mean you are owed something by the world.

And i'd rather not have a universe where everyone is straight just to appeal to everyone. And that's what most do with games, fanserving the straight dudes.
And if you think that's fair to you, then i don't know what else to say. You don't even know how we feel about this. You say that you'd rather not have a universe that everyone is gay just to appeal to someone, yet you can't see this is exactly what happens with straights just to appeal to straight people. Because that sounds a bit hypocritical.

It's easy for you to say all that when you already have everything ready to fanservice you.


edit:

Blackrising wrote...



Non-straight people are not a
'small' minority. That may be the way it seems due to a society that is
still largely heteronormative, but claiming that the BIG majority is
100 % straight is inaccurate, I think.
Notice that I am talking about
100 % heterosexuality. Sexuality is rarely black and white. People may
identify as one thing, but acknowledge that they are open to the other.
They may have a strong preference, but not define themselves. They may
have a million of other feelings and notions and yet still say 'Im
straight/gay/bisexual' when asked, simply because it's easier to do so.

My thoughts exactly. Anyone claiming that sexuality is black and white, doesn't know anything at all and that makes me laugh considering how society is pushing heteronormativity down our throats.

Modifié par WildOrchid, 15 décembre 2013 - 03:05 .

[Laughing_Man]

Amm... can't we all just love each other and do a group hug or something?...
Huh... that may even work as an option in-game!...

[Akka le Vil]

Blackrising wrote...

Fair enough, but I do have a problem with the assumption that the only thing convenient and unbelievable enough to actively argue against and want to abolish is the sexuality sitatuation.

What ?

I already specifically told you that there is plenty of other things I don't like, but I don't talk about them here because they aren't relevant to the discussion. Is this another "convenient" selective reading ?

Non-straight people are not a 'small' minority.

Yes they are. There if, of course, a somehow bigger part of the society being non-straight due to cultural normalization, and of course people are not either 100 % one or 100 % another, but there is a VASTLY bigger part of the overall population which is on the "no" side of the "would you have sex with a person of your own sex ?" than on the "yes" side.

Oh, and yeah it would be fun to have a "borderline" companion who has somehow elastic boundaries, and would have some romantic feeling for the PC, but would ultimately only go farther than kissing with a PC of a particular sex.

Plus, the LIs in Dragon Age are still only FOUR people per game. FOUR. There is nothing unusual about FOUR people in any given group being open to relationships with a gender they do not usually prefer or being outright bisexual.

It's not about "four people in Thedas", it's about "every single of the four people romanceable in a company of six". That's QUITE not the same, both in terms of statistics and in term of writing and convenience.

I'm not saying I always agree with him. I'm also not saying that he was insulted due to being gay. But he does get a lot of flak and when I look at some of the posts on these forums, I believe he has ample reasons to become paranoid. It seems to me that for every person that has a valid reason for rejecting the bisexual approach, there is another one that is really just being a di**.

From what I've seen, the flak he gets has more to do with him bringing it on himself and then playing the martyr than actual bigotry, so I'm afraid you'll find little sympathy for him from me.

And be assured that it's the same over here when it comes to people being d*** when arguing. Not caring about watering characters down or breaking the believability of the setting just to have more options for the dating sim isn't exactly something pleasant to see.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

WildOrchid wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...


Yes. And I think it more than represents us just fine. You have a romance. If you don't like it, don't do it. I'd rather not have a universe where everyone is gay or bi just to appeal to everyone. You're being represented fairly.

Being gay does not mean you are owed something by the world.

And i'd rather not have a universe where everyone is straight just to appeal to everyone. And that's what most do with games, fanserving the straight dudes.
And if you think that's fair to you, then i don't know what else to say. You don't even know how we feel about this. You say that you'd rather not have a universe that everyone is gay just to appeal to someone, yet you can't see this is exactly what happens with straights just to appeal to straight people. Because that sounds a bit hypocritical.

It's easy for you to say all that when you already have everything ready to fanservice you.

You know why straights typically have more options available to them? 

Because there are more straight people. 

You're demanding equal quantity for something that is inequal in proportion to actual demographics.

Less than 10% of the population of the Earth is LGBT.

If I were making a game that had romances according to this, I'd be looking at this. Hell, I consider it generous that you would get even one LI that is LGBT at all, let alone a person who is lesbian, a person who is gay, and a person who is bi. 

The game anyway isn't about fanservice. It's about being a story, an RPG, a role-playing game.

If you want to RP, a homosexual character, great!

Unless you're specifically in a region where there is a higher than average proportion of LGBT people in the game (Like Frisco, Rio, Washington D.C, Hawaii, etc.) don't expect every character you meet to be romanceable. 

Simply put, I don't believe that other character's sexuality should be player determined based on how they play their PC.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 15 décembre 2013 - 03:15 .