549 réponses à ce sujet

[Ianamus]

Hazegurl wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

+1

I'm still waiting for a legit reason as to why this knowledge somehow ruins these naysayers own game.

I gave reasoning for why I dislike the concept. What do you think of my reasoning?

Your reasoning actually makes more sense than most. I can actually agree with it and say that if you make a choice you should stick to the consequences and shouldn't get every piece of content because you think you should. If BW is willing to lock out certain content in other aspects of the game based on player choice then I'm up for locking out romance content for certain characters based on gender and sexuality. As long as I get some good romance options with lots of great content I'm cool.

However, if BW isn't locking out other forms of content then why do it only for the romance content?

Well we'll probably be locked out of race-specific options, and gender locking isn't very different. I think it's fine for them to limit romance content as long as the overall number of options for everyone remains equal. I think that Samantha and Steve worked brilliantly in Mass Effect 3, as I said a few pages back, and I think that having them available to both male and female Shepard would have detracted from them as characters. 

Modifié par EJ107, 15 décembre 2013 - 05:23 .

[Jorji Costava]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Why couldn't we apply real-life demographics to a video game if the video game is depicting humans ? We already apply all other elements (roughly half male and female, social and governmental constructs we can understand and which could arise only due to a very close similarity with real-life humanity, same size and physical abilities, same psychology, same expected reactions and reasonings...), there is no reason to exclude sexual preferences (in fact it would be the opposite, as many social expectations would be different if humans in Thedas had widely different sexual orientations than those of Earth).

Fair enough, but I don't think that the the PC's party composition needs to be a precise one-to-one reflection of the overall world demographics. Sure, it might be a bit coincidental to have four people in your party be bisexual, but I don't see why that's the biggest deal in the world. There have been plenty of bigger coincidences in Bioware games (i.e. running into Sandal all the time, running into the ME2 characters in ME3, etc.).

[The Flying Grey Warden]

You know putting up with this **** is not a demand of the qun, and you should all be grateful all of you people, social justice whining brigade and the knights of the demanded consequences, have not been banned outright at least 24 hours for being so irritating

[Akka le Vil]

osbornep wrote...

Fair enough, but I don't think that the the PC's party composition needs to be a precise one-to-one reflection of the overall world demographics. Sure, it might be a bit coincidental to have four people in your party be bisexual, but I don't see why that's the biggest deal in the world. There have been plenty of bigger coincidences in Bioware games (i.e. running into Sandal all the time, running into the ME2 characters in ME3, etc.).

These points have already being treated before :

1) A contrived coincidence in a segment of the game doesn't make other contrived coincidence better (on the contrary, the more there are the less the game is immersive).

2) The combination of improbable and convenient just make it more "in your face" that it's purely for game purpose, which not only breaks suspension of disbelief due to the sheer unlikeliness of happening, but also ruins immersion and believability by showing the formulaic manner in which it happened.

[The Flying Grey Warden]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

I can understand both viewpoints concerning applying Earth-like values to Thedas, but I am honestly not interested in changing anyone's mind regarding that concept.

Wish more people had thst attitude. We wouldn't get people trying to push their values onto the game and everyone elze harder then a jehovas witness that way.

[Lebanese Dude]

Akka le Vil wrote...

"Why couldn't we apply real-life demographics to a video game if the video game is depicting humans ? We already apply all other elements (roughly half male and female, social and governmental constructs we can understand and which could arise only due to a very close similarity with real-life humanity, same size and physical abilities, same psychology, same expected reactions and reasonings...), there is no reason to exclude sexual preferences (in fact it would be the opposite, as many social expectations would be different if humans in Thedas had widely different sexual orientations than those of Earth)."

Er it's depicting humans but it's doing so in a fantasy setting, in addition to depicting other humanoid races that don't necessarily share our biology and culture.

There is no reason to exclude sexual orientation, just as there is no reason to exclude facial hair. It just is.

Modifié par Lebdood, 15 décembre 2013 - 05:42 .

[Lebanese Dude]

Akka le Vil wrote...
These points have already being treated before :

1) A contrived coincidence in a segment of the game doesn't make other contrived coincidence better (on the contrary, the more there are the less the game is immersive).

2) The combination of improbable and convenient just make it more "in your face" that it's purely for game purpose, which not only breaks suspension of disbelief due to the sheer unlikeliness of happening, but also ruins immersion and believability by showing the formulaic manner in which it happened.

By your logic, any playthrough after the first should break suspension of disbelief, ruins immersion, and believability.

[Hazegurl]

EJ107 wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

+1

I'm still waiting for a legit reason as to why this knowledge somehow ruins these naysayers own game.

I gave reasoning for why I dislike the concept. What do you think of my reasoning?

Your reasoning actually makes more sense than most. I can actually agree with it and say that if you make a choice you should stick to the consequences and shouldn't get every piece of content because you think you should. If BW is willing to lock out certain content in other aspects of the game based on player choice then I'm up for locking out romance content for certain characters based on gender and sexuality. As long as I get some good romance options with lots of great content I'm cool.

However, if BW isn't locking out other forms of content then why do it only for the romance content?

Well we'll probably be locked out of race-specific options, and gender locking isn't very different. I think it's fine for them to limit romance content as long as the overall number of options for everyone remains equal. I think that Samantha and Steve worked brilliantly in Mass Effect 3, as I said a few pages back, and I think that having them available to both male and female Shepard would have detracted from them as characters. 

We'll have to agree to disagree on Steve and Samantha. I romanced them both in the vanilla game and neither were enjoyable. Cortez at least had some sort of fleshing out. You do get to help him grieve for his husband but then you sort of feel like a creeper moving in on him afterwards. Not to mention you don't get any decent romance content. Same with Samantha, you just get crappy shower sex and her talking about EDI's voice. Traynor turning down MShep as some sort of defining moment of her character is weak. She could have been straight and still turned him down. Traynor is certainly no Aveline in terms of nonromance character development for the male character. 

In the end my biggest fear is having an inflated list of LI options with poor content to go along with it.

[Akka le Vil]

Lebdood wrote...

Er it's depicting humans but it's doing so in a fantasy setting, in addition to depicting other humanoid races that don't necessarily share our biology and culture.

There is no reason to exclude sexual orientation, just as there is no reason to exclude facial hair. It just is.

Lebdood wrote...

By your logic, any playthrough after the first should break suspension of disbelief, ruins immersion, and believability.

Wut... what ?

Neither answer makes any shred of sense.

[esper]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

esper wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Lebdood wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

 You all love your mother, why must you hate each other?

I sincerely doubt anyone hates anyone here. 

People who argue against bisexuality would not say the same thing in person. Forums are a great place for people to clash violently while disregarding any form of respect.

Furthemore, the mere fact that people are still stating that sexual orientation should be "believable" is more insulting than anything really.

I think the argument is that you won't often build a group of 6 friends that all happen to be bisexual during your life. I mean, it can happen, but it would definitely be surprising, unless you are looking for that quality in a friend.

The stuff said here really isn't that bad compared to some of the stuff said about gays in real life. You think it's bad, but people really have to watch what they say here, unlike real life.

I have to say that I find this argument silly. Sure if you are a 100 percent straight person, meeting people in real life that identifies as non-straight might be less occuring, since they properly won't tell you unless you are a good friend. There is no real reason to in daily life to life after all.

But if you belong to LGBT the chance are you know somehow with your own oritation, and they knows someone who knows someone... Or you just find people in that group to hang out with because they understand your life experience having been through something alike in real life too.

I think the proverb in english is birds of a feather...

I am not sure how that applies to DA, but I don't find the fact that 4 (we only know of 4) people in one group being open to both genders stranger than all the other factors (a dalish, a pro mage fanatic, a run away tevinter slave.. etc.).

edit for a silly grammatical mistake.

"unless you're looking for that quality in a friend"

You don't have to actively look for it. It is just my own personal experience that in the real world, people with the same oritation have a higher chance to meet. Properly because there is a higher chance they move in the same circles. I certainly know that only one person in my own personal group of friends is straight and I have never activelly searched for it. And most of my friends friends also non-heteronormative to some degree.

You could argue that since the sexuality does not mean much in Thedas, the chance is actually less, since people wouldn't group together based on sexuality.

I just don't think that our choices of friends is always made consciously.

But none the less I still find it a silly line to draw when compared to all the other coincidences that happens in the group make up.

Edit. I am not saying that you are actually suscribing to the notion of it not being believe able. Just that I find the whole 4 bi person would never get into the same group argument silly.

Modifié par esper, 15 décembre 2013 - 05:52 .

[Jorji Costava]

Akka le Vil wrote...

These points have already being treated before :

1) A contrived coincidence in a segment of the game doesn't make other contrived coincidence better (on the contrary, the more there are the less the game is immersive).

2) The combination of improbable and convenient just make it more "in your face" that it's purely for game purpose, which not only breaks suspension of disbelief due to the sheer unlikeliness of happening, but also ruins immersion and believability by showing the formulaic manner in which it happened.

I've long argued that in-universe consistency and plausibility is really not anywhere near as important as it's often made out to be, unless you're explicitly attempting some kind of neo-realist storytelling in your game, movie, book, etc. (something which DA is obvously not doing). Trade-offs between realism and gameplay are made all the time, and I don't see that this is necessarily a bad thing.

Some more examples: Your party composition is likely to include two mages, two rogues, two warriors (one ranged, one more tank-y), etc. I doubt this is a realistic representation of the demographics of Thedas either. Another example: One direct hit from an arrow isn't sufficient to kill you, even though realistically, it probably would do so. That's purely for game purposes, but hey, not every game can be Jagged Alliance 2, where just getting injured was as big a pain in the butt as getting killed is in most other games.

Personally, I'm no more bothered by having a disproportionate number of bisexual NPC's than I am about these other trade-offs. Perhaps you are, but acceding to those demands would require a radical re-working of all of the game mechanics from the ground up, something I'm not convinved is either possible or desirable at this stage of development.

[ignoreality]

Akka le Vil wrote...
It matters to me that the NPC lacks a part of his/her identity which is reassigned according to the PC. That's a watering down in characterisation.

In what way does this "watering down" manifest? Because the word itself doesn't really mean anything.

(Additionally, if I have to choose between providing LGBT gamers equal opportunity to experience the game content and the invisible "watering down" of NPCs, guess what I choose!)

[ignoreality]

Lebdood wrote...

You turned down a very unstable guy who later ended up blowing a chantry. Were you really surprised that he would get a little pissed if you turned him down?

Seriously, take it with a grain of salt. It's Anders. Fenris only compliments you and you can completely wave it off without a penalty.

So much THIS.

Anders giving rivalry points for getting shot down is actually realistic, if anything.

[daveliam]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Also, it's pretty sad if you consider commendable and empowering to gay/bi that the game basically remove the gender-check. It's pretty insulting to what being gay/bi is, actually, instead of rewarding.

Can you explain to me how, as a gay or bisexual person, you are insulted by removing the gender check?

Because I've read every post in this thread and none of the other LGBT people, myself included,  have indicated that  we felt insulted by removing gender checks.  Most are in favor of it because it offers more options.  Some, myself included again, don't like it in general but understand that it allows for more options than we would be provided if they went the traditional route, given the financial and time constraints.

I don't see it as "insulting" because I don't think that my sexuality defines my personality.  Yes, there are some cultural pieces of my personality that are different because I'm gay, but it hasn't made me any more of a different person than my career choices have.  People have an issue with player choice (i.e. what gender the player chooses and whether they choose to initiate a flirt with a s/s character) in some instances, but not others (such as how you can completely change Alistair's personality and, ultimately, his station in life).  For me, that's a much bigger change in personality (hardened Allistair versus whiny Alistair) than if we just put a gender check in and Alistair were suddenly bisexual instead of straight.  But people don't seem to have issues with those kinds of choices.

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

why do people only seem to complain about realism when talking about bisexual characters or POC's? is it really that much of a big deal.

[billy the squid]

ignoreality wrote...

Lebdood wrote...

You turned down a very unstable guy who later ended up blowing a chantry. Were you really surprised that he would get a little pissed if you turned him down?

Seriously, take it with a grain of salt. It's Anders. Fenris only compliments you and you can completely wave it off without a penalty.

So much THIS.

Anders giving rivalry points for getting shot down is actually realistic, if anything.

It take it it's also realistic if you are a complete bastard and oppose him the whole game you can then jump into bed with him too? "Dat realism"

[ignoreality]

Hazegurl wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

+1

I'm still waiting for a legit reason as to why this knowledge somehow ruins these naysayers own game.

I gave reasoning for why I dislike the concept. What do you think of my reasoning?

Your reasoning actually makes more sense than most. I can actually agree with it and say that if you make a choice you should stick to the consequences and shouldn't get every piece of content because you think you should.
[snip

Choosing to save or kill the Rachni Queen is a choice. Being of a specific gender or sexuality is not a choice.

One shouldn't *have* to play the opposite gender -- especially if they don't feel comfortable doing so, because it ruins their immersion, for example -- to experience a romance plot in a game.

Mind you, I'd be fine with David Gaider's "perfect" approach, that is enough LIs that any gender/sexuality combo can have a couple of viable romance options. However, we all know that is not going to happen. 

[ignoreality]

EJ107 wrote...
I don't get why people keep saying "LGBT" when it has little to do with all of the companions being bisexual. Only one of those four letters is relevant. There are no homosexual male or female companions, or transgendered ones. Only straight ones and bisexual ones. 

That is not true. If you play a male Hawke and romance Fenris, then you have no reason at all to suspect he is bisexual, since he doesn't display any interest in females. He may just be gay. Same with LadyHawke and Merrill.

[spirosz]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

ignoreality wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

+1

I'm still waiting for a legit reason as to why this knowledge somehow ruins these naysayers own game.

I gave reasoning for why I dislike the concept. What do you think of my reasoning?

Your reasoning actually makes more sense than most. I can actually agree with it and say that if you make a choice you should stick to the consequences and shouldn't get every piece of content because you think you should.
[snip

Choosing to save or kill the Rachni Queen is a choice. Being of a specific gender or sexuality is not a choice.

One shouldn't *have* to play the opposite gender -- especially if they don't feel comfortable doing so, because it ruins their immersion, for example -- to experience a romance plot in a game.

Mind you, I'd be fine with David Gaider's "perfect" approach, that is enough LIs that any gender/sexuality combo can have a couple of viable romance options. However, we all know that is not going to happen. 

In a Bioware game, yes it is.

^

[Hazegurl]

If you pick a female or male as your gender in the character creator it is a choice.

edit:Mind you I prefer that all LIs be available. Just give us different romance content based on gender/sexuality combos. They did a bit of this with the Anders relationship. He doesn't mention Karl as his lover to a female Hawke. I say expand on that. Give us totally different but equal content and experiences with the LIs and even nonromancable companions depending on the gender and sexuality and lock out other romance content. If a player wishes to experience the gay or straight specific content with an LI then they should choose the gender needed to have it but don't lock out the romance to the character completely. I think that approach could make everyone happy.

Modifié par Hazegurl, 15 décembre 2013 - 06:19 .

[daveliam]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

 
What I really am trying to say is that I have never seen bisexuality treated as a permanent lifestyle choice, so that's why I'm a little thrown to see a lot of bi characters in a game.

So I have two things to say:

1.)  I continue to be impressed with how open minded you are in this discussion.  I really enjoy seeing people actually read opposing arguments and validate when they have some merit.  Just the fact that you are willing to engage in this conversation goes a long way and I'm that many people here appreciate it.

2.)  I think that this is the issue that many people have understanding bisexuality.  The problem, as I see it, is that people think that bisexuality is a phase because the person who used to date both male and females has settled down with a person of the same sex.  The flaw in this logic is that there is an assumption that a bisexual has to continue to actively be with both sexes in order to maintain their "bisexuality badge". However culture plays a big role here because we are acculturated to seek out one monogomous relationship (I'm speaking broadly here because there are, clearly, variations across cultures).  So a bisexual is screwed by this expectation.  If they "end up with" a s/s partner, then everyone says, "See, they were just using bisexuality as an easy way to come out but they were actually gay all along".  And if they "end up with" a o/s partner, then everyone says, "See, it was just a phase and they were never really bisexual".  Damned if they do, damned if they don't.  Also, with a heteronormative society, there is a pressure to appear heterosexual so it's easier for bisexual individuals to actively act on their o/s attracttions and relegate their s/s attractions to fantasy.  I used to work at a video store  that had an adult back room and I can't tell you how many "straight" married men would come in without their wives and children and rent bisexual and gay porn.

I've argued this with my husband for years (we're both guys, btw) because he always felt that bisexuals were using heteronormativity as a safety.  Kind of saying, "I'm not really gay because I still like girls!".  However, he has a cousin who is bisexual.  She's dated men and women, including trans men, but now she's in a relationship with a man that looks like it's going to last.  He's finally recognizing that she's still bisexual, but she's happy with the guy that she's with.  It doesn't mean that she isn't still attracted to both sexes.  I hope that this makes sense.  It ended up being longer than I had wanted.

[Plaintiff]

billy the squid wrote...
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.

Maybe you should look up verisimilitude, because it has no relevance whatsoever to the concept of "believability".

"Verisimilitude" in fiction refers to the work's internal logic, not to how well it aligns with the "real world". A work does not have to be similar to the "real world" in any way to acheive verisimilitude.

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

"I can't actually refute anything you say, so have an unfounded accusation of mental problems."

Modifié par Plaintiff, 15 décembre 2013 - 06:21 .