549 réponses à ce sujet

[AresKeith]

spirosz wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

ignoreality wrote...

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.

^

^^

[ignoreality]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

ignoreality wrote...
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.

Come ooon, you know what I mean.

Using an analogy: being a good and emphatic person, if I do say so myself, I'd feel awful if I was forced to play an evil character to experience a sizeable part of the game. Fortunately, I don't have to, because good and evil get the same content in the end, but different paths. So why would someone be forced to play opposite gender to experience a romance plot?

I'm sure you'd jump onto this opening if I didn't clarify, so: I'm not talking about branching (evil character gets content branch A, good character gets a slightly different content branch , but about exclusion. 

[Akka le Vil]

osbornep wrote...

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

That's the total, polar, complete opposite of my own opinion, which is that consistency and plausability are not only paramount, but are actually far MORE important than they are usually made out to be.

Hard to find a common ground with such completely different point of view...

Though as I already pointed out before, I'm far more lenient about the breach of consistency when they are strictly about gameplay aspect (which is not to say I ignore them, just that they grate me less) than when they affect story/characterisation.
For example, I find the "playersexual" aspect ridiculous and disrupting to the game, but I find it FAR MORE annoying how everyone in the city is oblivious to fighting happening two feets from them, and ever worse how the entire context is supposed to be oppressive to mage with Hawke casually throwing fireball left and right under the noses of the Templar, with no one noticing.

[spirosz]

ignoreality wrote...

forced to play opposite gender to experience a romance plot?

Because the writers chose to write characters with certain mindsets, beliefs, sexual preferences and all that jazz, which will either workout for the PC or not.  

Or is that not fair for the character's portrayal as well? 

Modifié par spirosz, 15 décembre 2013 - 06:27 .

[AresKeith]

ignoreality wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

ignoreality wrote...
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.

Come ooon, you know what I mean.

Using an analogy: being a good and emphatic person, if I do say so myself, I'd feel awful if I was forced to play an evil character to experience a sizeable part of the game. Fortunately, I don't have to, because good and evil get the same content in the end, but different paths. So why would someone be forced to play opposite gender to experience a romance plot?

I'm sure you'd jump onto this opening if I didn't clarify, so: I'm not talking about branching (evil character gets content branch A, good character gets a slightly different content branch , but about exclusion. 

Because it's the result of a choice, players shouldn't have access to everything just because they don't want to feel left out on an experience

[SlottsMachine]

I find it funny that people cry for equality (some representation of gays/bisexuals in the videogame space) but all they really want to for all the characters to cater to there sexuality. Wat. I don't care either way, player sexual or not but everyone needs to look at it for what it is.

[ignoreality]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

ignoreality wrote...
I'm sure you'd jump onto this opening if I didn't clarify, so: I'm not talking about branching (evil character gets content branch A, good character gets a slightly different content branch , but about exclusion. 

I've sort of been advocating that choosing certain paths should exclude a player from seeing certain content. It's only right that a person should accept the consequences and rewards for their actions. Renegade players shouldn't have had to encounter the Rachni in ME3, elves shouldn't become royalty in DA:O, and some romances should only be available to certain people. I personally feel like that if I'm presented with every single thing in a game, then I'm going to choose my favorite things every time, which makes games stale for me. I feel like there should always be differences across multiple playthroughs.

I totally agree with you on this. After all, if there are no consequences, then the choices are moot. However, I still vote that if you choose path A as opposed to path B, you should get a comparable amount of content on the chosen path. Different, sure, but still something; because not everyone is capable of distancing themselves from the character they play enough to try the other branch, neither they should have to. (All with a good dose of IMO.)

Modifié par ignoreality, 15 décembre 2013 - 06:37 .

[Plaintiff]

General Slotts wrote...

I find it funny that people cry for equality (some representation of gays/bisexuals in the videogame space) but all they really want to for all the characters to cater to there sexuality. Wat. I don't care either way, player sexual or not but everyone needs to look at it for what it is.

Yes, it is about catering.

It's about all groups being catered to equally. Hence, it's about equality.

[ignoreality]

General Slotts wrote...

I find it funny that people cry for equality (some representation of gays/bisexuals in the videogame space) but all they really want to for all the characters to cater to there sexuality. Wat. I don't care either way, player sexual or not but everyone needs to look at it for what it is.

At this point I feel I must inform you I am a straight female, and yes, I am up in arms to defend the LGBT community's right to have access to satisfying in-game romance choices. Why? BECAUSE JUSTICE.

*glows and waves manifesto*

[daveliam]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Ah, I can see what you're saying. Yeah, that is a bit of a problem, isn't it? If you settle down with someone, then you are going to be thrown into the "straight" or "gay" category. In that sense, I could've been wrong in viewing their orientation as a phase. Though, once you settle down with someone, your sexuality doesn't matter as much, unless you are the cheaty type. 

But yeah, thanks for pointing that out. It's something to consider.

Glad that my post made sense.  Think of it this way, if Leliana ends up married to the male Warden and has babies and takes on a traditional gender role, then people might make the assumption that her bisexuality was just a phase.  However, when we know her (during the events of DA: O), she's still playing the field so her bisexuality is more evident.  

I genuinely do think that more people fall between Kinsey 1 and Kinsey 6 than most people would like to admit.  Our society has always made it unacceptable to act on same sex attraction, so only those who were either really unattracted to the opposite sex or really attracted to someone of the same sex had to act on those attractions because it was just more acceptable to only act on opposite sex attractions.  This skewed how prevelent people thought bisexuality actually is, which continues to marginalize bisexuals.  Look at how the most current generation of adolescents identify.  These are the kids that were born in the late 90's, when the LGBT civil rights movement really began to pick up steam.  These kids grew up in a world where it was much more common to identify as something other than straight.  While there are certainly still more kids in this generation who identify as straight versus anything else, the numbers have taken a huge skew and suddenly it's not uncommon to find numerous kids within a group of friends that identify as something other than gay.  I'm a teacher, so I see this all the time at my high school.

This is also why it doesn't bother me that there is an "overrepresentation" of bisexuals in DA 2.  In Thedas, it's been established that there isn't overt homophobia like we have in our world.  It's treated more as a quirk than anything else.  Without that societal pressure to conform to heteronormativity, why couldn't we expect to see four bisexuals in a group of 9-10 people.  That's not really a huge jump given the cultural contexts that I described.  Just my thoughts on it though.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

These kind of players expect to experience every choice/consequence and romance possibility in 1 playthrough.

On the other side there are players that have dozens of playthroughs for the sake of gameplay and multiplayer.

Both groups are blight for RPG genre!

Modifié par Kaiser Arian, 15 décembre 2013 - 06:56 .

[esper]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

esper wrote...


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.

That makes sense. Sort of how people who are interested in the same things are drawn together. They understand each other and can appriciate each other's quirks. I just wasn't (and am still not) sure if interests and orientation are comparable things because people who love to go to raves and people who like to boink the same sex as them entails two very very different social situations, you know? This similarities thing is the way I understand what you are saying. 

I've never been one to say that a person's sexuality completely defines who they are. It is an aspect of a person that causes a lot of issues because they break what is considered the norm. I also draw from my personal experiences. In my experience, bisexuality was a bit of a phase or fad throughout high school. I know a lot of bi girls that I knew in high school that now have kids and fiances, for example. I've only known two bi guys in my life, and I haven't really kept in touch with them since I graduated, so I don't know if their high school lifestyle was faddy or phasey.

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.

I agree that sexuality doens't define a person, but sexuality is important to modern society which is why I think, in my completely non-scientific experience, that it is why people of same sexual attraction properly graviate towards each other. The chance of them having had similar experiences is properly higher with other people's reaction to their orientation is properly higher (sadly). Of course this is just based on my own and my friends'  life experience.

As for the bi-thing is the thing that is dependant on what you view as a phase. Those high-school bi's you are talking about might still be bi even if they have a man and child. Being open to both doens't mean you are non-monegamous, which is where a lot of people loose their understanding of being open to both gender. Of course it could be a phase because sexuality can be fluid.

It is not that I don't understand your perspective. I was 22 before I even realized that people actually have real physical attraction to one another. Untill then I could not wrap my head around why anyone would want to have for example a one night stand. It was too alien for me. The idea of physical attraction is still a bit alien, but I think that I get the concept on a theorectical level now. Just as I also get that people are not slave to their libido.

Just because they end up wiht Hawke, doens't mean stop being open to both gender, that applies in the real world to. Just because a person ends up in a home or heterosexual relantionship doens't mean they were not bi up untill then. It doens't mean they stop being attracted to both, it also doens't mean that they don't stop, some may eventual change their own idea of their orientation, but it does not change the fact that at one point they considered both men and women as potential partners.

People are not slave to their libido or orientation. It is just that when something is strange to us, we tend to overblow how much it matters to the other person. You could argue that non of the LI's live a bi life style once they settled down with a Hawke or either gender. (Isabella and Zevrab being the only execptions since they enjoy's their lives as sexually active as possible.)

[Akka le Vil]

ignoreality wrote...

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.

So "breaking the immersion" is a valid problem when you have to CHOSE (yes it's a choice) your character's gender, but it's not a problem when the contrived convenience of having everyone available for your character regardless of gender happens ?

Yay consistency

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.

Why not ? That's what they did in ME3, and that was one of the few things this game got right.

daveliam wrote...

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

Because
it's kinda not actually giving gay/bi a depiction of their own and just
removing the actual fluff to artificially inflate the options ?

Now of course if it's only about people whining for having it all and not really bothering to have properly written companions, then of course it's not relevant anymore, but then in this case all the ethical and representative claims start to become quite moot and just bad pretexts...

[daveliam]

General Slotts wrote...

I find it funny that people cry for equality (some representation of gays/bisexuals in the videogame space) but all they really want to for all the characters to cater to there sexuality. .

Yep.  I want more than one of the characters to equally cater to my sexuality, the same way that straight players get to experience it.  Sounds like a cry for equality to me.  Your point?  I'm not seeing a conflict here.

Modifié par daveliam, 15 décembre 2013 - 06:48 .

[Akka le Vil]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

I've sort of been advocating that choosing certain paths should exclude a player from seeing certain content. It's only right that a person should accept the consequences and rewards for their actions. Renegade players shouldn't have had to encounter the Rachni in ME3, elves shouldn't become royalty in DA:O, and some romances should only be available to certain people. I personally feel like that if I'm presented with every single thing in a game, then I'm going to choose my favorite things every time, which makes games stale for me. I feel like there should always be differences across multiple playthroughs.

Strongly agree with that.
Though it's not just about staleness, I just prefer a work which is internally sound. Just like I can't find interesting a story with plot hole, I can't find the same appreciation for a world where such details are passed over than for a world where internal consistency is ruthlessly applied.

[ignoreality]

spirosz wrote...

ignoreality wrote...

forced to play opposite gender to experience a romance plot?

Because the writers chose to write characters with certain mindsets, beliefs, sexual preferences and all that jazz, which will either workout for the PC or not.  

Or is that not fair for the character's portrayal as well? 

I said "a romance plot", not "a specific romance plot". Since 2+ LIs per gender/sexuality combo is not going to happen, I advocate for the next best thing.

Besides, I don't see how not wearing their sexual preference on their sleeve has hurt DA2 characters any. Clearly we can have NPCs with awesome personalities even without stamping 'straight' or 'gay' on their foreheads.

[Plaintiff]

Akka le Vil wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

I've sort of been advocating that choosing certain paths should exclude a player from seeing certain content. It's only right that a person should accept the consequences and rewards for their actions. Renegade players shouldn't have had to encounter the Rachni in ME3, elves shouldn't become royalty in DA:O, and some romances should only be available to certain people. I personally feel like that if I'm presented with every single thing in a game, then I'm going to choose my favorite things every time, which makes games stale for me. I feel like there should always be differences across multiple playthroughs.

Strongly agree with that.
Though it's not just about staleness, I just prefer a work which is internally sound. Just like I can't find interesting a story with plot hole, I can't find the same appreciation for a world where such details are passed over than for a world where internal consistency is ruthlessly applied.

You haven't been talking about internal consistency at all, you've been insisting that the distrubiotion of sexualities in Thedas should reflect real-world statistics.

[SlottsMachine]

What's the point though, other than fan service? Your just hand waving there sexual orientation away. People cry "bigot" everyday around here and how other people still even today are not accepting of how they choose to live there life. With play sexuality you are basically just forcing each character to conform to you, seems kinda hypocritical. But more importantly, why do we want to give the option of avoidance. Shouldn't we have have bigger aspirations, they could instead be using this medium to bring about more acceptance.

[Lebanese Dude]

billy the squid wrote...

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"

A common fantasy among young females is the bad boy who is all badass and a complete jerk to everyone including them. Isn't that realistic or are hundreds of teenage movies rendered invalid? 

Also it's called a rivalry romance for a reason. You can fall in love with someone despite their ideologies. It doesn't necessarily mean it's going to go anywhere.

Modifié par Lebdood, 15 décembre 2013 - 06:46 .

[daveliam]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Because
it's kinda not actually giving gay/bi a depiction of their own and just
removing the actual fluff to artificially inflate the options ?

Now of course if it's only about people whining for having it all and not really bothering to have properly written companions, then of course it's not relevant anymore, but then in this case all the ethical and representative claims start to become quite moot and just bad pretexts...

Well, I don't find it insulting at all, but I also don't view sexuality as something that has to be clearly stated in order to have a well-defined character.  What is a gay/bi depiction?  Sure, Isabella and Zevran both are clearly depicted as one bisexual stereotype:  the sexually greedy bisexual who has indiscriminate sexual encounters..  But that's not the only way that bisexuals act.  How would Anders act if he was bisexual? What about Merrill?  Fenris?  How was the depiction of their characters inconsistent with bisexuality?   Can you give me a clear idea of what kind of depiction you mean?

[Jorji Costava]

Akka le Vil wrote...

That's the total, polar, complete opposite of my own opinion, which is that consistency and plausability are not only paramount, but are actually far MORE important than they are usually made out to be.

Mostly, I'm in agreement with this guy about the fixation on complete plot consistency and logic. Sure it's nice to have, but given the list of things that have to go right in order for any game to go well (theme, symbolism, characterization, gameplay, visuals, etc.), I tend to think that when there has to be a tradeoff between these values, plot logic falls closer to the bottom of the list than the top.