9318 réponses à ce sujet

[XMissWooX]

I don't see what is forced about being conscious of including a wide variety of characters who are not all straight white men.

 

Let's not get into personal attacks, lest this thread be closed.

My argument wasn't that they come up with 90% of the character and then go back and change the gender after they're fully fleshed out. I would not expect the devs to do that, and I did not mean to imply that.

 

This was my point. When I said "forced and artificial" I meant a scenario like ths:

Bioware: "Hey guys, here's Vivienne!" *fanbase is happy*

and

Bioware: "Hey guys, here's Solas!" *fanbase complains about gender imbalance* "I mean, here's Solina!"

 

In the latter case, the character wouldn't be female because she simply is, but because Bioware had to meet some sort of 'woman quota'. That just seems forced to me.

 

 

I'm fine with the supposed gender ratio, but I just don't quite get the sentiments of "I don't want characters to be written as 'distinctly male' or 'distinctly female' because gender doesn't define a character - but I want Solas to be a woman."

[Bugsie]

This argument that 'forced diversity isn't real diversity' is one I personally think is dumb. Dumb because it represents a double standard and totally overlooks the fact the default is ALWAYS a straight white male. People seem to love ignoring that fact.

If I claim as a female, that I feel underrepresented (or should anyone else feel that way who isn't the default) and my claim is viewed as invalid by some there must be a natural alternative that isn't 'forced'. Lo and behold, it's the straight white male, yet again!

The real world is a diverse place, none of that is 'forced' yet we see it called that in games/books/movies because of media bias towards that default. I'm not going to invoke a 'realism argument' because people can write/create whatever they want but the fact it's not thought of as something that can only ever be 'forced' is dumb.

[Stelae]

This argument that 'forced diversity isn't real diversity' is one I personally think is dumb. Dumb because it represents a double standard and totally overlooks the fact the default is ALWAYS a straight white male. People seem to love ignoring that fact.

 

I wish I could like this more than once. 

 

If it's "forced" to look at your characters at the beginning of the writing process and say "let's try for a good mix of ethnicities and genders" then I suppose I'm Team Force.  Although, I'd prefer to call it Team Sensible Writing. When you get an unbalanced 2:1 ratio of male to female adventuring companions--and let me stress, I'm talking about the beginning of the writing process here, not retrofitting a character after all the writing and development has been done--why not make it a policy, or at least SOP, to speculate on whether any of the majority characters could be gender-swapped to decent effect? 

 

"Hmmm, the gender ratio is a bit skew-whiff ... is there any reason this Fade Expert/Tevinter Mage/Grey Warden/Mercenary/whatever has to be male?  Is his maleness essential to both his character and to the plot? Would making him female actually be more interesting?" 

[Lady Nuggins]

This was my point. When I said "forced and artificial" I meant a scenario like ths:
Bioware: "Hey guys, here's Vivienne!" *fanbase is happy*
and
Bioware: "Hey guys, here's Solas!" *fanbase complains about gender imbalance* "I mean, here's Solina!"

In the latter case, the character wouldn't be female because she simply is, but because Bioware had to meet some sort of 'woman quota'. That just seems forced to me.


I'm fine with the supposed gender ratio, but I just don't quite get the sentiments of "I don't want characters to be written as 'distinctly male' or 'distinctly female' because gender doesn't define a character - but I want Solas to be a woman."

But that would never happen, and that is not what I'm talking about. By the time characters are announced, they're pretty much set in stone. I'm talking about the early development stage, when a writer is saying "I need to make a mage. What kind of mage should I make?"

People are objecting to women being written as stereotypes. They object to women not being treated as fully rounded characters.

[aTigerslunch]

Id prefer a fully rounded out personality for a woman. Even males could be little better but women have it worse.

Now what I really want to do is to have the ability to turn off my autocorrect on my phone. Argh!!

[XMissWooX]

I simply don't put much emphasis on numbers and ratios.

 

Earlier in this thread, we discussed how 18% of players chose to play as a female Shepard (and finished the game with her).

We also reached a consensus that, despite that being only 1/5 of all players, it didn't make those players any less significant.

 

Likewise, even if only 1/3 of companions are female, that doesn't make them any less significant.

 

Additionally, a majority of Bioware's writing staff are women - hardly an even ratio there, and hardly a deliberate attempt to undermine women.

 

So, for me personally, having a 6:3 male:female gender ratio split doesn't mean that women won't be well represented, or well written, or significant to the story.

Thus, I have no problem with it.

 

That's not to say that I don't think people shouldn't discuss it. Everyone is free to disagree, and I think that if people have an issue with this, they should certainly voice it.

David Gaider did post his thoughts on this already (here), and I am in agreement with him.

 

 

 

And, in regards to the 'forced' diversity discussion - all I'm really saying is that, had there been an even male:female split, I'd have preferred it have been because Bioware just so happened to come up with 4/5 good female characters, rather than having to consciously strive for 4/5 good female characters.

Much less 'forced', much more 'natural'.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

I simply don't put much emphasis on numbers and ratios.

 

Earlier in this thread, we discussed how 18% of players chose to play as a female Shepard (and finished the game with her).

We also reached a consensus that, despite that being only 1/5 of all players, it didn't make those players any less significant.

 

Likewise, even if only 1/3 of companions are female, that doesn't make them any less significant.

 

Additionally, a majority of Bioware's writing staff are women - hardly an even ratio there, and hardly a deliberate attempt to undermine women.

 

So, for me personally, having a 6:3 male:female gender ratio split doesn't mean that women won't be well represented, or well written, or significant to the story.

Thus, I have no problem with it.

 

That's not to say that I don't think people shouldn't discuss it. Everyone is free to disagree, and I think that if people have an issue with this, they should certainly voice it.

David Gaider did post his thoughts on this already (here), and I am in agreement with him.

 

 

 

And, in regards to the 'forced' diversity discussion - all I'm really saying is that, had there been an even male:female split, I'd have preferred it have been because Bioware just so happened to come up with 4/5 good female characters, rather than having to consciously strive for 4/5 good female characters.

Much less 'forced', much more 'natural'.

I completely agree, if an author decided to go with a male character they should not be undermined by executive decision to genderbend. Likewise, with a female character. However, if a gender isn't explicitly stated or written in mind then yea sure you could try and even up the ratio.

 

I've said before that if the lack of female characters was because male authors tend to create male characters, then the solution is to have more female staff, not to castrate people's work.

[Stelae]

And, in regards to the 'forced' diversity discussion - all I'm really saying is that, had there been an even male:female split, I'd have preferred it have been because Bioware just so happened to come up with 4/5 good female characters, rather than having to consciously strive for 4/5 good female characters.

Much less 'forced', much more 'natural'.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that a lesser character should be developed or included simply to make up the numbers.  Bioware distinguishes itself on writing terrific characters, and I think they do a better job than pretty much anyone at using interesting characters in interesting ways.

 

But the reasons why more male than female characters are written, and are seen by default as more interesting/appropriate bear examining.  Male is the default, and it's seen as universal, so it's easier to write--maleness is not treated as a character trait the way femaleness often is--and you have to consciously push against that, particularly in a fantasy setting where gender roles easily become cliched.  And when a company is at the forefront of calling for gender diversity and better representation of women in games, it'd be nice to have them lead by example rather than rhetoric. "Oh, it's just the best person for the job" doesn't cut it in boardrooms, and it doesn't cut it here either. 

 

DAI will have us choosing from an overwhelmingly male companion pool, even as BW insist they are striving for better gender representation.  Yes, there'll be powerful women in the background, relegated to the usual role of quest-giver, helpmeet or target, and yes, the world in which the game is set may be balanced.  But the game will not be.  Two-thirds of the time, on average, the actors, the people who go out into the world and get stuff done with the Inquisitor, will be male.  Almost all of the promotional material, from posters to ads to t-shirts, will be male dominated.  BW is not working hard enough to foster the inclusivity it knows the industry needs. 

[Brass_Buckles]

Was just in a discussion online, and it brings up another point as to why marketing female characters (in this case the female Inquisitor) is very important.

 

I'm sure some of you were around on BSN to see all of the many threads insisting that female Warden/Hawke/Shepard is not canon, and only the male was canon, because the female wasn't even advertised and obviously those of us who chose to be female were making invalid choices, etc.

 

Well, it's one thing to say "well MY canon <insert character here> was male..." and quite another to turn around and say "your choices are invalid because they weren't even advertised in marketing, and mine was the default."

 

If the female Inquisitor were equally advertised, and better yet, if she were the default option that came up (or there were NO default option, and you had to choose once the game started), then this kind of argument would not happen.  We wouldn't get people insisting that the male is the only "real" version of the character, which is a foolish argument to make in the first place, since it is, after all, a fictional character and not real in any sense of the word--and any other version, male, female, or nonhuman, would be as "real" as the default or marketed version, in the light that they are all fictional.

[aTigerslunch]

The Last of us was presenting a female and sales soared on it. But then, its a good game regardless.

I find it absurd to say one was canon while the other wasnt just cause of advertising. Id call that person ignorant, its a person that goes thru a story.

In this case I'd want her to be default to quit their ignorant bickering.

[Mes]

"Forced" is just another excuse for the pile, frankly.

 

I think what's "forced" is using the same white male protagonist over and over again when our world is getting more diverse by the minute in terms of race, and where women have always been the majority!!

[Mes]

The Last of us was presenting a female and sales soared on it. But then, its a good game regardless.

 

 

Funnily (disappointingly) enough the only review of The Last of Us I happened to read said something like "Finally, a game by men, for men!!1!1!!"

 

I enjoyed the heck out of that game and will probably be buying the remastered version for PS4. But honestly I do not think it's a progressive game (for the purposes of this thread) or really a good example to use. The main protagonist is still a beardy white dude. The sidekick is a really cool girl, but it's still the same old trope of "man protects girl and loves her like daughter" that drives the story. When the girl actually starts taking care of herself it's seen as an incredible period of growth and development, like, "WOW look a girl can actually use a gun! She is so special!"

 

It's cool that she was on the cover and that the game sold well but at the end of the day she was not the main protagonist. She is more or less a storytelling tool for the main guy

[mikeymoonshine]

Well lets not get angry at bioware when they are most definitely one of the best for representation. (and all that) 

 

I was a bit disappointed by the ratio as I was hoping for another female a dwarf, Qunari would have been awesome. I don't think this means women are being under represented though. Two of the first companions to be confirmed were women, Cassandra appeared in the trailers and she looks to be the Alistar/Varric character of this game, Morrigan starred in and narrated the first trailer. 

 

As for the default being a SWM well that's annoying but that's marketing I guess. He's also a big muscly warrior in heavy armour, it's annoying but that's what they are doing and it makes little difference to the actual game. Personally I think they could afford a female or POC diverse default but i'm not that bothered by this. 

[Dutchess]

I simply don't put much emphasis on numbers and ratios.

 

Earlier in this thread, we discussed how 18% of players chose to play as a female Shepard (and finished the game with her).

We also reached a consensus that, despite that being only 1/5 of all players, it didn't make those players any less significant.

 

Likewise, even if only 1/3 of companions are female, that doesn't make them any less significant.

 

Additionally, a majority of Bioware's writing staff are women - hardly an even ratio there, and hardly a deliberate attempt to undermine women.

 

So, for me personally, having a 6:3 male:female gender ratio split doesn't mean that women won't be well represented, or well written, or significant to the story.

Thus, I have no problem with it.

 

That's not to say that I don't think people shouldn't discuss it. Everyone is free to disagree, and I think that if people have an issue with this, they should certainly voice it.

David Gaider did post his thoughts on this already (here), and I am in agreement with him.

 

 

 

And, in regards to the 'forced' diversity discussion - all I'm really saying is that, had there been an even male:female split, I'd have preferred it have been because Bioware just so happened to come up with 4/5 good female characters, rather than having to consciously strive for 4/5 good female characters.

Much less 'forced', much more 'natural'.

 

 

I completely agree, if an author decided to go with a male character they should not be undermined by executive decision to genderbend. Likewise, with a female character. However, if a gender isn't explicitly stated or written in mind then yea sure you could try and even up the ratio.

 

I've said before that if the lack of female characters was because male authors tend to create male characters, then the solution is to have more female staff, not to castrate people's work.

 

Ooh, gotta love the "artistic integrity" argument. The writers already need to conform to certain ratios, namely those of classes. To have options in what party you want to run around with, the distribution of rogues/mages/warriors should be more or less even. So what if the writers had five awesome ideas for mage characters, and no inspiration for warriors? Then those five awesome ideas will still get cut down to two or three and they will have to come up with something for the warriors anyway. Yet I don't hear anyone crying foul about this "forced" distribution that potentially limits the sacred creativity of Gaider and the rest of the writers. But with gender this is suddenly a big deal? Why would gender be the fatal blow to creativity here? There is nothing "natural" about the writing process. Characters do not grow on trees. They stem from the imagination and can be adapted, tweaked and adjusted to the writer's whims. 

 

The whole point is that the writers always "just so happen" to come up with a distribution with women as the minority. I think that alone discards the idea that they would start with a character as gender neutral first and develop personality, background story, etc., and then go "well, should this one be male or female?". DAO had 4 men and 3 women, plus dog and Shale. If you count Shale it's 4:4, although I feel she is a bit too much of a special case and is more gender neutral.

Awakening had 4 men and 3 women, one of whom dies in the prologue so doesn't count as a full companion, making 4:2.

DA2 actually had 3:3, or 4:3 if you have Sebastian. The sibling can change the ratio to 5:3 or 4:4 again, but they are no companion for the majority of the game so they don't count much either way.

Now DAI has 6:3.

So with four games the men:women ratio has been equal or one more guy. If the writers would follow that "natural" process you believe in, isn't it an awfully funny coincidence that the distribution has never ended up skewed in favor of the ladies? I have said in another thread before: in an ideal world these ratios do not matter and it is all fine. Sometimes it would be equal, sometimes it would be in favor of the ladies, and sometimes there would be more guys. All fine. But as long as these ratios always favor the guys, it does matter.

 

I have seen Gaider's opinion on the matter and I disagree with him, and I feel that despite what he says, he does not "get it". Having women in the rest of the game as NPCs is not the same as having an (almost) equal number of men and women in your party. The companions are the characters you truly get to interact and build relationships with. They also get the most dialogue and screen time in Bioware games. In the DA world women are supposedly equal to men, yet so far I have still seen more men in powerful positions than women, and usually it's men who get to drive the plot forward. Good if DAI has more women, but another Anora does not equal another Aveline. 

[aTigerslunch]

Funnily (disappointingly) enough the only review of The Last of Us I happened to read said something like "Finally, a game by men, for men!!1!1!!"

I enjoyed the heck out of that game and will probably be buying the remastered version for PS4. But honestly I do not think it's a progressive game (for the purposes of this thread) or really a good example to use. The main protagonist is still a beardy white dude. The sidekick is a really cool girl, but it's still the same old trope of "man protects girl and loves her like daughter" that drives the story. When the girl actually starts taking care of herself it's seen as an incredible period of growth and development, like, "WOW look a girl can actually use a gun! She is so special!"

It's cool that she was on the cover and that the game sold well but at the end of the day she was not the main protagonist. She is more or less a storytelling tool for the main guy

Ah darn it..I thought it had more of her. Sorry. I never played it just....oh, well the one that I took word from was a male. I viewed the advertising which apperently was misled on me. I went and took a step backwards using that then. Ill try better next time.

[Tayah]

I don't think anyone here is arguing that a lesser character should be developed or included simply to make up the numbers.  Bioware distinguishes itself on writing terrific characters, and I think they do a better job than pretty much anyone at using interesting characters in interesting ways.

 

But the reasons why more male than female characters are written, and are seen by default as more interesting/appropriate bear examining.  Male is the default, and it's seen as universal, so it's easier to write--maleness is not treated as a character trait the way femaleness often is--and you have to consciously push against that, particularly in a fantasy setting where gender roles easily become cliched.  And when a company is at the forefront of calling for gender diversity and better representation of women in games, it'd be nice to have them lead by example rather than rhetoric. "Oh, it's just the best person for the job" doesn't cut it in boardrooms, and it doesn't cut it here either. 

 

DAI will have us choosing from an overwhelmingly male companion pool, even as BW insist they are striving for better gender representation.  Yes, there'll be powerful women in the background, relegated to the usual role of quest-giver, helpmeet or target, and yes, the world in which the game is set may be balanced.  But the game will not be.  Two-thirds of the time, on average, the actors, the people who go out into the world and get stuff done with the Inquisitor, will be male.  Almost all of the promotional material, from posters to ads to t-shirts, will be male dominated.  BW is not working hard enough to foster the inclusivity it knows the industry needs. 

This and I wish I could like it more than once. Also this as Duchess said it better than I could, thanks.

 

Ooh, gotta love the "artistic integrity" argument. The writers already need to conform to certain ratios, namely those of classes. To have options in what party you want to run around with, the distribution of rogues/mages/warriors should be more or less even. So what if the writers had five awesome ideas for mage characters, and no inspiration for warriors? Then those five awesome ideas will still get cut down to two or three and they will have to come up with something for the warriors anyway. Yet I don't hear anyone crying foul about this "forced" distribution that potentially limits the sacred creativity of Gaider and the rest of the writers. But with gender this is suddenly a big deal? Why would gender be the fatal blow to creativity here? There is nothing "natural" about the writing process. Characters do not grow on trees. They stem from the imagination and can be adapted, tweaked and adjusted to the writer's whims. 

 

The whole point is that the writers always "just so happen" to come up with a distribution with women as the minority. I think that alone discards the idea that they would start with a character as gender neutral first and develop personality, background story, etc., and then go "well, should this one be male or female?". DAO had 4 men and 3 women, plus dog and Shale. If you count Shale it's 4:4, although I feel she is a bit too much of a special case and is more gender neutral.

Awakening had 4 men and 3 women, one of whom dies in the prologue so doesn't count as a full companion, making 4:2.

DA2 actually had 3:3, or 4:3 if you have Sebastian. The sibling can change the ratio to 5:3 or 4:4 again, but they are no companion for the majority of the game so they don't count much either way.

Now DAI has 6:3.

So with four games the men:women ratio has been equal or one more guy. If the writers would follow that "natural" process you believe in, isn't it an awfully funny coincidence that the distribution has never ended up skewed in favor of the ladies? I have said in another thread before: in an ideal world these ratios do not matter and it is all fine. Sometimes it would be equal, sometimes it would be in favor of the ladies, and sometimes there would be more guys. All fine. But as long as these ratios always favor the guys, it does matter.

 

I have seen Gaider's opinion on the matter and I disagree with him, and I feel that despite what he says, he does not "get it". Having women in the rest of the game as NPCs is not the same as having an (almost) equal number of men and women in your party. The companions are the characters you truly get to interact and build relationships with. They also get the most dialogue and screen time in Bioware games. In the DA world women are supposedly equal to men, yet so far I have still seen more men in powerful positions than women, and usually it's men who get to drive the plot forward. Good if DAI has more women, but another Anora does not equal another Aveline. 

Yes I've also seen Gaider's opinion and also disagreed with him on this for exactly the reasons you outline above. Additionally he makes the suggestion that there are many powerful women in the rest of the world and while that may be true for the beginning of the game we know that the divine and the leader of the mages plus others (possibly some of the other powerful female leaders) will be killed at the start of the game and there will still be plenty of men in powerful positions out there too and it may be men that replace those women killed during the game. I would also point out that DAO had more male companions and mostly men in power and that was apparently fine so why is it not fine to have the reverse happen? Or even a more balanced companion roster and a more balanced 'background' NPC roster? 

 

@aTigerslunch I appreciate you trying and being so interested and open minded in the discussion and I think your posts have been helpful and insightful and I look forward to your next example (no pressure  ). Also your avatar and name are super cool 

[oceanicsurvivor]

Funnily (disappointingly) enough the only review of The Last of Us I happened to read said something like "Finally, a game by men, for men!!1!1!!"

 

I enjoyed the heck out of that game and will probably be buying the remastered version for PS4. But honestly I do not think it's a progressive game (for the purposes of this thread) or really a good example to use. The main protagonist is still a beardy white dude. The sidekick is a really cool girl, but it's still the same old trope of "man protects girl and loves her like daughter" that drives the story. When the girl actually starts taking care of herself it's seen as an incredible period of growth and development, like, "WOW look a girl can actually use a gun! She is so special!"

 

It's cool that she was on the cover and that the game sold well but at the end of the day she was not the main protagonist. She is more or less a storytelling tool for the main guy

Also, Naughty Dog was strongly pressured to remove Ellie from the boxart, or at least, to shove her to the back. Exec. type people were worried it wouldn't sell well.

I get torn about the representation value of The Last of Us, especially considering the DLC. Ellie is arguably one of the better female characters I've seen lately, even though, yes, ultimately Joel is the main character.

What was really gross however, was all the "The Last of Us vs. Bioshock Infinite" comparisons I saw based on the basis that since both were about dudes with female companions they were instantly the same.

 

And as to the gender split thing. Like, I've made my peace with the ratio split I suppose...and I'm not saying Bioware should change the characters they have now even if they could. But I think its weird that if I want an all female team backing me up, I don't have any choice in who comes with me. If I wanted an all male team backing me up, I have 2 warriors, 2 mages, 2 rogues to choose from. Thats not just more characters, that a huge amount of variables and combinations. *shrug* just to put the gender gap in perspective a bit, in terms of its impact on an actual gameplay element (since clearly 'because representation is important and women are generally pretty cool people' isn't an argument that jives well with everyone )

[Lady Nuggins]

Ooh, gotta love the "artistic integrity" argument. The writers already need to conform to certain ratios, namely those of classes. To have options in what party you want to run around with, the distribution of rogues/mages/warriors should be more or less even. So what if the writers had five awesome ideas for mage characters, and no inspiration for warriors? Then those five awesome ideas will still get cut down to two or three and they will have to come up with something for the warriors anyway. Yet I don't hear anyone crying foul about this "forced" distribution that potentially limits the sacred creativity of Gaider and the rest of the writers. But with gender this is suddenly a big deal? Why would gender be the fatal blow to creativity here? There is nothing "natural" about the writing process. Characters do not grow on trees. They stem from the imagination and can be adapted, tweaked and adjusted to the writer's whims. 

 

The whole point is that the writers always "just so happen" to come up with a distribution with women as the minority. I think that alone discards the idea that they would start with a character as gender neutral first and develop personality, background story, etc., and then go "well, should this one be male or female?". DAO had 4 men and 3 women, plus dog and Shale. If you count Shale it's 4:4, although I feel she is a bit too much of a special case and is more gender neutral.

Awakening had 4 men and 3 women, one of whom dies in the prologue so doesn't count as a full companion, making 4:2.

DA2 actually had 3:3, or 4:3 if you have Sebastian. The sibling can change the ratio to 5:3 or 4:4 again, but they are no companion for the majority of the game so they don't count much either way.

Now DAI has 6:3.

So with four games the men:women ratio has been equal or one more guy. If the writers would follow that "natural" process you believe in, isn't it an awfully funny coincidence that the distribution has never ended up skewed in favor of the ladies? I have said in another thread before: in an ideal world these ratios do not matter and it is all fine. Sometimes it would be equal, sometimes it would be in favor of the ladies, and sometimes there would be more guys. All fine. But as long as these ratios always favor the guys, it does matter.

 

I have seen Gaider's opinion on the matter and I disagree with him, and I feel that despite what he says, he does not "get it". Having women in the rest of the game as NPCs is not the same as having an (almost) equal number of men and women in your party. The companions are the characters you truly get to interact and build relationships with. They also get the most dialogue and screen time in Bioware games. In the DA world women are supposedly equal to men, yet so far I have still seen more men in powerful positions than women, and usually it's men who get to drive the plot forward. Good if DAI has more women, but another Anora does not equal another Aveline. 

 

This is exactly it.  Why does no story ever just happen to have a larger ratio of women then men?  Why do they "naturally" come up with men more often than women?  This game does not happen in a vacuum.  The fact that, whether through bias or lack of forethought or whatever, nobody on the writing team said "hey, does anybody think this is turning into a sausage party?" is just plain disappointing.  I hoped for better from them.  

 

Gaider's comments make me hopeful for what we'll see for NPC females.  But NPCs are never going to be as important or valued as party members.  

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Gaider's comments make me hopeful for what we'll see for NPC females.  But NPCs are never going to be as important or valued as party members.  

I wouldn't say that. Some of my favorite characters are NPCs.

[aTigerslunch]

Thanks @Tayah

Oceanicsurvivor, I feel that would be a shame. All girl team being limited where the male team wouldnt be.

Think of as this, the ladies we get are worth two men. Did I say that right? Or, it takes two men to compare how good one lady is. Vivienne, Sera and Scribbles are just better that is why there is less.

It still should been equal though. Now that I thought like this I feel bad for Bull, Solas and Cullen.

[In Exile]

This is exactly it.  Why does no story ever just happen to have a larger ratio of women then men?  Why do they "naturally" come up with men more often than women?  This game does not happen in a vacuum.  The fact that, whether through bias or lack of forethought or whatever, nobody on the writing team said "hey, does anybody think this is turning into a sausage party?" is just plain disappointing.  I hoped for better from them.  

 

Gaider's comments make me hopeful for what we'll see for NPC females.  But NPCs are never going to be as important or valued as party members.  

 

I've always found the idea that men prefer female companions (in a friendship, party member sense) difficult to relate to, because I've had a difficult time related to male friends. Just a personal quirk of mine. 

[Tayah]

 

And as to the gender split thing. Like, I've made my peace with the ratio split I suppose...and I'm not saying Bioware should change the characters they have now even if they could. But I think its weird that if I want an all female team backing me up, I don't have any choice in who comes with me. If I wanted an all male team backing me up, I have 2 warriors, 2 mages, 2 rogues to choose from. Thats not just more characters, that a huge amount of variables and combinations. *shrug* just to put the gender gap in perspective a bit, in terms of its impact on an actual gameplay element (since clearly 'because representation is important and women are generally pretty cool people' isn't an argument that jives well with everyone )

Yeah I know there's no changing it now I'm just very disappointed by it  . I like to be able to have an all girl team often too but I see that as being almost impossible with only three to choose from who are likely going to have very different motivations, personalities and because in most games with two or three women there's usually a catty antagonistic relationship between two of them. I expect there to be clashes between them and that keeping them happy at the same time will be nigh on impossible so yeah.

 

 

This is exactly it.  Why does no story ever just happen to have a larger ratio of women then men?  Why do they "naturally" come up with men more often than women?  This game does not happen in a vacuum.  The fact that, whether through bias or lack of forethought or whatever, nobody on the writing team said "hey, does anybody think this is turning into a sausage party?" is just plain disappointing.  I hoped for better from them.  

 

Gaider's comments make me hopeful for what we'll see for NPC females.  But NPCs are never going to be as important or valued as party members.  

Also considering the setups from the books there's usually a powerful man in opposition to many of these NPCs so they're probably more expendable than most of the companions are going to be... just a thought. 

 

Also 'liking' posts gets weird for me as soon as I start typing a response someone's new post randomly when I see them will have no like button available until after I've posted and left the thread and come back again, is that normal or just me?   Anyway I 'like' your post Lady Nuggins 

[oceanicsurvivor]

Thanks @Tayah

Oceanicsurvivor, I feel that would be a shame. All girl team being limited where the male team wouldnt be.

Think of as this, the ladies we get are worth two men. Did I say that right? Or, it takes two men to compare how good one lady is. Vivienne, Sera and Scribbles are just better that is why there is less.

It still should been equal though. Now that I thought like this I feel bad for Bull, Solas and Cullen.

 

I'm just gonna second what Tayah said. I'm very glad you're adding to this conversation (and I love your signature/banner...whatever they are being called nowadays ).

 

Yeah I know there's no changing it now I'm just very disappointed by it  . I like to be able to have an all girl team often too but I see that as being almost impossible with only three to choose from who are likely going to have very different motivations, personalities and because in most games with two or three women there's usually a catty antagonistic relationship between two of them. I expect there to be clashes between them and that keeping them happy at the same time will be nigh on impossible so yeah.

 

 

Also considering the setups from the books there's usually a powerful man in opposition to many of these NPCs so they're probably more expendable than most of the companions are going to be... just a thought. 

 

Also 'liking' posts gets weird for me as soon as I start typing a response someone's new post randomly when I see them will have no like button available until after I've posted and left the thread and come back again, is that normal or just me?   Anyway I 'like' your post Lady Nuggins 

 

Yeah...I get nervous above Cass and Viv. I want to give Bioware enough credit to not go with a Isabela/Aveline esque relationship with them...but Cass is a strong female warrior while Viv is...vaguely...fashion obsessed. And I just see that similar antagonism that Isabela/Aveline and even to a lesser extent, Leliana and Morrigan had, steming from that relationship (where they are critical of one parties appearance and clothing choices etc). If two characters are going to get into it over fashion I'd prefer it was like...idk, Dorian and Iron Bull? Or...just...not the women yet again.

 

It'll be interesting to see who the big baddie is yeah

 

For the like button to appear I sometimes haveta refresh the page yeah

[Mes]

I'm just gonna second what Tayah said. I'm very glad you're adding to this conversation (and I love your signature/banner...whatever they are being called nowadays ).

 

 

Yeah...I get nervous above Cass and Viv. I want to give Bioware enough credit to not go with a Isabela/Aveline esque relationship with them...but Cass is a strong female warrior while Viv is...vaguely...fashion obsessed. And I just see that similar antagonism that Isabela/Aveline and even to a lesser extent, Leliana and Morrigan had, steming from that relationship (where they are critical of one parties appearance and clothing choices etc). If two characters are going to get into it over fashion I'd prefer it was like...idk, Dorian and Iron Bull? Or...just...not the women yet again.

 

 

Yeah, exactly. Like... women are capable of talking about something other than one another's appearance!! UGH.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

So what if the writers had five awesome ideas for mage characters, and no inspiration for warriors? Then those five awesome ideas will still get cut down to two or three and they will have to come up with something for the warriors anyway. Yet I don't hear anyone crying foul about this "forced" distribution that potentially limits the sacred creativity of Gaider and the rest of the writers.

Idk but I'm definitely not in favour of that either. In fact I pick my companions purely based on who I like or I think suits the story