1875 réponses à ce sujet

[daveliam]

One of my above points was inaccurate:  there was a m/m romance in Jade Empire as well.  So that's five out of ten Bioware games where gay males were ignored with regards to romance:  BG2, NWN, KOTOR, ME, ME 2, and SWTOR.  This is compared to the four in which there were gay male options:  JE, DA: O, DA 2, and ME 3 and only two of which (DA 2 and ME 3) gave the player a choice in LI. 

[TurretSyndrome]

Sorry, I meant DA games, I don't put much interest in ME romances so I'm not that familiar with their specifics. Also I'm not saying we can't compare, just that the all the complaints and upset fans pop up because they always compare. 

 

The way I see it, Bioware has only done it once in DA. If they do the opposite this time and have more gay characters in the game, I wouldn't be one counting or complaining.

[daveliam]

I understand what you are saying about DA games, since that team has a much better track record.

 

However, the fact that I've demonstrated that in 50% of Bioware games, gay males have been completely ignored and we have only had a choice in LI in 20% of the games, might indicate why many of us (me included) actively pay attention to romance dynamics as they develop.  While I don't expect that it will go back to how it used to be ("used to" is used loosely since SWTOR is current and we are excluded again), and the DA team in particular doesn't seem to want to back to it given Gaider's comments on the subject, it doesn't mean that I won't remember being excluded in the past.

 

And that's just gay males.  Straight females and lesbian players have similar tales to tell.  Bioware, by far one of the most equitable gaming companies, is still far from perfect on the subject, but they have made a concerted effort which is appreciated and they've done it by making sure that they don't exclude segments of their fanbase.

[Thrillian]

I would agree with this if a certain group of people were completely ignored in any of Bioware's DA games. Evidently, they weren't. People had atleast one romance option of every preference(be it gay or straight) in every game. They only complain because they start comparing the number of characters they can romance in the game with the number of characters others can romance.

 

I'm not saying suck it up, but if developers feel that certain characters are meant to be gay,bi or straight and end up creating more number of one type of characters, people should understand that. I think this is where I see the divide between you and some others here, and I. You feel equality should be maintained no matter what when creating characters. I feel quality of the characters themselves should be given the top priority when creating them, and this makes me seem like the big bad wolf who doesn't respect others' wishes, even when I say that I don't mind if I take a hit since what I suggest might result in fewer hetero romances for me.

 

In the end, these are all opinions. My opinion is quality over quantity(or equality for you). Regardless, what none of us say on the matter, matters, we will all shut up once the romances are revealed.

 

 

Exactly, so 2 gay and 2 bi LI's would be quality over quantity,  Exactly my feelings, glad that we can see eye to eye on such things.

[TurretSyndrome]

@ Daveliam. Fair point. Bioware should really stop catering to one group all the time just because that's where they feel most customers are. That's why I feel that if they just concentrate in trying to make a quality game, instead of weighing themselves down with all thos political nonsense, they'd automatically hit the sales they want.

Exactly, so 2 gay and 2 bi LI's would be quality over quantity,  Exactly my feelings, glad that we can see eye to eye on such things.

You repeating this "then let's have 2 gay and 2 bi romances" thing is only making me chuckle, if you think somehow it bothers me if they do it. If you see any of my previous posts, you'll notice that I have no problem with it, so don't waste your breath.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The bolded part is one of my main gripes against it, the player shouldn't be allowed to have control over that. You're basically turning a characters' sexual orientation into a game mechanic and that should already be predefined in the characters 

Why aren't combat talents or tactics predefined?  What's different about those?  Why are some aspects of the character open to player control and others aren't?

 

I don't see why there's any aspect of the characters we can't control.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think, from a story viewpoint, a character's sexuality SHOULD be different.  In DA2, even our companions' classes and specializations are decided to fit their characters.  Everything else is strictly a gameplay mechanic that is reasonably divorced from the story.

 

No.  Absolutely not.  It is not at all reasonable to divorce any aspect of the gameplay from the story.  Every such divide is unfortunate and something that should be minimised.  Under no circumstances is gameplay/story segregation something I will accept as normal or reasonable.  It is by its very definition unreasonable, as there is no way to rationally explain the divide within the limitations of the game's setting.

[Allan Schumacher]

And if I do happen to complain about it(this is a hypothetical situation, in reality I really won't care that I have only one LI that I prefer in the game so please bear that in mind), I would like Bioware to tell me something like "too bad, better luck next game", rather than sacrificing character quality by making all companions playersexual.

Is it possible that other people have not had the same experiences, and as such any anecdotes you provide about whether or not you'd be okay with it are entirely not applicable to them?

Note that what I get from your post is that, based purely on someone's sexual preference outside of the game, you wish to tell them "too bad, better luck next game." In other words, "Sorry, this game isn't really for you. Better luck next game."


 

No, the real problem is they don't feel like complete, fully realized characters, because a part of their personality has been reduced to a gameplay mechanic. Knowing this as the player, it hurts my immersion in their part of the story.

Do you even know what my sexual preference is? Does it seem as though there is a void in you understanding, and interacting with me, because of not knowing what mine (or someone else's) sexual preference is? How does my sexual preference affect my personality? Are you saying that you'd have assumptions as to how I would behave simply on knowing my sexual orientation?

In this case, I have to ask, is there any possibility that the assumptions that you make about what my personality would be based on my sexual orientation are not actually correct, but instead stereotypes and myths perpetuated for a while without actually reflecting reality?


Or am I just not a complete, fully realized person to a lot of people here because they don't know what my sexual orientation is?

(1) Of course not; I don't recall anyone making that claim here.

Well, then I guess this is a source of confusion because it *really* seems like you're saying that someone's sexual orientation has a non-trivial influence on their personality.

[razmatazz]

(Allan Schumacher)

Do you even know what my sexual preference is? Does it seem as though there is a void in you understanding, and interacting with me, because of not knowing what mine (or someone else's) sexual preference is? How does my sexual preference affect my personality? Are you saying that you'd have assumptions as to how I would behave simply on knowing my sexual orientation?

In this case, I have to ask, is there any possibility that the assumptions that you make about what my personality would be based on my sexual orientation are not actually correct, but instead stereotypes and myths perpetuated for a while without actually reflecting reality?


Or am I just not a complete, fully realized person to a lot of people here because they don't know what my sexual orientation is?



Well, then I guess this is a source of confusion because it *really* seems like you're saying that someone's sexual orientation has a non-trivial influence on their personality.

 

(Me)

**Shrugs**  It's not your story that's being put out there.  Everything I've said has been based on/in reference to characters in-game.  And when a character is a love interest, his/her sexuality becomes a VERY apparent part of his/her personality.

 

Edit:  OK, that edit came out weird...

[TurretSyndrome]

Is it possible that other people have not had the same experiences, and as such any anecdotes you provide about whether or not you'd be okay with it are entirely not applicable to them?

Note that what I get from your post is that, based purely on someone's sexual preference outside of the game, you wish to tell them "too bad, better luck next game." In other words, "Sorry, this game isn't really for you. Better luck next game."

 

Other people have not had the experience of not being able to romance a certain character because of their "locked" sexual orientation? They may not have had the exact same experience as I did, like wanting to romance Samantha like I did but were declined, but in essence the situation is the same.

 

The bolded part. Funny you say that. Because I can find a hundred quotes of Gaider's posts saying things very similar to the words you quoted, every now and then, in addition to his usual "we can't please everyone" line. Heck, you guys even said that to some of us when we asked for the option to see full written to-be-spoken lines in the tooltips before a dialogue option is picked. Also, once Gaider or anyone else from Bioware reveals how romances will be handled, that is exactly what one group of forumers or the other will hear, not from me, but from you guys, so don't go putting words like "Sorry, this game is not for you, go play something else" in my mouth.

 

And why would I or anyone else for that matter say "the game is not for you"? Does being dissatisfied with an optional romance immediately mean the entire game is not for that person?  I was only suggesting that Bioware make a stance on the characters they've created, regardless of whatever sexual orientation they may be, instead of succumbing to fan pressure and coming up with cheap immersion breaking solutions like "playersexuality".

[Ianamus]

Do you even know what my sexual preference is? Does it seem as though there is a void in you understanding, and interacting with me, because of not knowing what mine (or someone else's) sexual preference is? How does my sexual preference affect my personality? Are you saying that you'd have assumptions as to how I would behave simply on knowing my sexual orientation?

In this case, I have to ask, is there any possibility that the assumptions that you make about what my personality would be based on my sexual orientation are not actually correct, but instead stereotypes and myths perpetuated for a while without actually reflecting reality?


Or am I just not a complete, fully realized person to a lot of people here because they don't know what my sexual orientation is?
 

 

I thinks it's just an issue of language. While claims that someones personality is impacted by their sexual orientation irritate me as well I don't think they really meant "personality" but "person". And I have to agree to an extent that a person is influenced by their sexuality, however small, and while it may have no impact on their personality it will impact a lot of other things, like their view on relationships and such.

 

I do believe that having characters express no interest in one gender if you choose to play a female but have had previous relations and flirt openly with that gender if you choose to play a man is a detriment to their characters. Several pages back I likened it to making Vivienne white if you choose to play a white protagonist and black if you choose to play a black protagonist. Her skin colour is completely separated from her personality and how she acts, but it is still an intrinsic part of her person, and changing it is just wrong. 

 

I also pointed that that society has only just reached a stage where we accept people are "born that way", and then "playersexuality" comes and creates characters and then just slaps on whatever sexuality fits best depending on what the protagonists gender is. One of the major fights in LGBT rights has been removing the incorrect belief that sexuality is a choice or something that can be changed, and "playersexuality" has it changing the moment you create your character. 

 

I don't really take issue with characters like Fenris or Merrill, who are so vague that they could be bisexual in all play throughs, you just don't know because they are not open about it (and that is fine. Though I like to think that they both are bisexual), but character's preferences outright changing or being strongly implied to have changed is something that I'm not particularly fond of. An all-bisexual approach is fine, in my opinion, but a "playersexual" one is not. 

[Lulupab]

Other people have not had the experience of not being able to romance a certain character because of their "locked" sexual orientation? They may not have had the exact same experience as I did, like wanting to romance Samantha like I did but were declined, but in essence the situation is the same.

 

The bolded part. Funny you say that. Because I can find a hundred quotes of Gaider's posts saying things very similar to the words you quoted, every now and then, in addition to his usual "we can't please everyone" line. Heck, you guys even said that to some of us when we asked for the option to see full written to-be-spoken lines in the tooltips before a dialogue option is picked. Also, once Gaider or anyone else from Bioware reveals how romances will be handled, that is exactly what one group of forumers or the other will hear, not from me, but from you guys, so don't go putting words like "Sorry, this game is not for you, go play something else" in my mouth.

 

And why would I or anyone else for that matter say "the game is not for you"? Does being dissatisfied with an optional romance immediately mean the entire game is not for that person?  I was only suggesting that Bioware make a stance on the characters they've created, regardless of whatever sexual orientation they may be, instead of succumbing to fan pressure and coming up with cheap immersion breaking solutions like "playersexuality".

 

Bold part: Gaider and Cameron have stated that romance itself is some sort of fanservice and not part of the game and it never impacted any of Bioware games except adding some dialogues to it. That said its makes a very good sense to apply playersexuality to please as many as possible.

[Jaison1986]

Is it possible that other people have not had the same experiences, and as such any anecdotes you provide about whether or not you'd be okay with it are entirely not applicable to them?

Note that what I get from your post is that, based purely on someone's sexual preference outside of the game, you wish to tell them "too bad, better luck next game." In other words, "Sorry, this game isn't really for you. Better luck next game."

 

You might see it that way, but, rather then "Sorry, this game isn't really for you. Better luck next game." how about "Sorry, but this particular character have preferences and they will not bend to the mighty PC just because you want them to"

 

Why is it so outlandish to you that players prefer characters with different sexualities? Just as the DA world is filled with people on different opinions and preferences in many subjects, it's not too hard to imagine characters with different sexual preferences, no?

[Lulupab]

You might see it that way, but, rather then "Sorry, this game isn't really for you. Better luck next game." how about "Sorry, but this particular character have preferences and they will not bend to the mighty PC just because you want them to"

 

Why is it so outlandish to you that players prefer characters with different sexualities? Just as the DA world is filled with people on different opinions and preferences in many subjects, it's not too hard to imagine characters with different sexual preferences, no?

 

What we miss is the fact that you can only be one gender at a time and should consider the happenings with that gender to be the core story. Just because you can change your gender anytime does not mean you can compare the orientation of characters with each gender playthrough. People don't change genders in novels or movies but they can in video games. That is a huge aspect.

[TurretSyndrome]

Bold part: Gaider and Cameron have stated that romance itself is some sort of fanservice and not part of the game and it never impacted any of Bioware games except adding some dialogues to it. That said its makes a very good sense to apply playersexuality to please as many as possible.

 

Romance may be a fan service, an optional one which is not THE reason most people buy the game for, I might add. So while it's true that you may be able to "please" everybody who indulge in this optional content with something like playersexuality, you are effectively breaking immersion and believability of those characters for others, by making their sexual orientation, a trait of a character's personality, player defined.

[jwalker]

Why aren't combat talents or tactics predefined?  What's different about those?  Why are some aspects of the character open to player control and others aren't?

 

I don't see why there's any aspect of the characters we can't control.

 

meh... people claim that characterization and immersion and stuff like that is the reason companions should have a label on their foreheads with their sexual orientation, that is bad those companions accomodate the main character. But, at the same time, is totally okay companions can fall in love with murdering bastard sociopath or with a saint wannabe for example. Strangely, that doesn't hurt their immersion, or it doesn't "cheapen" the characters...

[Lulupab]

Romance may be a fan service, an optional one which is not THE reason most people buy the game for, I might add. So while it's true that you may be able to "please" everybody who indulge in this optional content with something like playersexuality, you are effectively breaking immersion and believability of those characters for others, by making their sexual orientation, a trait of a character's personality, player defined.

 

Its the diversity of the being a video game. Normally if its a movie or novel you have no way of knowing how the characters react if the protagonist changed gender. You should treat the video game like that too. You should not care about how characters would react to a different gender protagonist. If you get no spoiler information prior to the game you have no way of determining the characters are playersexual only if you play another game with different gender you can realize this.

 

So no developers do not need follow any immersion rule as its not a movie. It further advances Bioware policy of making each game a different experience for each player.

[Jaison1986]

Its the diversity of the being a video game. Normally if its a movie or novel you have no way of knowing how the characters react if the protagonist changed gender. You should treat the video game like that too. You should not care about how characters would react to a different gender protagonist. If you get no spoiler information prior to the game you have no way of determining the characters are playersexual only if you play another game with different gender you can realize this.

 

So no developers do not need follow any immersion rule as its not a movie. It further advances Bioware policy of making each game a different experience for each player.

 

You can consider it diversity, but from were I see it, it would feel more like cheapening it. Allow me to elaborate. How would you feel if this particular companion were to agree with your every decision on a quest? No matter if you decide to save an group of people or murder them all, they will aways agree with you. Wouldn't you find that cheap? They don't have personal opinions at all. They are agreeable simply for the sake of pleasing the player. That's how I see the "playersexual" romances. These characters don't have these preferences for personal reasons or choice, they are just the way they are to please you. I don't want to see that. I want to see characters who will have set preferences, and if you don't happen to fulfill such preferences, you will have accept it and move on, the same way as would need to accept and move on if an character disagree with your choice, or even leave you for it.

[TurretSyndrome]

@ lulupabAh yes, now you would dismiss it by saying "it's a video game, not a book or a movie, people play it for fun". Sorry, but in games like Dragon Age, I do value the rules of the created world, and I do expect the creator to follow them while creating new content and filling up that world. I also expect the creator to do what they can to preserve my suspension of disbelief, and therefore my immersion in the game. That's what made me love Origins so much, that's what made me feel disappointed in DA 2. 

 

You know what makes video games like this better than a book or a novel? The fact that you can interact with, and affect the world and it's characters, while they react to what you do in the game. And so you have control over a few things, such as your own character. You can influence the world to change but you cannot change it directly, like the creator would. So why should you have the power to change anything related to the traits of a character who belongs to that world, at the level of the game's creator?

 

In any case, If you and so many others here don't mind if immersion takes a hit, just so you can have more of your dalliances in the game, so be it. But It matter to me. 

[Lulupab]

You can consider it diversity, but from were I see it, it would feel more like cheapening it. Allow me to elaborate. How would you feel if this particular companion were to agree with your every decision on a quest? No matter if you decide to save an group of people or murder them all, they will aways agree with you. Wouldn't you find that cheap? They don't have personal opinions at all. They are agreeable simply for the sake of pleasing the player. That's how I see the "playersexual" romances. These characters don't have these preferences for personal reasons or choice, they are just the way they are to please you. I don't want to see that. I want to see characters who will have set preferences, and if you don't happen to fulfill such preferences, you will have accept it and move on, the same way as would need to accept and move on if an character disagree with your choice, or even leave you for it.

 

Well playersexuality is not really them "agreeing" with you. You are having a logical point of view which does not appeal to video games in general. Its not like they have copied everything. In DA2 for example every single LI have quite different lines to say to each gender romancing them. When you create a male character the world is created along with it. A little bit different that the world created for the female. You should not compare the two as its a luxury of being a video game that we can have two slightly different worlds. See them as Parallel universes if you will but do not compare.

 

@ lulupabAh yes, now you would dismiss it by saying "it's a video game, not a book or a movie, people play it for fun". Sorry, but in games like Dragon Age, I do value the rules of the created world, and I do expect the creator to follow them while creating new content and filling up that world. I also expect the creator to do what they can to preserve my suspension of disbelief, and therefore my immersion in the game. That's what made me love Origins so much, that's what made me feel disappointed in DA 2. 

 

You know what makes video games like this better than a book or a novel? The fact that you can interact with, and affect the world and it's characters, while they react to what you do in the game. And so you have control over a few things, such as your own character. You can influence the world to change but you cannot change it directly, like the creator would. So why should you have the power to change anything related to the traits of a character who belongs to that world, at the level of the game's creator?

 

In any case, If you and so many others here don't mind if immersion takes a hit, just so you can have more of your dalliances in the game, so be it. But It matter to me. 

 

The Immersion is not dead as its like two slightly different worlds. As I explained above something like a Parallel universe. Its not just LI's that act differently its many other things too. By not comparing the two, I can easily get satisfaction from the immersion. You are being too logical.

[TurretSyndrome]

The Archdemon was the final boss in DA:O in my DA universe, what about you? Did you fight anyone else besides Meredith and Orsino in the end? I sure didn't. Maybe you were able to convince Anders in your game and stop him from blowing up the chantry, no? This is how I feel about sexual orientation too, it does not change with playthrough. It is supposed to be as static as the rest of the traits of a character in the world who is not created by you or me. Alistair will remain a straight character in both of our playthroughs just as he will remain a Grey Warden. 

[Lady Nuggins]

I also pointed that that society has only just reached a stage where we accept people are "born that way", and then "playersexuality" comes and creates characters and then slaps of whatever sexuality fits best depending on what the protagonists gender is. One of the major fights in LGBT rights has been removing the incorrect belief that sexuality is a choice or something that can be changed, and "playersexuality" has it changing the moment you create your character. 

 

I don't really take issue with characters like Fenris or Merrill, who are so vague that they could be bisexual in all play throughs, you just don't know because they are not open about it (and that is fine. Though I like to think that they both are bisexual), but character's preferences outright changing or being strongly implied to have changed is something that I'm not particularly fond of. An all-bisexual approach is fine, in my opinion, but a "playersexual" one is not. 

 

I guess I don't see a meaningful distinction between "playersexual" and bisexual, and it seems like maybe that is one of the sources of contention in this thread. 

 

Honest question: do people consider the DA2 romances to be bisexual or playersexual?  If playersexual, did it feel like a shallow game mechanic, and how so?  Would it have felt less so if the characters were confirmed bisexual prior to initiating a romance?  Would it be better if every romanceable character, instead of having an undefined orientation, were confirmed bisexual outside of romance with the MC?

 

The LGBT world is a vast one with many nuances.  Sexual fluidity exists just as much as being gay or lesbian does.  I don't find it unrealistic for four people who have the potential to be attracted to multiple genders (and when I say potential, I mean that maybe some would only date someone of a particular gender if they found the absolute perfect person, making them otherwise pass as straight) to be hanging out in the same party, because I can easily count that many non-straight people among my friends.  Don't forget the B in LGBT.

[AresKeith]

Why aren't combat talents or tactics predefined? What's different about those? Why are some aspects of the character open to player control and others aren't?

I don't see why there's any aspect of the characters we can't control.

Because those characters don't belong to us on the level as the PC is. The only reason we are allow to control their combat talent, tactics, and their gear because it's a party-based RPG.

Other than that the players shouldn't be control anything else about them

[Xilizhra]

You can consider it diversity, but from were I see it, it would feel more like cheapening it. Allow me to elaborate. How would you feel if this particular companion were to agree with your every decision on a quest? No matter if you decide to save an group of people or murder them all, they will aways agree with you. Wouldn't you find that cheap? They don't have personal opinions at all. They are agreeable simply for the sake of pleasing the player. That's how I see the "playersexual" romances. These characters don't have these preferences for personal reasons or choice, they are just the way they are to please you. I don't want to see that. I want to see characters who will have set preferences, and if you don't happen to fulfill such preferences, you will have accept it and move on, the same way as would need to accept and move on if an character disagree with your choice, or even leave you for it.

Sexual orientation is not personality. It is simply sexual orientation, nothing more.

Though... I must ask, again, would you object to everyone being bisexual?

[Ianamus]

I guess I don't see a meaningful distinction between "playersexual" and bisexual, and it seems like maybe that is one of the sources of contention in this thread. 

 

Honest question: do people consider the DA2 romances to be bisexual or playersexual?  If playersexual, did it feel like a shallow game mechanic, and how so?  Would it have felt less so if the characters were confirmed bisexual prior to initiating a romance?  Would it be better if every romanceable character, instead of having an undefined orientation, were confirmed bisexual outside of romance with the MC?

 

I had an argument about this with someone on the forums once, and I think the conclusion was that they are, in fact, all bisexual. Isabela definately is, Fenris and Merrill probably are, it was only Anders that really caused confusion, since he never mentions his relationship with Karl to female Hawke and never shows any signs of attraction to men at all if you play as a female. Apparently a dev once said that he did have a relationship with Karl if you play as a female Hawke though, he just doesnt mention it. 

 

I still hold that Anders was handled really badly, even if that is the case. Because even if it is a case of him just not wanting to mention his relationship with Karl to female Hawke, why not? Homosexuality isn't much of a taboo in Thedas and it really increased the emotional impact of the quest. To not include that important detail if Hawke is Female is just really weird.