This.
And there's either going to be lots of sassy post battle smooching or lots of sweaty unrequited love, ack.
(still performing nightly blood magic rituals for him to be bi tbqh)
Hmm, maybe he practices a different form of blood magic. You know, intimate blood magic, if you know what I mean. Or maybe it was "milk" magic. Hehehe.... man-milk, get it? God.... I'm lame xD
Based on the description of Dorian, I was left with the impression that he would be brazen in the manner that he would take crazy stupid risks.
Like "oh look, a band of very dangerous fellows, I have this idea, I'll do this, I'll do that." And it would be crazy dangerous, but he's all confident and rushes off doing what he thought, because what could go wrong? He's clever, got the power, he's Dorian, so of course nothing could go wrong..... And if it didn't go quite as planned, he would brush it off, because he survived didn't he?...
Also a certain degree of arrogance and a plethora of clever insults, if the need would arise.
Not sure what to think any more though.
I'm actually more interested in his character than his looks (if he is Dorian)
It's also why I'm really hoping he's an LI, brazen and clever sounds exactly like what I wanted 
If he really turns out to be m/m I don't think people have to worry about stereotypes, pretty sure Mr. Gaider wouldn't let such a thing happen 
I'll be incredibly jealous though, I'm not really someone who's very demanding when it comes to romances, but my love started when we still thought that everyone will be bi again and now it's hard to let go 
If he really turns out to be m/m I don't think people have to worry about stereotypes, pretty sure Mr. Gaider wouldn't let such a thing happen
That depends on David Gaider. Some gay men say we shouldn't hide camp gay men, we should at the very least acknowledge their existence or maybe even celebrate them. Imagine that guy who made Glee, that show with an extremely camp gay character, like that. Maybe David Gaider shares his views.
Other gay men don't want anything to do with camp guys. They say camp guys give all gay men a bad name basically, they make all of us look weak, wimpish and feminine.
Of course not every one goes to one extreme or the other. A lot of us are very reasonable and say we should all just try to get along. I'm just saying we don't know how David Gaider feels about this. Or do we? I've not read everything he's ever said.
That depends on David Gaider. Some gay men say we shouldn't hide camp gay men, we should at the very least acknowledge their existence or maybe even celebrate them. Imagine that guy who made Glee, that show with an extremely camp gay character, like that. Maybe David Gaider shares his views.
Other gay men don't want anything to do with camp guys. They say camp guys give all gay men a bad name basically, they make all of us look weak, wimpish and feminine.
Of course not every one goes to one extreme or the other. A lot of us are very reasonable and say we should all just try to get along. I'm just saying we don't know how David Gaider feels about this. Or do we? I've not read everything he's ever said.
I don't mind the "camp gay" stereotype in itself. What I do mind is popular media reinforcing that stereotype and people expecting this stereotype. It's really annoying. No, we're not all fashionable and flamboyant, we are not necessarily into the arts, we are not particularly effeminate, we are not promiscuous, we don't "squeak and whine" (this stereotype is debatable). Hell, half my straight friends are more flamboyant than me! So I would much rather see a "manly" homosexual in Dragon Age than a camp one. Just my thoughts. It's really annoying to reinforce stereotypes. Hence, I'm hoping for a 100% straight or at the very least Bi DHMG, just because people are so convinced he must either be gay or bi. (if he is a romance option at all)
I don't think it should be assumed that David has control over every aspect of a character - remember that in the final game the artists and voiceover people will have significant input, not to mention the writer who actually takes on the job of writing them. That writer does a lot to shape the final voice of a character, and in DHMG's case I'm pretty sure that person won't be David. Then the people higher up than the writers, like Mike and Mark, would probably have some influence on how companions turn out too.
I also feel it's pretty unfair to dump the responsibility of "making all the gay stuff feel right" just on David, like he has magical voodoo powers or something. Gay developers at the end of the day are still one cog in an enormous machine, with hundreds of co-workers, not to mention superiors and a workplace culture. There's also a fair bit of baggage in Dragon Age as far as the m/m companions go, which might influence the ways in which Inquisition presents its characters. Zevran got criticism for being flamboyant (and David has noted people called him a stereotype), Anders got criticism for daring to proposition a male player.
At the end of the day I just don't think you can say one particular developer will either cause a character to be flamboyant or 'save' them from being so - and the reasons for why they make characters with particular personalities will have to be explained by the writers, in time.
(But if you were looking for his views on game development as a gay writer, he wrote some things here.)
I don't mind the "camp gay" stereotype in itself. What I do mind is popular media reinforcing that stereotype and people expecting this stereotype. It's really annoying. No, we're not all fashionable and flamboyant, we are not necessarily into the arts, we are not particularly effeminate, we are not promiscuous, we don't "squeak and whine" (this stereotype is debatable). Hell, half my straight friends are more flamboyant than me! So I would much rather see a "manly" homosexual in Dragon Age than a camp one. Just my thoughts. It's really annoying to reinforce stereotypes. Hence, I'm hoping for a 100% straight or at the very least Bi DHMG, just because people are so convinced he must either be gay or bi.
I thought Steve was a nice move away from stereotypes in ME 3. He was an Alliance soldier. He was a pilot. He was a bit of shuttle craft geek (debating which vehicles were better; knowing obscure facts). He had a great joking relationship with Vega, in which they ripped on each other and were competitive. He was a grieving widower, who was dealing with the loss of his spouse. Oh, and he was gay, too. People claim that his entire character arc was about his dead husband and, while it was the bulk of his dialogue if you friend or romance him, he was more multifaceted that people give him credit for. I think he was a great example of a character who was gay (versus "the gay character"). So I think that if DHMG is Dorian and also the gay LI, they will do him right.
I don't mind the "camp gay" stereotype in itself. What I do mind is popular media reinforcing that stereotype and people expecting this stereotype. It's really annoying. No, we're not all fashionable and flamboyant, we are not necessarily into the arts, we are not particularly effeminate, we are not promiscuous, we don't "squeak and whine" (this stereotype is debatable). Hell, half my straight friends are more flamboyant than me! So I would much rather see a "manly" homosexual in Dragon Age than a camp one. Just my thoughts. It's really annoying to reinforce stereotypes. Hence, I'm hoping for a 100% straight or at the very least Bi DHMG, just because people are so convinced he must either be gay or bi. (if he is a romance option at all)
But can you consider the possibility that in some cases stereotypes more or less described reality? Modern media representation aside, one incredibly well-known and influential group of gay men in Victorian England and in the early years of the 20th centuy were the kind of vain, witty, foppish, arty dandies who wrote literature and pioneered male fashion. In many cases they were the intellectual and literary geniuses of their generation.
DHMG might subvert that a little by being able to throw fireballs at his enemies, but I'm not seeing anything particularly problematic with that character if Bioware choose to go down that path. Gay people like that did exist, after all, and it's hardly a stereotype if a "Dorian" concept was literally based on Oscar Wilde. It'd be more bizarre if his personality was changed out of a misguided fixation on avoiding misconceptions. There's a kind of impermissiveness among some gay men that I find as troubling as the stereotypes, frankly. Expressing a masculine identity in opposition to femininity ("manly", "real man") is just as political a statement as the feminine stereotypes which are often said to dominate popular media.
That said, I don't think Bioware would be so simplistic as to make any m/m DHMG so one-note. A character should not and cannot be a walking sandwich board for their sexuality. The character would be deeper than that, even if he's as campy as heck, and I think there's even scope to subvert expectations if people take one look at the character and think they know him.
I don't think it should be assumed that David has control over every aspect of a character - remember that in the final game the artists and voiceover people will have significant input, not to mention the writer who actually takes on the job of writing them. That writer does a lot to shape the final voice of a character, and in DHMG's case I'm pretty sure that person won't be David. Then the people higher up than the writers, like Mike and Mark, would probably have some influence on how companions turn out too.
I also feel it's pretty unfair to dump the responsibility of "making all the gay stuff feel right" just on David, like he has magical voodoo powers or something. Gay developers at the end of the day are still one cog in an enormous machine, with hundreds of co-workers, not to mention superiors and a workplace culture. There's also a fair bit of baggage in Dragon Age as far as the m/m companions go, which might influence the ways in which Inquisition presents its characters. Zevran got criticism for being flamboyant (and David has noted people called him a stereotype), Anders got criticism for daring to proposition a male player.
At the end of the day I just don't think you can say one particular developer will either cause a character to be flamboyant or 'save' them from being so - and the reasons for why they make characters with particular personalities will have to be explained by the writers, in time.
(But if you were looking for his views on game development as a gay writer, he wrote some things here.)
I'm thinking of this one:
As it happened, most of the guys went first. Typical stuff— some stuff was good, some stuff needed work, etc. etc. Then one of the female writers went, and she brought up an issue. A big issue. It had to do with a sexual situation in the plot, which she explained could easily be interpreted as a form of rape.
It wasn’t intended that way. In fact, the writer of the plot was mortified. The intention was that it come across as creepy and subverting… but authorial intention is often irrelevant, and we must always consider how what we write will be interpreted. In this case, it was not a long trip for the person playing through the plot to see what was happening at a slightly different angle, and it was no longer good-creepy. It was bad-creepy. It was discomforting and not cool at all. And this female writer was not alone. All the other women at the table nodded their heads, and had noted the same thing in their critiques. So we discussed it, changes were made, and everything was better. Crisis averted.
Then I think about what Manveer Heir said:
If I need to write a female character [...] Frankly I would probably run my lines or the plot by a number of women writers that I know and respect. [...] We do that all the time already with our content.
So I'm thinking as the gay lead writer he's probably going to have a say in what kind of gay character is offensive and what is not.
But can you consider the possibility that in some cases stereotypes more or less described reality? Modern media representation aside, one incredibly well-known and influential group of gay men in Victorian England and in the early years of the 20th centuy were the kind of vain, witty, foppish, arty dandies who wrote literature and pioneered male fashion. In many cases they were the intellectual and literary geniuses of their generation.
DHMG might subvert that a little by being able to throw fireballs at his enemies, but I'm not seeing anything particularly problematic with that character if Bioware choose to go down that path. Gay people like that did exist, after all, and it's hardly a stereotype if a "Dorian" concept was literally based on Oscar Wilde. It'd be more bizarre if his personality was changed out of a misguided fixation on avoiding misconceptions. There's a kind of impermissiveness among some gay men that I find as troubling as the stereotypes, frankly. Expressing a masculine identity in opposition to femininity ("manly", "real man") is just as political a statement as the feminine stereotypes which are often said to dominate popular media.
That said, I don't think Bioware would be so simplistic as to make any m/m DHMG so one-note. A character should not and cannot be a walking sandwich board for their sexuality. The character would be deeper than that, even if he's as campy as heck, and I think there's even scope to subvert expectations if people take one look at the character and think they know him.
Oh yes, they will definitely try to make the character complex and unique, I'm just voicing out fears. Although I somewhat disagree with the impressiveness statement. "Feminine" gays are just as likely to assert their "gay" identity as much as "masculine" ones are ready to assert their masculinity. It's political in both ways, and its bs either way. Sexuality should not strengthen someone's masculinity or femininity, it's just the way you are. I don't mind the daindy, intellectual gay concept, but in the end we'll just have to see if it will be executed and, if yes, how.
^
I don't think that he explicitly talked about that, he might not want to. But he seems pretty down to earth and reasonable (: also, I don't think that anyone would take the risk of making the first m/m romance into something that might offend someone
That's just the point. No everyone is offended by the same things. For example people seem to be fine with gay guys, who are not overtly effeminate, but who are not very manly either. They're not necessarily camp hairdressers and fashion designers, but nurses and flight attendants, waiters and receptionists. They're sidekicks to female protagonists. They're always the good guys. They always do the right thing. They're kind of shy. They're doormats. They are not strong. They avoid confrontation.
People say "They're not flaming queens, so they're not offensive."
To me it's just the same old stereotype.
You'll fall into a trap no matter which way you go.
As long as they establish an interesting, well rounded and multi-faceted character, they'll do well. If he also happens to be gay, then thats a plus.
I thought Steve was a nice move away from stereotypes in ME 3. He was an Alliance soldier. He was a pilot. He was a bit of shuttle craft geek (debating which vehicles were better; knowing obscure facts). He had a great joking relationship with Vega, in which they ripped on each other and were competitive. He was a grieving widower, who was dealing with the loss of his spouse. Oh, and he was gay, too. People claim that his entire character arc was about his dead husband and, while it was the bulk of his dialogue if you friend or romance him, he was more multifaceted that people give him credit for. I think he was a great example of a character who was gay (versus "the gay character"). So I think that if DHMG is Dorian and also the gay LI, they will do him right.
I agree for the most part, although any cultural representations of gay people are going to be a bit of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. By definition a lesbian or gay character is going to have to mention or reference their sexuality at some point, which is why Steve still attracts criticism of shoving things down people's throats/in their faces/other innuendo.
I think, however, that a few people also saw him as deliberately inoffensive to the point of being slightly problematic, in the sense that he was about as non-threatening a gay man as you could think of, and various aspects of his personality seemed to fit a "break stereotypes and endear the character to straight men" checklist. If Bioware were consciously doing everything they could to avoid stereotypes, doesn't that make Cortez sort of a cause instead of a character? A way to prove they could make up for the complete absence of m/m in ME and ME2 while also not scaring away young men, which seemed like the reason for the lack of gay characters in the first place?
Steve seemed to be accepted by a majority of Mass Effect players precisely because (as I've often seen written on the BSN) he didn't 'perform' to typical expectations of gay males. For all that it's fantastic to see more diversity in portrayals of gay men (*especially* in videogames), I'm wary of that sort of portrayal if the reason for doing so is avoiding a backlash by bigoted young men on the internet, frankly. If Steve's character was defined in light of the response they expected him to receive, then all of that might've been done as much to avoid controversy as to break new narrative ground.
(There's also danger in the assertion that masculine characters "just happen to be gay", while someone campy or effeminate would be flaunting their sexuality, making it the centre of their character, etc. Compare the different reactions to Steve, Anders and Zevran.)
Maybe that's too cynical, and I don't doubt the sincerity of the writers in wanting to do something interesting with ME3's s/s LIs, but I sometimes have a bad feeling about where Steve in particular ended up as a character, and the way in which people associate his personality and masculinity with being an interesting, strong or "realistic" portrayal.
Nice work Rinji
My attempt! I really need some better shots of him, though.
.
To me it's almost as offensive to avoid a stereotype than it is to rely on one. There is nothing wrong with being camp or overly feminine, what's wrong is with the ignorant, closed minded people who see these gay men and feel it justifies them to project those stereotypes onto the rest of us. It is with these people I get frustrated with, not the stereotypical gays: they're just being themselves, they don't have some "obligation" to subvert stereotypes.
I don't want the writers to think "let's make a really manly, burly type who loves to crush skulls and drink ale and make him gay! It'll be so innovative and embracing of homosexuality, people can't get angry with us for that!". I just want them to write the characters they want to write, and if at some point in development they think 'Hey, I think this character is gay/bi!" then sweet, I hope it's DHMG.
If DHMG does turn out to be an M/M option and is overly effeminate, obsessed with gossip, superficial and quotes nothing but Mean Girls I'll probably be a bit annoyed, it's true. But just as much as if I feel they've gone out of their way to avoid any stereotypical traits. Character first, sexuality second.
My attempt! I really need some better shots of him, though.
Me gusta
You'll fall into a trap no matter which way you go.
As long as they establish an interesting, well rounded and multi-faceted character, they'll do well. If he also happens to be gay, then thats a plus.
*snip*
God damn it, I try and think for ages and still come out with gibberish just to find you two have already hit the nail on the head. And Matt did it in two sentences.
To me it's almost as offensive to avoid a stereotype than it is to rely on one.
Yeah, I think you put it nicely here. And it doesn't help matters that (modern) representations of gay men are all tangled up in debates around femininity and straightness, which adds another layer of stereotypes and assumptions to whatever you're writing.
(It's almost a two-level game - a character can have completely different symbolic meanings and interpretations depending on whether the person seeing them is part of a particular subculture - which is what I think happened with Zevran and, perhaps, Steve.)
Um, is this all based on him having a well groomed moustache?
Um, is this all based on him having a well groomed moustache?
Pretty much this and his dramatic hands in the war room concept art.
You'll fall into a trap no matter which way you go.
As long as they establish an interesting, well rounded and multi-faceted character, they'll do well. If he also happens to be gay, then thats a plus.
I agree that there is no way to please everyone with this issue. I think that my and EP's points on Steve are a perfect example of this. Where I saw him as a well-rounded and multi-faceted character (albeit one with significantly less content that the other m/m option), EP saw him as a stereotype against stereotypical gay men. And while I don't agree with him, I can definitely see how his points are valid from his perspective. I find stuff like this fascinating, but the reality is that this means that Bioware will never please us all. I would prefer to not see our first gay male companion ever in Bioware's history be a stereotype, especially if that stereotype doesn't represent how I see myself. However, I recognize that if I were to get "my way", that would just mean that someone else would feel that same way. I'm interested to see if this entire conversation even relates to DHMG. We're talking in this thread as if he's the gay male option (under the assumption that there even is a gay male) and we don't know even know if he's an LI yet (or his name, for that matter!).
Um, is this all based on him having a well groomed moustache?
He has been a slightly "feminized" (I hate myself for using this word) character ever since the war room concept art. Hence the "dramatic hands" and his iconic mustache. There's a code by which a lot of people read gayness, unfortunately, and a character like DHMG is sometimes suspected to be gay, while a character like Iron Bull is assumed to be straight until explicitly stated to be gay.... life....
I think it is kind of amazing that all that is needed to begin the stereotypical gay discussion is a nice mustache and drama hands, whereas concepts of characters like Iron Bull never begin conversations about stereotypical masculinities.
Retour en haut
