2138 réponses à ce sujet

[Hanako Ikezawa]

The fact that they will be with you whether you are male or female makes them canonically bisexual. 

So no evidence then, since metagame knowledge doesn't count. 

[JadePrince]

wat? your telling me that if you had an option to not be subjected to the romance plots you dont like you wouldnt take it? im not in support of anything, but the option to skip romances is something that doesnt really bother me at all. regardless of which one gets skipped

 

Yep, that's exactly what I'm telling you. I DO have the option to skip romances. I wasn't forced to do any of the romances. I admit, I was a little surprised when Leliana and Morrigan suddenly told me I needed to chose between them when I was playing a gay man trying to romance Zevran. But I didn't freak out, or panic, or come to the forums demanding that they give me a toggle to keep girls from liking me. I just broke things off with both of them and continued on my way. Because those characters were written a certain way. And it didn't bother me that I had to reject them. 

 

I would never toggle off heterosexual interest because if a female character is interested in my gay male Inquistor, I think it'd be pretty novel actually, to be able to turn her down with the option of saying "sorry, I'm gay". Actually, now that you mention it, we've been able to turn down same sex LIs by indicating to them that we're straight, but there's never been an option to say "sorry, I'm gay." Now I hope that's actually something they implement in DA:I! 

[Ryzaki]

So no evidence then, since metagame knowledge doesn't count. 

 

If you're a male PC and hit on Fenris he can still sleep with Isabela later so...that's not metagame knowledge.
 

Merrill though is pretty much a question mark.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

If you're a male PC and hit on Fenris he can still sleep with Isabela later so...that's not metagame knowledge.
 

Merrill though is pretty much a question mark.

I'm pretty much discussing only Merrill at this point. daveliam and I seemed to focus solely on her since as you said he and Isabela can hook up(never knew this since the only time I have Fenris in my party is the playthroughs I'm romancing him.)

[Ryzaki]

I'm pretty much discussing only Merrill at this point. daveliam and I seemed to focus solely on her since as you said he and Isabela can hook up(never knew this since the only time I have Fenris in my party is the playthroughs I'm romancing him.)

 

Ah fair enough. XD

[daveliam]

So I think that my points have been made by other people, but since Fast Jimmy had asked me specifically why I used the phrase "offensive", I figured I would chime in.  Feel free to ignore me if you think it's been done to death.  Anyway, here goes:

 

I think a "sexuality toggle" is offensive (and I actually do mean that word) because it renders LGB individuals sexless..... again.  We have long been stereotyped in media and, for gay men (I'll speak just about men as I draw from my own experiences and I'll allow a bisexual or lesbian woman to cover her perspective if she chooses to do so), the most common stereotypes are:  sexual predator and asexual flamboyant comic relief.  Those have been, historically, the only representations of gay men.  It's really only a very, very recent thing to show gay men in healthy consenting adult relationships.  It is terrible for the psyche of a young gay boy (I knew I was gay in elementary school) to only see your sexual orientation in negative portrayals without any positive counterpart.

 

The "sexuality toggle" is only being put forward by people who are uncomfortable with having people of the same sex (I haven't seen anyone promote it because of discomfort with opposite sex flirting) flirt with them.  Note, it's just flirting that we are talking about.  Not engaging in sexual contact with a person of the same sex.  We've seen words like "revolting", "repulsive", and "disgusting" used just in the past two days to describe people's reactions to s/s content.  It's not coming from a place of love.  These people are so uncomfortable by s/s content that would rather block that content from even being presented.  It's offensive because a s/s person who flirts with you is just acting like a regular person.  People flirt.  Most people flirt.  It's not abnormal. 

 

To say that same-sex people who flirt are making you uncomfortable is fine.  You don't have to be comfortable with everything you encounter.  However that doesn't give you the right to block yourself from ever being exposed to s/s people who are acting like normal, regular, sexualized adults.  It goes back to making LGB individuals being simply sexless.  They can't express any sexual interest in you or they become silenced.  It can't be removed from the social and political context  that we live in because life doesn't work like that.  Putting this in makes me offended as if the fact that if I were to flirt with you in real life, your instinct would be to "silence me".  That's what I find offensive about it.  People get flirted with all the time.  Most people reject the person and just move on if they aren't interested.

 

Just note, I find this completely different than a "turn romances off" toggle.  That kind of toggle is a "gameplay" toggle.  It's like turning off friendly fire.  It's saying, effectively, "I don't want access to this optional access of the gameplay mechanics".  That's completely different from saying, "I want access, but only to those people whose gender I am attracted to".  To me, that's really not acceptable. 

[kalasaurus]

I remember in one playthrough, my Hawke flirted with Merril only once in Act 1 (telling her she's a sweetheart, or something).  It must have triggered her romance, because Merril's visit to Hawke's mansion happened sometime after my Hawke was dumped by Fenris (or was it Isabela... I lost track, I romance and flirt with ALL THE CHARACTERS) *shrugs*

[jlb524]

I remember in one playthrough, my Hawke flirted with Merril only once in Act 1 (telling her she's a sweetheart, or something).  It must have triggered her romance, because Merril's visit to Hawke's mansion happened sometime after my Hawke was dumped by Fenris (or was it Isabela... I lost track, I romance and flirt with ALL THE CHARACTERS) *shrugs*

 

Flirting with Merrill once triggers her romance.  

[daveliam]

 @Sasha Braus (sorry, I can't quote on my tablet interface):

 

Just to clarify, I wasn't the one who said I don't metagame.  I actually think that metagaming is perfectly fine.  I'm pretty sure that you were the one who said that you only count what you see in a particular play through.  I don't do that.  I think that metagaming makes it perfectly obvious that Merrill is bisexual.  I agree with you that it's really nebulous and not clearly defined.  But to me, it's just really weird to think that almost all of the LI's have defined sexuality except for one or two.  Why just them?  Why would people assume they are playersexual (i.e. change their sexuality because of the player's gender) versus bisexual (i.e. always attracted to both males and females)?  That's the part that I don't understand.  Hope that clarifies. 

[kalasaurus]

Flirting with Merrill once triggers her romance.  

 

Oh, ok.  I know for Anders, Fenris, and Isabela you have to flirt with them in Act 2 to trigger their romance.  I guess for Merril it extends to Act 1.

[AkiKishi]

So I think that my points have been made by other people, but since Fast Jimmy had asked me specifically why I used the phrase "offensive", I figured I would chime in.  Feel free to ignore me if you think it's been done to death.  Anyway, here goes:

 

I think a "sexuality toggle" is offensive (and I actually do mean that word) because it renders LGB individuals sexless..... again.  We have long been stereotyped in media and, for gay men (I'll speak just about men as I draw from my own experiences and I'll allow a bisexual or lesbian woman to cover her perspective if she chooses to do so), the most common stereotypes are:  sexual predator and asexual flamboyant comic relief.  Those have been, historically, the only representations of gay men.  It's really only a very, very recent thing to show gay men in healthy consenting adult relationships.  It is terrible for the psyche of a young gay boy (I knew I was gay in elementary school) to only see your sexual orientation in negative portrayals without any positive counterpart.

 

The "sexuality toggle" is only being put forward by people who are uncomfortable with having people of the same sex (I haven't seen anyone promote it because of discomfort with opposite sex flirting) flirt with them.  Note, it's just flirting that we are talking about.  Not engaging in sexual contact with a person of the same sex.  We've seen words like "revolting", "repulsive", and "disgusting" used just in the past two days to describe people's reactions to s/s content.  It's not coming from a place of love.  These people are so uncomfortable by s/s content that would rather block that content from even being presented.  It's offensive because a s/s person who flirts with you is just acting like a regular person.  People flirt.  Most people flirt.  It's not abnormal. 

 

To say that same-sex people who flirt are making you uncomfortable is fine.  You don't have to be comfortable with everything you encounter.  However that doesn't give you the right to block yourself from ever being exposed to s/s people who are acting like normal, regular, sexualized adults.  It goes back to making LGB individuals being simply sexless.  They can't express any sexual interest in you or they become silenced.  It can't be removed from the social and political context  that we live in because life doesn't work like that.  Putting this in makes me offended as if the fact that if I were to flirt with you in real life, your instinct would be to "silence me".  That's what I find offensive about it.  People get flirted with all the time.  Most people reject the person and just move on if they aren't interested.

 

Just note, I find this completely different than a "turn romances off" toggle.  That kind of toggle is a "gameplay" toggle.  It's like turning off friendly fire.  It's saying, effectively, "I don't want access to this optional access of the gameplay mechanics".  That's completely different from saying, "I want access, but only to those people whose gender I am attracted to".  To me, that's really not acceptable. 

 

But thats just you placing more importance on one type of toggle than another when in reality all toggles are the same. Every toggle allows the player to craft the game more to their liking. There are some people who found "story" option in Mass Effect deeply offensive to the gamer mentality when Bioware floated it. Having a toggle changes nothing unless you believe that people will be become more accepting if they see gay people in a game? 

 

Because if thats what you think , the reaction to Zevron and Anders would seem to prove otherwise.

[daveliam]

@AkiKishi

 

I think this is a case where our backgrounds are going to give us different perspectives on this.  To you, it's just another apolitical, a social toggle.  To me, it's a toggle that is driven heavily by the political and social system that marginalizes LGBT individuals.  It's, to me, literally, a toggle that silences LGB individuals.  I can understand that people without my experiences might not see the connection.  But that connection is very real to me. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

 @Sasha Braus (sorry, I can't quote on my tablet interface):

 

Just to clarify, I wasn't the one who said I don't metagame.  I actually think that metagaming is perfectly fine.  I'm pretty sure that you were the one who said that you only count what you see in a particular play through.  I don't do that.  I think that metagaming makes it perfectly obvious that Merrill is bisexual.  I agree with you that it's really nebulous and not clearly defined.  But to me, it's just really weird to think that almost all of the LI's have defined sexuality except for one or two.  Why just them?  Why would people assume they are playersexual (i.e. change their sexuality because of the player's gender) versus bisexual (i.e. always attracted to both males and females)?  That's the part that I don't understand.  Hope that clarifies. 

Well, look at it this way then. In the real world, there are people who are sexually ambiguous. They've never been in a relationship so you can't tell what they like. Even that person doesn't know what they like but know they aren't asexual. Merrill is an ingame version of that. 

 

I think the confusion with playersexual comes from people having different definitions for it. Some see it as "The player interprets the character's sexuality" while others see it as "The player determines the character's sexuality". 

[jlb524]

Well, look at it this way then. In the real world, there are people who are sexually ambiguous. They've never been in a relationship so you can't tell what they like. Even that person doesn't know what they like but know they aren't asexual. Merrill is an ingame version of that. 

 

I think the confusion with playersexual comes from people having different definitions for it. Some see it as "The player interprets the character's sexuality" while others see it as "The player determines the character's sexuality". 

 

Merrill is hardly the first BW LI to fit this description either.  She might just be the first that was available to both genders.

 

Looking at Bastila in KotOR, we know nothing of her sexuality outside of her being available to romance as a male PC.  If you play a female, her sexuality is never brought up at all.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Why are we discussing toggles? Didn't Bioware say they aren't going to put in a bunch of toggles since it can mess the game up or something?

[Allan Schumacher]

I do not, and have never, understood the idea of lesbians being as source of sexual desire. Two beautiful women who have absolutely no interest in having sex with me isn't arousing, it's kind of depressing. The fantasy seems to be about bisexual girls. 

 

I've been teased for not finding lesbians a personally desirable thing purely on the trait of "is someone a lesbian."

[ElitePinecone]

But thats just you placing more importance on one type of toggle than another when in reality all toggles are the same. Every toggle allows the player to craft the game more to their liking. There are some people who found "story" option in Mass Effect deeply offensive to the gamer mentality when Bioware floated it. Having a toggle changes nothing unless you believe that people will be become more accepting if they see gay people in a game? 

 

Because if thats what you think , the reaction to Zevron and Anders would seem to prove otherwise.

 

To sum it up:

 

LGBT content should not be able to be filtered from the world just because some players have a problem with it. That is unacceptable. You are not entitled, and have never been entitled, to full control over which parts of the story you get to experience. 

 

The proper solution is to make s/s romances optional, which Bioware has *always* done. 

[JadePrince]

Why are we discussing toggles? Didn't Bioware say they aren't going to put in a bunch of toggles since it can mess the game up or something?

 

Yep. But some folks are always gonna complain that they have to experience even encountering gay characters, so they're always gonna bring up the whole toggle thing. 

 

That's why in one of my last posts I said they're gonna have to suck it up because Bioware is never gonna give you that thing. 

[AkiKishi]

Merrill is hardly the first BW LI to fit this description either.  She might just be the first that was available to both genders.

 

Looking at Bastila in KotOR, we know nothing of her sexuality outside of her being available to romance as a male PC.  If you play a female, her sexuality is never brought up at all.

 

Being ambiguous is ok as long as it does not initiate a relationship. Many people complained about getting ninjamanced in DA:O because it was not clear. Hence everyones favourite heart icons. 

 

Its fine for people who know in advance (like people on the boards) but for people who just buy and play the game it came as something as a shock. Even in RL the line between friendship and love can be blurry, but you don't generally get whisked right into a cutscene (unless you are wasted).

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Yep. But some folks are always gonna complain that they have to experience encountering gay characters, so they're always gonna bring up the whole toggle thing. 

 

That's why in one of my last posts I said they're gonna have to suck it up because Bioware is never gonna give you that thing. 

The BSN should have a toggle to hide any mention of toggles.

[JadePrince]

Being ambiguous is ok as long as it does not initiate a relationship. Many people complained about getting ninjamanced in DA:O because it was not clear. Hence everyones favourite heart icons. 

 

Its fine for people who know in advance (like people on the boards) but for people who just buy and play the game it came as something as a shock. Even in RL the line between friendship and love can be blurry, but you don't generally get whisked right into a cutscene (unless you are wasted).

 

Right, the heart icons solved the problem. So why do people still want a toggle?

[AkiKishi]

Right, the heart icons solved the problem. So why do people still want a toggle?

 

We are just discussing it rather than advocating it. If no Zevron,Anders controversy arises from DA:I then it won't likely be an issue. If on the other hand it does, a toggle might be an elegant and easy solution to the problem of unwanted romances.

 

As I said a big part of what people on the boards take for granted is they know the LI's in advance. The vast majority of people who play the game will not. 

[kalasaurus]

Wait, what was this Zevran controversy?  He'll stop flirting if the Warden tells him that s/he's not interested.

[ElitePinecone]

^ Even aside from the heart icons, in something like Mass Effect's case the romances with Samantha and Steve were already "guarded" by two or three layers of dialogue choices. Steve's gave the character multiple escape routes, like the option to straight-up say they were only interested in the female dancers.

 

You had to be really unsubtle about wanting to romance them to be able to do so. When the writing is that careful (even deliberately as unambiguous as possible), what danger is there of 'ninjamances', or being propositioned? 

[JadePrince]

We are just discussing it rather than advocating it. If no Zevron,Anders controversy arises from DA:I then it won't likely be an issue. If on the other hand it does, a toggle might be an elegant and easy solution to the problem of unwanted romances.

 

As I said a big part of what people on the boards take for granted is they know the LI's in advance. The vast majority of people who play the game will not. 

 

Zevran isn't a problem because he gives you EVERY OPPORTUNITY to bow out of his romance. I mean, for pete's sake, he ASKS you if it's okay to give you a compliment. And if you say no, he doesn't pursue you. Are people really so scared of s/s content that they can't handle another guy asking if they can call you handsome? If so, all I can say is "yikes".

 

You don't need to know who the LIs are in advance to avoid their romances. You just have to avoid the heart icons. Even someone who's never been to the boards can figure that out?

 

There's a thin line between discussing and advocating. If you say "this feature would be good to have" or "this feature would be a classy and elegant solution" how is that not advocating? 

 

Also, how has this discussion not yet convinced you that a toggle would be neither classy nor elegant?