2138 réponses à ce sujet

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I see. It's not something I specifically thought about before that happened to be honest. For myself I personally always wanted sexualities defined in that I wanted ambiguity if any to be defined as well. I admit I'm not very informed on this too much so I don't want to say something stupid, but is defining ambiguity not okay with you? Or do you want ambiguity to be left ambiguous as well? Is there a practical difference? Just trying to understand, you don't have to answer if you don't want to.

So just to make sure I am understanding you right, what you are asking me is would I prefer the character acknowledging they don't know their preference(and thus having defined ambiguity) or that it just never comes up(and thus having ambiguous ambiguity)? Of the two, I would prefer the former. But since there is neither, I would be happy with either. 

 

If they were all ambiguous like you thought that'd be more than just "a little" representation. That's 100% representation of your sexuality to the exclusion of all others. That's not really fair either.

Except at GaymerX is when it was confirmed they were not ambiguous but rather all LIs other than Sebastian were just bisexual. So that is 0% representation. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

For you, yes. Just like you what would rather impose on everyone else.

Where in this conversation did I say I want to impose it on everyone else? All I said here was that GaymerX was the convention that removed what little representation I had in DA.

[Ina]

 

So just to make sure I am understanding you right, what you are asking me is would I prefer the character acknowledging they don't know their preference(and thus having defined ambiguity) or that it just never comes up(and thus having ambiguous ambiguity)? Of the two, I would prefer the former. But since there is neither, I would be happy with either. 

 

 

Yes that's what I'm asking. I'm trying to understand where your (and others who felt the same) perspective on this comes from. That makes it a little clearer, at least from your perspective. I can understand and empathize why you felt hurt by the comments on the panel, and do hope they're able to portray this aspect of sexuality. But given that few people are aware of the want/need for ambiguous characters, it's entirely possible David was ignorant of this aspect as well. I'm not saying it's a license to not criticize as ignorance is not a defense, I just think it's an opportunity to let them know so hopefully they will be more inclusive in future. That is how I feel about it.

[Vapaa]

Ugh. I know... I read the first couple comments then stopped because people are just gross. I don't suppose a reminder that not all of us straight people feel that way makes it any better?

 

I know first hand that not all straight people feel that way...it's just the sight of intelligence and reasoning dying an undignified death...

 

Ah, GaymerX. The convention that destroyed what little representation I though I had through Dragon Age.

 

The convention didn't destroyed your representation.

[Ina]

For you, yes. Just like you what would rather impose on everyone else.

 

I think this is rather unfair. It's like you're saying just because people who want ambiguity are few in number (in comparison), it's a reason to exclude it. It's the same argument that's been made for gay/bi representation in the past and still is sometimes. I don't want to comment on Merrill specifically as she was the one mentioned on the panel, but having one ambiguous character in future is not going to impose anything on anyone. It might not be catering to you and me specifically, but it's important to some people and I don't think it would be so bad to have that diversity in the game cast.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Yes that's what I'm asking. I'm trying to understand where your (and others who felt the same) perspective on this comes from. That makes it a little clearer, at least from your perspective. I can understand and empathize why you felt hurt by the comments on the panel, and do hope they're able to portray this aspect of sexuality. But given that few people are aware of the want/need for ambiguous characters, it's entirely possible David was ignorant of this aspect as well. I'm not saying it's a license to not criticize as ignorance is not a defense, I just think it's an opportunity to let them know so hopefully they will be more inclusive in future. That is how I feel about it.

Ah, okay. I'm glad I could help. 

 

The convention didn't destroyed your representation.

You're right. It showed that it was never there to begin with(despite statements made years earlier to the contrary).

 

 

If they were all ambiguous like you wanted, the lack of representation would just be deferred to someone other than you. Or maybe you'd be fine with just one ambiguous character?

My point is that someone's being excluded regardless whether they're all bi or all ambiguous, so getting all bent out of shape about it shows a bit of disregard for those who would have been excluded otherwise or were excluded either way.

I'm not saying I want all of them to be such. I'd be fine if there was just one or two.

[Vapaa]

You're right. It showed that it was never there to begin with(despite statements made years earlier to the contrary). That is so much better.

 

No, I'm saying that it wasn't "it" as in, the convention.

 

You sure can be disappointed about the Merril thing, but don't blame the convention, it would've been the same without it.

 

(And don't lash out at me either)

[Ianamus]

Internal ambiguity and external ambiguity are two completely different things. DA2's ambiguous LI's didn't represent anything beyond every stranger across the street you have no idea about the sexuality of. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

No, I'm saying that it wasn't "it" as in, the convention.

 

You sure can be disappointed about the Merril thing, but don't blame the convention, it would've been the same without it.

 

(And don't lash out at me either)

Oh, I don't blame the convention. I'm just saying that is where it happened. However after rereading my post I can see where you thought I was saying that. I'll edit it now. 

Sorry if that seemed like a lash out. I did not intend it to be.

[daveliam]

 

So just to make sure I am understanding you right, what you are asking me is would I prefer the character acknowledging they don't know their preference(and thus having defined ambiguity) or that it just never comes up(and thus having ambiguous ambiguity)? Of the two, I would prefer the former. But since there is neither, I would be happy with either. 

 

 

I'm still a bit unclear on the idea of sexual ambiguity.  If you don't mind my asking:  Do you view "ambiguity" as a transitive state?  Such as:  Do you think that you will eventually "know your preference" or do you think that you will never know your preference and will be permanently "ambiguous"?  Also, do you see a difference between "ambiguous" and "questioning"?  I'm trying to understand your view point a bit better.

[Vapaa]

Oh, I don't blame the convention. I'm just saying that is where it happened. However after rereading my post I can see where you thought I was saying that. I'll edit it now. 

Sorry if that seemed like a lash out. I did not intend it to be.

 

It's okay

[OptionFour]

Maybe wading into dangerous territory here, but if we're going to have a whole bunch of romances, and characters with differing sexualities etc. (and all indications say that we will for the foreseeable future) then I'd like to see some companions sometime who struggle with this stuff. People who actually have issues around who they are, or have their idea of who they are challenged in some way during the course of the game. I suppose the potential for offending people with that sort of material is probably really high (especially with the dodgy writing we had in DA2, for instance), but it could make for interesting character development, and a romance storyline that is more complex than 'X is attracted to A. If Player = A, proceed to sex'.

[Fialka]

Ah, GaymerX. The convention that destroyed what little representation I though I had through Dragon Age.

You know, I've been sitting here trying to decide if I should respond to this, as I wasn't sure if I could without coming across as insensitive (I have aspergers so my social graces are lacking, and I see too many people being jerks, in this thread especially, to be okay with coming across as one).

But... This does rub me wrong because its coming across as if your resentment over your interpretation of something that was said devalues the convention - despite the fact that a lot of people (LGBRQT and straight alike) think its return is pretty exciting and its existence really important.

I sympathize with your hurt feelings, I really do, but I feel like your taking what Gaider said too personality. For most people, David Gaider included I'd wager, sexual ambiguity in the context of DA2's romances is the idea that a character could be whatever orientation you want them to be or feel comfortable with them being. The issue with this being that bi-erasure and bi-phobia are something bisexual people have to face in real life and that shouldnt be catered to in a video game. His clarifying that Merrill et al were bisexual and not gay/straight depending on the player character was him assuring everyone that the perceived bi-erasure and bi-phobia were not intentional, and that they would take a different approach in future games. It wasn't to attack people who might identify with these characters because their orientation was left ambiguous to the player and that was something they could relate to.

Edit: by the time I finished typing this out, I saw you clarified and edited your post so sorry for misreading you. But the point I was trying to make in the second part does still apply.

[Ina]

I'm not talking about the superiority of representing any group over any other group. It just feels slightly melodramatic to talk about how hurtful it is when the nature of resource allocation does make representation a bit of a zero-sum game. It's just as well to me if they're all ambiguous or all bi or any mix, but it's a no win situation with this mindset that the lack is hurtful because in that case, someone will always be excluded and thus 'hurt,' it's just a matter of choosing who gets the honor. I think that's a really pessimistic way of approaching it and it would really suck to have to write constantly in 'damage control' mode.

 

I think discussing possible ways of implementing more diversity is a good thing. I don't know if BW can represent everyone and everything that people want, but it's worth putting it out there. I'd one day like an Ace/Aro character cos I partly consider myself that though predominantly straight, but the resource allocation might never allow it. BW's openness recently to at least consider it though gives me hope because they have caught that there are some people who might want that. So I personally see it as a good thing to try and strive for getting something represented than just assume it will never happen anyway. Maybe I'm just naively optimistic, but I'd rather hope than not.

[Ina]

Maybe wading into dangerous territory here, but if we're going to have a whole bunch of romances, and characters with differing sexualities etc. (and all indications say that we will for the foreseeable future) then I'd like to see some companions sometime who struggle with this stuff. People who actually have issues around who they are, or have their idea of who they are challenged in some way during the course of the game. I suppose the potential for offending people with that sort of material is probably really high (especially with the dodgy writing we had in DA2, for instance), but it could make for interesting character development, and a romance storyline that is more complex than 'X is attracted to A. If Player = A, proceed to sex'.

 I'd like this as long as it's not overdone until it becomes a DA trope exclusive to sexual minorities. It could be potentially something people can relate to and that is always a good thing.

[daveliam]

Maybe wading into dangerous territory here, but if we're going to have a whole bunch of romances, and characters with differing sexualities etc. (and all indications say that we will for the foreseeable future) then I'd like to see some companions sometime who struggle with this stuff. People who actually have issues around who they are, or have their idea of who they are challenged in some way during the course of the game. I suppose the potential for offending people with that sort of material is probably really high (especially with the dodgy writing we had in DA2, for instance), but it could make for interesting character development, and a romance storyline that is more complex than 'X is attracted to A. If Player = A, proceed to sex'.

 

I would have no issue with a character struggling with his/her sexuality.  It's a common thing for many people who are not straight.  My concern is that it would have to be handled appropriately and with respect.  But given that the only LI that I can think of who struggles with their sexuality at all is possibly Sky, who seemed more taken aback with the PC hitting on him and needed time to process it before deciding that he was interested.

 

It could be done well, so I'm not against it in general.

[WildOrchid]

I died a little reading the comments...

 

LGBT-focused..."FOCUSED" for god's sake, not "EXCLUSIVE".

 

sigh *faith in humanity: -500*

 

The comments hurt my head.

 

 

"if straight ppl have their own convention they will b termed bigots, but gays r allowed to do dis? Why"

 

[Ianamus]

I do wish society and games were inclusive enough in general that conventions specifically aimed at LGBT gamers and content weren't needed. 

 

But unfortunately that's still a long way away. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

 

I'm still a bit unclear on the idea of sexual ambiguity.  If you don't mind my asking:  Do you view "ambiguity" as a transitive state?  Such as:  Do you think that you will eventually "know your preference" or do you think that you will never know your preference and will be permanently "ambiguous"?  Also, do you see a difference between "ambiguous" and "questioning"?  I'm trying to understand your view point a bit better.

1) No, I do not view it as a transitive state. Just like other orientations know what their preferences are, I know that I don't know what my preference is.

2) I can see cases where those two words are the same, such as the 'bi-curious' scenarios, and cases where they are different. 

 

I sympathize with your hurt feelings, I really do, but I feel like your taking what Gaider said too personality. For most people, David Gaider included I'd wager, sexual ambiguity in the context of DA2's romances is the idea that a character could be whatever orientation you want them to be or feel comfortable with them being. The issue with this being that bi-erasure and bi-phobia are something bisexual people have to face in real life and that shouldnt be catered to in a video game. His clarifying that Merrill et al were bisexual and not gay/straight depending on the player character was him assuring everyone that the perceived bi-erasure and bi-phobia were not intentional, and that they would take a different approach in future games. It wasn't to attack people who might identify with these characters because their orientation was left ambiguous to the player and that was something they could relate to.

It's hard not to take the fact that in a few minutes he takes away what was representation and expresses that he doesn't want to have ambiguity again thus removing any chance of future representation personally. I get the reasons why he did it, but by trying to get rid of any arguments of them doing things like bi-erasure he does an erasure of anyone who isn't a set sexuality.

[daveliam]

 

1) No, I do not view it as a transitive state. Just like other orientations know what their preferences are, I know that I don't know what my preference is.

2) I can see cases where those two words are the same, such as the 'bi-curious' scenarios, and cases where they are different. 

 

Thanks for answering this.  If you don't mind, can I ask a follow up question on both:

 

1.)  You know that you do not know your preference, but also that it is not transitive.  So, does that mean that you are assuming (or know) that you will never know your preference? 

2.)  In what cases are questioning and ambiguous different? 

 

I appreciate your answering these questions.  If you'd prefer to take it to PM, that's cool with me.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Thanks for answering this.  If you don't mind, can I ask a follow up question on both:

 

1.)  You know that you do not know your preference, but also that it is not transitive.  So, does that mean that you are assuming (or know) that you will never know your preference? 

2.)  In what cases are questioning and ambiguous different? 

 

I appreciate your answering these questions.  If you'd prefer to take it to PM, that's cool with me.

No problem. 

 

1) I am reasonably sure I will never know my preference. Mostly because I don't think it is of a gender but will be of a person. Like how demisexuals form an attraction towards someone after they form a strong bond with them.

2) What is your definition of questioning? Are you operating by dictionary definition or of a social definition for it? I have misinterpreted a conversation before because of that, so want to make sure what you mean before proceeding. 

 

We can take it to PM if you think it is disrupting the thread. 

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I still don't really understand how Dragon Age 2's love interests relates to you. I have always subscribed to the notion that they were all bisexual because I thought the idea that they changed sexuality because of the presence of someone else was silly. If you feel you don't know what your sexual preference is, it's not quite the same as the notion of the LI's playersexuality because you can't load alternate versions of yourself from other save files.