333 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

As a fan of speculative fiction, I don't understand this mindset.

I remember when I picked up Kurshiel's Dart and within the first few chapters understood that this was a world where the vast majority of people were bisexual, where prostitution was a sacred art, where angels had bred with humans, where people born in a specific county all smelled of apples when they perspired, and where not becoming pregnant was something a woman could choose to do during sex. None of this threw me or troubled my suspension of disbelief. I thought it was rather tame in terms of departure from reality.

I find myself wondering how gamers would react to a world like that in Perdido Street Station, and then I remember that Planescape: Torment is a thing.

You misunderstand my point. I am a fan of weird fiction, in fact, and I would have no problem if a world was explicitly designed so that everyone is bi. However, in novels like Kushiel's Dart (I have, in fact, read the whole first trilogy before things got a little old for me) sexuality is one of the big themes of the story, so that it doesn't look weird if some amount of exposition goes into explaining the world and how it's different to the reader. Also, the difference is very much the point.

 

However, if not dealt with in this manner, the implcit assumption is that things work like in the real world, and if they don't and the difference isn't noticeably a part of the world design, *then* the problem with suspension of disbelief kicks in because it comes across as if I should take the setup for normal from my reader's perspective, not just in-world. This feeling of estrangement can be used by the story deliberately, too, but yet again, if it is used in this way then sexuality needs to be a major theme, and in the DA stories it isn't.

[SurelyForth]

Yes most are alleviated but the problem is that they were playersexual in DA2.

 

Isabela and Anders weren't. Well, I suppose Anders is trickier since he never talks about Karl to female Hawke, but I that doesn't erase his relationship with Karl. Given that he has a history with women and men, and actually admits being bisexual/pansexual, I would say he is definitely and unquestionably not "playersexual".

 

We've known Isabela was bisexual since DAO.

[fchopin]

Isabela and Anders weren't. Well, I suppose Anders is trickier since he never talks about Karl to female Hawke, but I that doesn't erase his relationship with Karl. Given that he has a history with women and men, and actually admits being bisexual/pansexual, I would say he is definitely and unquestionably not "playersexual".
 
We've known Isabela was bisexual since DAO.

Isabella is bisexual but Anders was not bisexual in Awakening.
Anders is not even bisexual in DA2, he is playersexual depending which gender selected for player character.

[SurelyForth]

 

However, if not dealt with in this manner, the implcit assumption is that things work like in the real world, and if they don't and the difference isn't noticeably a part of the world design, *then* the problem with suspension of disbelief kicks in. This feeling of estrangement can be used by the story deliberately, too, but yet again, if it is used in this way then sexuality needs to be a major theme, and in the DA stories it isn't.

 

Just because sexuality isn't a theme of DA doesn't mean that sexuality isn't handled with or viewed differently in DA, or that you should force it into a RL perspective. It's obvious that it's not a perfect reflection of our world, or even our world during a certain time period, and sexuality is one of those things that isn't given the stigma it tends to have in certain RL cultures. 

[Dean_the_Young]

I prefer defined sexuality, but I'm not going to cry myself to sleep over the DA team's stated playersexual policy.

 

Same here- I think it can be an interesting part of the character stories, and something is lost if it's taken for granted. Especially if the only change in the content would be to substitute gender pronouns. IIRC, Isabella would flirt-banter differently with different genders, playfully challenging the masculinity of males while being more supportive/encouraging of the performance of females. Contrast that to fan mods that, say, let your male characters romance Alistair by having the game treat you as a woman, without any significant acknowledgement or difference. The limitations are understandable, but the lack of difference bores me more than the implementation (queen Couseland) makes me laugh.

 

That said, I do think the DA setting is a much better setting for playersexuality than, say, the ME universe. ME is pretty much 'modern western liberalism... in the future!' which toed the line some but was still focused on being culturally familiar and reflective of the time it was created in. The DA setting, on the other hand, is comfortable being culturally different and distinctly non-western liberalism: homosexuality and bisexuality aren't contentious issues or even worth noting any more than the matriarchial power structures in the setting. Between the Magister oppression, the devastation of the Blights, and a frequent need for bodies no matter what their beliefs, and I can easily see the Thedas setting as one in which sexual relations are viewed more about 'whatever floats your boat' than anything else. (Breeding requirements of the nobility aside.)

 

 

So would I like restrictive romances amongst the unrestricted playersexual? Yes. I adore Veronica from Fallout: Vegas not just because she's witty and fun and a good puncher, but because even my more flirtatious M!Couriers understood they never had a chance. You can tell different stories if the romance option is restricted.

 

But, in the end, it's not something I treat as a grievance or complaint.

[Loghain Mac-Tir]

Isabella is bisexual but Anders was not bisexual in Awakening.
Anders is not even bisexual in DA2, he is playersexual depending which gender selected for player character.

 

There was no romance in Awakening, so how did you know that?

you certainly missed the conversation when he mentioned Karl being his 'first'.

[SurelyForth]

Isabella is bisexual but Anders was not bisexual in Awakening.
Anders is not even bisexual in DA2, he is playersexual depending which gender selected for player character.

 

No. Anders is bisexual. His relationship with Karl is not erased by playing a Female Hawke, and his relationships with women aren't erased when playing a Male Hawke (he still banters with Isabela about sex at the Pearl, for one thing). From the dialogue he has with Male Hawke, he'd probably call himself pansexual if anything else, which I am almost 100% certain Gaider has confirmed. 

 

Re: Awakening: It's pretty likely that Anders slept with Namaya, his contact in Amaranthine, given how angry she is at him and the way that whole thing goes down (up to and including Anders obviously staring at her ass as she walks away). It doesn't make him straight, but it establishes him as being attracted to women. 

 

Karl was his "first", but that was in the Circle. He definitely was up to sleeping around at some point before joining the Wardens, if he was showing off his tricks at the Pearl.

[Ieldra]

If I may, isn't a lot of this alleviated if you see the characters of DA2 (or some other game) as bisexual?

 

That I would need to see them that way is exactly a part of the problem. Why do I have this group of companions who are "pre-selected by fate" for sexual orientation? I feel this oddity would need an in-world explanation. In order for such an explanation to appear plausibly present in the story, the story would need to deal with sexuality as a theme.....
 

Don't mistake me: I can live with the setup DA2 used. It means that I can't get into the romances as easily, and that is somewhat unpleasant, but then, romances have never been that important to me. However, while I can live with it, I still have a strong preference against it.

[fchopin]

There was no romance in Awakening, so how did you know that?

By listening to what he said.

[Ieldra]

Just because sexuality isn't a theme of DA doesn't mean that sexuality isn't handled with or viewed differently in DA, or that you should force it into a RL perspective. It's obvious that it's not a perfect reflection of our world, or even our world during a certain time period, and sexuality is one of those things that isn't given the stigma it tends to have in certain RL cultures. 

The difference is that people can choose their attitude, but not - as a rule - their sexual orientation. That people think differently needs no explanation unless it's really outlandish, but that people *are* differently, that needs an explanation unless it's part of the story premise. That people can be mages is part of the story premise, that all people are bi is not. 

[wright1978]

I have a strong preference against the "playersexual" setup because it compromises worldbuilding for a gain I don't find significant.

 

Main points against it:

 

(1) If companions are "playersexual" that comes across, over several playthroughs, as if either everyone (in the world) is bi or your companion group is pre-selected - in-world - for sexual orientation. Keeping every playthrough self-contained in my mind in order to avoid being thusly affected takes effort, and more effort the more I talk with others about the story, and it is a constant strain on my suspension of disbelief since the little voice keeps nagging in my head "things don't work that way".

 

(2) Sexual orientation is part of a character's identity. Having it variable makes them less tangible and relatable.

 

In general, I think it is important that some requirements of equal representation are fulfilled, meaning that there should a similar amount of female and male LI options and player characters of no gender and major sexual orientation should be limited to only one option. Beyond that, I find it perfectly acceptable that if you want to romance a *specific* character, you are required to play a specific gender. These are roleplaying games after all.

 

1) The whole notion of not being able to self contain playthroughs strikes me as very odd. The whole game revolves around choices and as a roleplayer i'm not affected by knowledge external to the playthrough. I'm no more affected by the notion Merrill might fancy both genders of Hawke than i am that a plot quest has several outcomes i can choose and that i've knowledge of. I'm currently doing a Isabela romance and i have ambient impression of a hetro Merrill despite the fact from a player perspective i know she can be interested in a fem hawke.

 

2) As for the notion of sexual orientation as part of character identity. I would say stated fixed preference doesn't have to be but it can be but not more so than other aspects.So you have set orientation and choice and more LI's are needed and less content per LI. Then do you have set racial orientation. Leilana & my dwarven warden always seemed odd. Massive expanse of LI's later with wafer thin content. Personally I want as meaty romance content as possible coupled with a degree of romance choice per orientation so playersexual/bi is the best pragmatic response without the move to make romance content much more important in the resource department.

[dgcatanisiri]

I always find it hilarious when people use the 'it's not realistic' argument about the fact that either gender Hawke can romance any of the four base game romances. Because the realism is what I'm playing this game about dragons, dwarves, elves, qunari, darkspawn, and magic for. *rolls eyes* Just pointing this out: It's ABSOLUTELY realistic for that bi people to be drawn in to groups of other bi people. TV and movies give the 'token gay character' into the group of straight people, but let me tell you, it's a lot more comfortable for LGBT people to spend time in the company of people who know the kind of things they go through - if anything, there's more the 'token straight' person in a group of queer people.

 

Not only that, but I specifically play video games to ESCAPE the real world. I want to be able to play a game where someone who is queer gets to be the one who saves the day. I don't see this often in anything other than video games, and for the most part, only in BioWare games. I am NOT playing for realism, I'm playing for escapism.

 

Anyway, back on topic, I prefer the 'playersexual' approach, though I tend not to use that term. Although it's not as obvious through the games proper, according to the lore, sexuality is not something that gets a major focus. It might be frowned upon in some corners (seemingly more due to the fact that there's a focus on continuing bloodlines, which you're obviously not going to see happening in a same-sex pairing), but it's not as remarkable in the world of Thedas as it is in the real world, according to lore. I grant that this has not translated well from codex lore to in-game activity (some more cases of casual references to minor characters being in same sex relationships, a woman wanting to get home to her wife, for example, or things to that effect, would definitely help reinforce that), BUT, in a world where sexuality is not the controversy that it unfortunately is in ours, where it's not considered to be something that could, depending on where you live, do anything from get you disowned to getting you murdered, I can easily see people viewing sexuality as more fluid, with none of the characters identifying as a specific type of sexuality - they love and have sex with whoever strikes their fancy. 

 

It's also the simplest way to provide multiple options to people who, traditionally, if there is any non-heterosexual character to romance, is usually the only one of their kind in the game. We see this in Jade Empire and Origins - there is one character for either gender PC in both games, one option, while heterosexual PC's get two. If you wanted to play a gay character, you had to romance this one character or no one. (Hmph, almost the same choice as the qunari get...) DA2 was the first time there were options. Obviously you could still run into the 'I don't like your romance' with both of them, but it was a choice, an option, you weren't locked in to 'this one or no one.'

 

So I'm really for all romances to be bi/poly/omnisexual, whichever term applies.

[Ieldra]

@wright:

Problems with self-containing playthroughs arise from aspects of the world being made variable which aren't influenced by story decisions. The world is the backdrop of the story. That the story is different between two playthroughs is trivial, that the world is different can be problematic if there is no in-world reason why it's different. Take it like changing a story premise: if you change an NPCs sexual orientation then you change the premise of their romance arc. 

[Ieldra]

@dgcatanisiri:
The plausibility of one fantastic element under the story premise has no bearing on the plausibility of another one. Just because it's fantasy doesn't mean anything goes. I'm really tired of this nonsensical argument. The point in question: were "everyone is bi" part of the story premise there wouldn't be a problem, but then the story would need to deal with the topic of sexuality more extensively than it does.

[DrBlingzle]

I always find it hilarious when people use the 'it's not realistic' argument about the fact that either gender Hawke can romance any of the four base game romances. Because the realism is what I'm playing this game about dragons, dwarves, elves, qunari, darkspawn, and magic for. *rolls eyes* Just pointing this out: It's ABSOLUTELY realistic for that bi people to be drawn in to groups of other bi people. TV and movies give the 'token gay character' into the group of straight people, but let me tell you, it's a lot more comfortable for LGBT people to spend time in the company of people who know the kind of things they go through - if anything, there's more the 'token straight' person in a group of queer people.

When I use the "its not realistic" argument I'm referring to character realism which has been consistent through out bioware games regarless of how unrealistic the setting is. Also when you use say its unusual for a group of people to have a lot of variation in sexuality its also extremely unusual to have a group with a qunari, a grey warden, a seeker, two mages, a dwarf and an inquisitor. I think the point is that the group brings together completely different people because they need whoever's necessary to save the world regardless of gender, race or sexuality.

 

Not that I want to start a really heated argument here, I respect your views and I'm simply showing my responses to said views.

[Dean_the_Young]

When Dragon Age II first came out, the majority of people who supported the love interests being available to both male and female PCs described those characters as bisexual. The term playersexual was contentious and often used in a pejorative way.

I've noticed that playersexual has become far more common in discussions as a neutral term and had supplanted bisexual, so I was wondering if this was simply a linguistic shift or if the player base had embraced the idea that the companion's sexuality changed depending on the PC.

 

A bit of both, probably. I use them relatively interchangeable, but I can see when others don't.

 

The big concern that I see some people having is when a character's past interests and relationships are glossed over and/or ignored depending on which gender you are. I don't know if this is an actually valid complaint, if it actually happened (does Anders talk about his past relationship with Carl in a fem-Hawke romance?), but if it were to happen even I would find it annoying.

 

To take a hypothetical example that the DA team is not accussed of: imagine a character who, if romanced, only alluded to past relationships of the same orientation as the player-companion relationship. Only talking about past straight relationships if in a straight relationship, and only talking about past same-sex relationships if the same. The two histories don't necessarily contradict, per say, but they don't overlap either: is that companion bisexual, straight, or gay? Are the two told histories separate, or simply leaving out chunks of the same?

 

 

 

 

[DrBlingzle]

By the way is anyone else starting to get confused over all the different kinds of sexualitys being called out? 

[Dean_the_Young]

I think playersexual is the proper term because it points to the "game-y" nature of it all. It has nothing to do with sexuality, but just being another system to game, available to all players.

 

At least that's how I see it. It has little to do with sexuality, and more to do with the shallow nature of it.

 

I'd make the distinction that bisexuality and playersexuality should be distinguished by what the character expresses independent of the player character's gender.

 

Bisexual would be someone like Isabella, who is well established of being willing to tumble with men and women alike, even those who are not the player character.

 

Playersexual would be someone who expresses interest in the player's gender only when the player is that gender. Merrill is a candidate for this- I don't think she expresses romantic interest in anyone outside Hawke in the entire game.

[Master Shiori]

(1) If companions are "playersexual" that comes across, over several playthroughs, as if either everyone (in the world) is bi or your companion group is pre-selected - in-world - for sexual orientation. Keeping every playthrough self-contained in my mind in order to avoid being thusly affected takes effort, and more effort the more I talk with others about the story, and it is a constant strain on my suspension of disbelief since the little voice keeps nagging in my head "things don't work that way".

 

(2) Sexual orientation is part of a character's identity. Having it variable makes them less tangible and relatable.

 

 

(1) Companions are not a good reflection of the general sexuality of people in Thedas, since they're already exceptional in regards to a lot of things. Also, not all companions were bisexual  or even available as a romance. Of the 5 that were, only Anders and Isabela were openly bisexual. You wouldn't even know how Merrill and Fenris felt towards same gender unless you tried to romance them. Otherwise, they'd never bring their sexuality up. And Sebastian is straight.

 

(2) If a character is open to having a relationship with either gender then they're bisexual. There's nothing variable here. It's not like they're making an exception when it comes to the player's character.

[esper]

I'd make the distinction that bisexuality and playersexuality should be distinguished by what the character expresses independent of the player character's gender.

 

Bisexual would be someone like Isabella, who is well established of being willing to tumble with men and women alike, even those who are not the player character.

 

Playersexual would be someone who expresses interest in the player's gender only when the player is that gender. Merrill is a candidate for this- I don't think she expresses romantic interest in anyone outside Hawke in the entire game.

 

Why should she? Merrill  is hinted to have a crush on Hawke in some banter early game and she does have an interest in the 'dirty' jokes, (And she does express interest in Qunari physice if she is unromanced), but all in all she is a fairly non-sexual character unlike the hyper sexual Isabella.

 

Not all bi people flaunts their sexuality. Some only openly shows their interest in one gender and some a just shy or not very sexual at all and don't show interest in anyone. Heck you don't have to have slept with both genders to be bi sexual - you don't have to have slept with anyone at all. Isabella is a very, very sexual person but that is not a defining trait for bi-sexuality.

[wright1978]

I think sexuality can sometimes be a defining trait in someone's quirks and personality, and playersexuality might limit options in writing unique traits for individuals. But if it's really that much of a problem, I don't care. It's just a game. It doesn't have to be realistic.

 

Sexuality could be a defining romance trait. But so could Race and appearance, class etc, . In DA2 Fenris having a relationship with a mage seemed much more odd than him potentially being interested in either gender. How far down the rabbit hole are we going to go in search of realistic representation of sexual preferences.

[milena87]

I like what the DA team has done with DA2 and I like even more that they seem to be improving on DA2, instead of scrapping the idea altogether and returning to a more familiar approach.

 

Playersexuality / bisexuality / whatever you want to call it gives us more choices and that's what matters to me.

 

I'd prefer resources to be used in creating a web of consequences for our actions and decisions, consequences that could also affect friendships and romances with the various companions and NPCs.