Ce sujet est fermé
We use these other races as an analogue for real world cultures already. City elves are jews, dalish are roma, qunari are islamic confusionists. Whether they're human or not, still sends a bad message.
More to the point, it's a door Bioware's already opened. Qunari are closer to human than asari, drell, quarians, or turians are, but they're all ok to romance.
I've never looked at any of the races in Dragon Age as analogues to races on Earth.
Guest_Puddi III_*
Yes, representing Jews, Roma, and Muslims as non-human does send a bad message. Especially as 97% of humans we've seen are white people with English accents.
I'm not quite sure it's the same bad message you're thinking of though.
What bad message is he thinking of and what bad message are you thinking of? 
...The bad message I would think of is that using nonhumans as proxies for these same kind of conflicts kinda legitimizes the proclivity to dehumanize one's adversaries whether they be cultural, religious, etc, which is potentially a first step down a long and dark path of oppression.
But in BioWare's case (in both ME and DA) at least they don't really write the other races as anything other than entirely human mentally (geth aside), so I'm not sure it's that much of an issue.
To note, I am vehemently against racial restrictions as much as I am against gender/sex restrictions. I just could understand BW using racial restrictions before I could understand gender/sex restrictions in the context of the franchise; however, I don't want or endorse either restriction for a myriad of reasons (the one above being one of the many).
I am pro-everyone is loveable and anti-limits.
Racial restrictions, IMO, are especially problematic because fantasy as a bizarre racist undercurrent (no fault of the current fantasy authors of today; it's just a trope inherent in the genre now) to their idea of "race", where your fantasy "race" is an unalterable constant about you defined exclusively by physiology, which actually means a few cosmetic differences from a base "human" model. I think it encourages a very 19th century view of culture and "race".
I both agree and disagree that romance should not be gated by species. I can the see the problematic connotations it can display to real-world interracial relationships, but I also think it's nice to have companions be real characters by themselves, as opposed to existing to suit the player's wants and needs. As much as I loved the inclusivity of DA2 and freedom to choose a romance with any of the options, I actually prefer Origins and (what seems to be) Inquisitions way of approaching romances in terms of gender and sexuality in that, just like real life, it's different strokes for different folks. If that means I have to play as a female PC to romance the companion I prefer, then so be it.
In terms of race, I welcome it where appropriate, especially if it engenders replaying. For instance, perhaps an elven LI who is obsessed with saving their race and being unable to be romanced by a non-elven PC. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
Not that I think that will happen, especially when they've already confirmed that LIs will have "set" sexualities. To put any further limits on romances seems a bit counter-productive considering the amount of work and resources they involve.
For those who see it as a potentially negative reflection on interracial relationships outside of the game, would you have as much of an issue if, hypothetically, a companion like Sera had a romance gated by race if she would only romance say... dwarves?
I just don't view this as something that actually helps define the characters in any meaningful way, at least not to the extent that it's worth removing the option from the player; after all, this is a game. It's purpose is to serve our wants and needs so as to be fun and enjoyable for us. I think a much more defining character trait would be for Cassandra to refuse to enter a relationship with a member of the qun, regardless of race, as opposed to the qunari race specifically.
I actually keep bringing up the idea of a character who fetishizes another race to the point where they'll only date them, not members of their own race, as a counter point to this concept and I've yet to see it responded to. It's not as though this behavior doesn't happen; I'm good friends with a white woman who only dates black men(she's less discriminating about the women she dates). And it's been established in the setting that certain races are fetishized by others.
So I come to be baffled when the people proposing these restrictions, more often than not, tend to leave them at "Humans and elves get each other, dwarves stick to dwarves, qunari to qunari".
I don't necessarily think there should be race restrictions. I just think a bit of character flavor in that you have to win a given companion over based on things like race, magic ability, or, I don't know, how well you accessorize your fashions would be nice. It's true that the purpose of a game is to entertain us and serve our wants to an extent, but for me that means having enough realism in the people we interact with to allow for full immersion. It doesn't have to be anything more than that, and certainly not in a way that would completely cut some people off from developing friendships and romances with the characters.
I highly doubt there will be significant race restrictions.
Possibly something with a "bonus" romance character, like Varric or Iron Bull.
For the record, Lady Maria's post was written in sarcasm.What bad message is he thinking of and what bad message are you thinking of?
...The bad message I would think of is that using nonhumans as proxies for these same kind of conflicts kinda legitimizes the proclivity to dehumanize one's adversaries whether they be cultural, religious, etc, which is potentially a first step down a long and dark path of oppression.
But in BioWare's case (in both ME and DA) at least they don't really write the other races as anything other than entirely human mentally (geth aside), so I'm not sure it's that much of an issue.
Guest_Puddi III_*
For the record, Lady Maria's post was written in sarcasm.
Which is typical of Maria, but I'm still not sure what it meant.
I highly doubt there will be significant race restrictions.
Possibly something with a "bonus" romance character, like Varric or Iron Bull.
If there are race restrictions then I see it being in a very limited way. Like maybe it effects who you can have a one night stand with. Maybe there's an Orlesian noble you can seduce for a mission, but only if you're an elf because she has a fetish. Or Varric will use the excuse that he's not into humans/elves/qunari to those players, and then have a more frank discussion about being hung up on Bianca with a dwarf because he no longer has that excuse. Basically, small, one time events that add a lot of customization and make your race feel less cosmetic, but don't effect major romantic subplots or anything.
Lol, that was probably her point. She does indeed love to do that sort of thingWhich is typical of Maria, but I'm still not sure what it meant.
I could see that there could be race restrictions but if there are already gender restrictions then I don't think it's reasonable to resctrict one LI with both gender restriction and race restriction. Maybe there are also other restrictions like if you are bloodmage then you can't romance a templar for example. When there are more restrictions then the romances will become more complicated. If the restrictions are done well then I think it would make playing more interesting but if there are too many restrictions then there are too many occasions where the romance could fail and then it would just frustrate everybody.
We may have to get a chart like:
Straight Gay Bi Human Elf Dwarf Qunari
LI 1 - - - - - - -
LI 2 - - - - - - -
Then we can all go crazy when our preferred LI does not go after our character.
"BIOWARE HAS DENIED ME MY WAIFU/HUSBANDARO! TO the MOD MACHINE!"
etc etc etc!
Honestly I think that race restrictions could be interesting if well done.
Like I always say all depends on the execution
I think there should only be restrictions based on your actions, not race/gender/etc.
I don't know that I entirely agree with this. It would be too much like NWN2 where Casavir was instantly in love with you if you helped old ladies across the street, and Bishop desired you if you threatened people with a knife for their belt strap or something. I liked neither character and didn't bother to romance them, only to find them getting into a fight over me. Really soured the game for me at that point, because what?
Your choices and actions should have some relevance, but basing it entirely off that feels creepy to me. Is it hero worship or admiration? Do they care about me (the character) or about what I might be able to help them achieve? It's maybe too complex to consider this stuff for pixel lovers, but having something beyond "you're good" and "you're evil" to base their attraction off of is just going to be more "real."
I think there should only be restrictions based on your actions, not race/gender/etc.
I agree, but even with your actions you should have some open space, because I actually like the idea of friendship and enemy relationships if it's done well. I hate those race and gender restrictions. They seem so unnecessary to me.
I think restrictions should be based on our companions character. If one of them happened to be a straight xenophobic dwarf, only dwarfen females should be able to romance him, etc.
Any ideas who will be romance interest? Do we know number of possible lovers?
I think there should only be restrictions based on your actions, not race/gender/etc.
This would be ideal for me, also. I'd rather the romances tie into the story choices, since that's basically the point of the game.
Pretty sure BioWare won't add more restrictions. They must know how badly people would respond if their character happens to have no choice in regards of LI. I wouldn't be pleased neither. 
(Except they are planning on having much more LIs than in previous games, in order to still make sure there's still a choice ... But that would really be unlikely, imho.)
Any ideas who will be romance interest? Do we know number of possible lovers?
Cassandra and Cullen are confirmed as LIs. That's about all we know, I think. (And the fact that there are going to be different set sexualities - which makes it more likely that we might get 6 instead of 4 LIs, but that's just speculation on my part.)
What is the point of having gender gating, set sexualities, the point of having gay and bisexual and straight characters?
As Mark Darrah tweeted earlier today, we have characters that are gay as well as bisexual and straight. I’m not going to discuss numbers or any further details at this point, so you can make of that what you will, but that allows us to tell more types of character stories without having to resort to ambiguity. Those stories exist for players who don’t romance the characters as well, and that’s also important.
Seeing how he speaks of gay, straight and bisexual characters and then about not romancing the characters I will assume here there will be gay, bisexual and straight romance options.
I think gay characters will be in Inquisition to make gay people feel represented and welcome and to treat them with respect just like straight people.
What is the point of having straight romanceable characters instead of bisexual romanceable characters? Is it to give straight romance options to people, who want more of a (for lack of a better word) heteronormative love story?
As Mark Darrah tweeted earlier today, we have characters that are gay as well as bisexual and straight. I’m not going to discuss numbers or any further details at this point, so you can make of that what you will, but that allows us to tell more types of character stories without having to resort to ambiguity.
I see how a character might talk about gender-specific anatomy, but what else? Should romances be gender-specific? Does it imply that men and women should be treated differently? Or in context of romance options that gay men should be treated different to straight women and straight men different to lesbian women? Or does it simply mean that characters can talk more about their previous relationships and dead spouses without potentially turning somebody off? Anders did not tell female Hawke about Karl after all.
Given the option of two equal men, one bi, one gay, being gay myself I might choose the gay one, because our identity and experience are more alike or I might choose the gay man, because actually I wouldn't want to be with a bisexual guy, who might leave me for woman to have kids and live a "normal" life, which would probably mean I would be biphobic, but I'm thinking Bioware may consider that a valid point, because Anders did not tell female Hawke about his relationship with Karl. A female Hawke might be turned off Anders by finding out he was with another man. On the same hand some people romancing Zevran as male Warden might have been turned off by his story about how he slept with a woman, before he killed her. People complained about the all-bisexual romance options in Dragon Age II. What I'm saying is either way (or whichever way) Bioware might be okay with people not liking bisexual romance options for whatever reason.
"No matter who the player is, Karl was always someone [Anders] was romantically involved with," says Gaider. "The part of him the player is exposed to, however, is different. Anders doesn't mention Karl to a female Hawke because Jennifer Hepler [Anders' writer] didn't think he would -- and also because a player who prefers to think of Anders as straight is welcome to do so."
I at least hope that Bioware has a more substantial reason to introduce gender gating than support of biphobia. They've not had a problem telling people they wouldn't change their policy to support bigotry before, so I at least would assume this was still the stance they're taking. I don't really understand their reasoning, myself, but I would assume that's not it.
I at least hope that Bioware has a more substantial reason to introduce gender gating than support of biphobia. They've not had a problem telling people they wouldn't change their policy to support bigotry before, so I at least would assume this was still the stance they're taking. I don't really understand their reasoning, myself, but I would assume that's not it.
Retour en haut
