Ce sujet est fermé
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.
I assume it's an attempt to try and avoid the controversy and publicity DA2 spawned that might get in the way of their sales message. I see little other reason to introduce this gating alone.
Gaider already explained that DA2 was done that way to give 2 choices to everyone with the time constraint they had to make the game, making everyone bisexual wasn't their goal, it was a byproduct of their goal and the time constraint.
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.
The way I understood it from that Quote, the writers want to be able to write characters with diverse sexualities as LIs instead of being forced to make every LI bisexual. It would be an unnecessary limitation for no other reason than "we must make everyone happy" which they will never be able to do anyway.
But then, who wants a straight xenophobic dwarf in the party anyway?
It was a random example, but I would actually find that dwarf interesting if he was similiar to Bartrand. 
Perhaps best to post all that was said.
The perception is that Bioware is backing away from supporting queer gamers.
Categorically not true.
I understand there are some people who prefer the idea of being able to romance any character who is able to be romanced, with any PC. That may have been a happy by-product of the system in DA2, for them, but that was not its purpose. Its purpose was to allow more than one option for every type of player, no matter who they were. That remains our goal.
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. The rest will come as we discuss this aspect of the game in detail, but I'd hope the Dragon Age's team's expressed interest in inclusivity would provide us some benefit of the doubt until that happens.
Why is gender the only limiting factor when trying to make 'realistic' romances?Who says it's the only limiting factor? We've not said how the romances will work at all, so that's quite the assumption.
I understand the concern about possibly ending up with the "short end of the stick", but I'm not sure where the DA team has yet given the impression that will be so. I'm not going to tell you that your concerns don't have validity—I'm actually quite familiar with how it feels to have my interests treated as a secondary concern when it comes to popular entertainment—but I'm hoping that concern need not equate with panic at this point. We've got a lot of time yet to discuss this.
Personally, I'd rather the conversation didn't start with a discussion of what is "realistic". That's not a bar the DA team uses to judge any of our content—not in a fantasy game. There's an argument that can be made about internal plausibility within the setting, but the realism that Cam was trying to talk about in that interview was with regards to character depictions and the variety of viewpoints that can be touched on depending on the approach. I hope that's clear. If not, it's something we'll certainly be discussing more in the months to come.
David Gaider has a big problem about people making assumptions about the game, as well as construing definitions.
In his mind, one's decisions and actions may prove to be a limiting factor in regards to romance. That's not what we're talking about when we discuss it, but if it's the case, he still wouldn't see gender as the "only" limiting factor.
And even if it was, he'd still think we were wrong to assume so, given that his team hasn't, in his opinion, given us a reason to think that.
Gaider already explained that DA2 was done that way to give 2 choices to everyone with the time constraint they had to make the game, making everyone bisexual wasn't their goal, it was a byproduct of their goal and the time constraint.
Some of the best creations in the world were unintentional.
The way I understood it from that Quote, the writers want to be able to write characters with diverse sexualities as LIs instead of being forced to make every LI bisexual. It would be an unnecessary limitation for no other reason than "we must make everyone happy" which they will never be able to do anyway.
So they should make less people happy instead?
So they should make less people happy instead?
The way I understood it from that Quote, the writers want to be able to write characters with diverse sexualities as LIs instead of being forced to make every LI bisexual. It would be an unnecessary limitation for no other reason than "we must make everyone happy" which they will never be able to do anyway.
I highly doubt that their intention was to "make everyone happy".
I highly doubt that their intention was to "make everyone happy".
No, cause they dind't make everyone bisexual again. If they had done this, making everyone happy would have been the only justification that I can think of right now. 
What I don't understand is why they'd start with gender restrictions if their main goal was "writing interesting characters". Player choices in game, character race and status are all more plot relevant ways to limit relationships. I can't think of a particularly important way for sexuality to effect the story, but all the other elements could have obvious impacts.
They should create interesting and diverse characters as they see fit instead of tailoring them to the demands of some fans. If they imagined Cassandra to be straight, they shouldn't change her because of the people who want to romance Cass but only play lesbian characters. Instead these people should realise that by being unflexible in their playstile, they will miss out on certain content, just like it's always been in this kind of RPG.
Set sexuality is not required to create interesting and diverse characters.
They should create interesting and diverse characters as they see fit instead of tailoring them to the demands of some fans. If they imagined Cassandra to be straight, they shouldn't change her because of the people who want to romance Cass but only play lesbian characters. Instead these people should realise that by being unflexible in their playstile, they will miss out on certain content, just like it's always been in this kind of RPG.
Characters are not more interesting and diverse because they are not bisexual. If a bisexual character is poorly written, their sexual orientation isn't the issue.
If Cassandra is a heterosexual love interest, so be it, but that does not make her more interesting, better written, or in any way "diverse."
If I, as a woman who wants to only play women in role playing games where female player characters are an option, decide that I don't want to play a male character in order to romance Cassandra, I'm not being "unflexible." I am not interested in being forced to play a male character in a fantasy game where I can be a fantasy race or shoot fire from my fingertips. I'll deal with not being able to romance Cassandra, but I would be disappointed.
I wish people would consider, when making the argument that gamers who are interested in same sex romances should just play out heterosexual romances with characters of the "correct" gender, that some of these gamers are told similar things in real life, about compulsory heterosexuality, and having to pretend to be heterosexual in a game that is supposed to be escapism is a depressing prospect.
Don't see why the writers couldn't imagine their character straight, bi or gay. The goal is to provide several options ( the same equal number if possible ) while telling a good story about companions and their past experiences. I consider various sexualities to be a good thing personally.
What I don't understand is why they'd start with gender restrictions if their main goal was "writing interesting characters". Player choices in game, character race and status are all more plot relevant ways to limit relationships. I can't think of a particularly important way for sexuality to effect the story, but all the other elements could have obvious impacts.
Set sexuality is not required to create interesting and diverse characters.
No, but their sexuality is an important part of these characters and forcing every LI in future DA games to be bisexual is limiting the writers' freedom and doesn't add to diversity at all. I don't see any benefit of the all-bisexxual approach that would even this out.
No, but their sexuality is an important part of these characters and forcing every LI in future DA games to be bisexual is limiting the writers' freedom and doesn't add to diversity at all. I don't see any benefit of the all-bisexxual approach that would even this out.
In what way do you think it's important? What is it's major impact on the character and/or the story? Even more than that, why does it make more sense than the types of gating I mentioned in the post you quoted?
Don't see why the writers couldn't imagine their character straight, bi or gay. The goal is to provide several options ( the same equal number if possible ) while telling a good story about companions and their past experiences. I consider various sexualities to be a good thing personally.
That still doesn't explain willowisp's rather bogus assertion that having all bisexual characters is bad in and of itself.
No, but their sexuality is an important part of these characters and forcing every LI in future DA games to be bisexual is limiting the writers' freedom and doesn't add to diversity at all. I don't see any benefit of the all-bisexxual approach that would even this out.
No it doesn't. Not at all. The writers could write millions of different stories about bisexual men and women. The writers aren't limited in the least.
Set sexuality is not required to create interesting and diverse characters.
So as far as I know, Varric is straight. He could be bi, and it just happened to be that the love of his life is female, but until he comes out as bi, he's so far only shown an inclination towards women.
Bianca is an interesting part of his character - probably one of the first things that would come up if someone asked you to describe Varric. If they wanted him to have an ambiguous sexuality...they probably wouldn't have had him name his crossbow after Bianca.
It's not required, but it does open up more avenues to develop interesting characters by giving them set sexualities as opposed to keeping everyone ambiguous.
No it doesn't. Not at all. The writers could write millions of different stories about bisexual men and women. The writers aren't limited in the least.
Except then they're limited in writing millions of stories about straight and gay men and women.....
No, but their sexuality is an important part of these characters and forcing every LI in future DA games to be bisexual is limiting the writers' freedom and doesn't add to diversity at all. I don't see any benefit of the all-bisexxual approach that would even this out.
Well i certainly see the efficiency, choice and maximised content per LI as a massive advantage of the bisexual(ambiguous) approach over the arbitrary decision to seemingly gate by orientation alone which will either produce(without significant new resource ) less choice or less content per LI. I don't see any burning characterisation reason why orientation has been singled out over other areas for fixed gating.
Except then they're limited in writing millions of stories about straight and gay men and women.....
Explain how that limits them, please.
So as far as I know, Varric is straight. He could be bi, and it just happened to be that the love of his life is female, but until he comes out as bi, he's so far only shown an inclination towards women.
Bianca is an interesting part of his character - probably one of the first things that would come up if someone asked you to describe Varric. If they wanted him to have an ambiguous sexuality...they probably wouldn't have had him name his crossbow after Bianca.
It's not required, but it does open up more avenues to develop interesting characters by giving them set sexualities as opposed to keeping everyone ambiguous.
But there's no reason for all characters to have "ambiguous" pasts with the all bisexual system. That's not what happened with the DA2 system. Only Anders failed to mention his history to both characters and, even then, he talked about having group sex with Isabela, so it's not like he totally hid his sexuality. Isabela, herself, was very clearly bisexual and not at all shy about it.
That still doesn't explain willowisp's rather bogus assertion that having all bisexual characters is bad in and of itself.
The player sexual thing has the particularity to avoid giving indications about the sexualities of characters. That's its goal. If Bioware wants set sexualities, then obviously it's more effective for the story to give various sexualities, for diversity, different stories, different experiences and different reactions from the npcs. It's obviously more interesting than they are all bi in that context.
I didn't say they were supporting biphobia, I said I didn't think they were in a reply to the post above mine. I don't understand how you got the opposite message from that. lol
Retour en haut