12496 réponses à ce sujet

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Choose them more carefully then
Since set sexualities in this case is both diversity and representation

I did. I said 'Set Sexuality System', not 'Set Sexuality'. The system part means I'm only referring to the romance system.

[bossuary]

Goddamit BSN, I was supposed to be in and out with a drive-by comment, and now look at what you've made me do:

 

(It's not exactly 'It's raining men', but eeh)

 

THANKS, BSN.

"SSHHhh."  LOL. she is us.  we are her.

DYING at 'mainpain bgm'

(though i'd half expect that level of bara manpain to be accompanied by, like, inception/reaper BRRRROMMM)

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Here comes a train, into the tunnel! 

 

[Chari]

I did. I said 'Set Sexuality System', not 'Set Sexuality'. The system part means I'm only referring to the romance system.

And this system in this case is about representation and diversity

[Hanako Ikezawa]

And this system in this case is about representation and diversity

And yet it doesn't represent any other factors except if you're born with man or lady parts, in a world that has displayed practically no opinion on the matter.

 

Any representation or diversity can happen outside the romance system. Stripping choices out of an RPG is bad. 

[KainD]

This should be good.

[Ryzaki]

High five? Also romances will depend on the actions and decisions, maybe even plot itself. Finally a complex system which doesn't remind me of simdating simulators

 

...Everytime someone says something like this I'm reminded of how they DON'T play dating sims.

 

They're all about actions and decisions getting you your waifu of choice often to an alarming rate.

 

Did you not go to the spring that day to overhear your enemy talking about your waifu's biggest regret? Well so much for your waifu! Enjoy being randomly killed by the bad guy.

[Kalyppso]

And yet it doesn't represent any other factors except if you're born with man or lady parts, in a world that has displayed practically no opinion on the matter.

There was at least one opinion on the matter. I haven't had anyone to discuss this with and I feel it is appropriate to bring up now ... Zevran seems apprehensive of how the female Warden will react to him having had intimate relationships / flings (?) with male persons in his past. He is obviously expecting some kind of judgement. He is the best representation of a bisexual character in a video game in my opinion. He didn't have to be promiscuous to express his sexuality and the fact that he was promiscuous did not overshadow his sexuality. Additionally, he was not doomed to forever be promiscuous and I loved his backwards proposal.

However I completely understand where you're coming from because I do not feel that heterosexuality (or homosexuality) would be under-represented by a player-sexual cast.

Also. I have never been exposed to I Like Trains before and that was awesome.

[Chari]

And yet it doesn't represent any other factors except if you're born with man or lady parts, in a world that has displayed practically no opinion on the matter.

Any representation or diversity can happen outside the romance system. Stripping choices out of an RPG is bad.

Hasn't it? As I said many times and some people as well, while Thedas doesn't care much about sexuality, it still has cultures who are more traditional and care about reproduction a lot, and systems which don't. There is still a diversity. Not to mention the number or canon homosexual NPC couples is simply poor. And NPCs are supposed to represent the lore

It gives more depth. No more vague sexualities so the player can adjust them to their silly headcanons. If a LI prefers ladies, they prefer ladies, if men - then men, both - both, if they can't decide yet it is still a set sexuality, called fluid or sth.
Finally characters have their own tastes that do not depend on the player clicking or not clicking a heart icon

[Kalyppso]

It gives more depth. No more vague sexualities so the player can adjust them to their silly headcanons. If a LI prefers ladies, they prefer ladies, if men - then men, both - both, if they can't decide yet it is still a set sexuality, called fluid or sth.
Finally characters have their own tastes that do not depend on the player clicking or not clicking a heart icon

I do not feel the characters in Dragon Age II lacked depth at all, let alone because they were written to be player-sexual. The functionality was written into the game as lore as well, and I don't think you should over-look that. I want to admit that I never felt locked out of Morrigan's romance despite only playing female Wardens because their interactions were written into the game in such a way that their friendship / rivalry was without question. Headcanon is something that would have been excluded from the game, like a kiss from Sebastian ... who, though passionate, seemed only to want an asexual political marriage at the end of a rivalmance playthrough. The ability to love Hawke was something that was written into their personalities as much as Merrill's innocence, Fenris' bitterness towards mages, or anything else. It was not a representation of sexuality, and if there is going to be a lack of representation of any actual sexuality in romanceable companions - why not a lack of representation for all?

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Hasn't it? As I said many times and some people as well, while Thedas doesn't care much about sexuality, it still has cultures who are more traditional and care about reproduction a lot, and systems which don't. There is still a diversity. Not to mention the number or canon homosexual NPC couples is simply poor. And NPCs are supposed to represent the lore

It gives more depth. No more vague sexualities so the player can adjust them to their silly headcanons. If a LI prefers ladies, they prefer ladies, if men - then men, both - both, if they can't decide yet it is still a set sexuality, called fluid or sth.
Finally characters have their own tastes that do not depend on the player clicking or not clicking a heart icon

And they have referenced that. Merrill states her concerns about being with a male Hawke that they may produce a child.

 

Rubbish. Sexuality is not needed for more depth. The fact you see the desires of other players as 'silly headcanons' says enough. As fot tastes, fine let's go big or go home. I want gender tastes, race tastes, allignment tastes, all of it. Do it right or don't do it at all. 

[Chari]

I do not feel the characters in Dragon Age II lacked depth at all, let alone because they were written to be player-sexual. The functionality was written into the game as lore as well, and I don't think you should over-look that. I want to admit that I never felt locked out of Morrigan's romance despite only playing female Wardens because their interactions were written into the game in such a way that their friendship / rivalry was without question. Headcanon is something that would have been excluded from the game, like a kiss from Sebastian ... who, though passionate, seemed only to want an asexual political marriage at the end of a rivalmance playthrough. The ability to love Hawke was something that was written into their personalities as much as Merrill's innocence, Fenris' bitterness towards mages, or anything else. It was not a representation of sexuality, and if there is going to be a lack of representation of any actual sexuality in romanceable companions - why not a lack of representation for all?

Because characters exist in a world independatly from the player. We can influence their opinion, make choices that will change their future, but we can not change their past, how they were brought up, what tastes they have, what choices they made.
Sexuality like any part of a personality is a complex thing, created with help of biological factors, personal experience, culture and random factors.
It should not depend on the player wanting them to be straight/gay/bi. If Zevran likes both sexes he does, regardless of the player's opinion and it should be this way

[Kalyppso]

Because characters exist in a world independatly from the player. We can influence their opinion, make choices that will change their future, but we can not change their past, how they were brought up, what tastes they have, what choices they made.
Sexuality like any part of a personality is a complex thing, created with help of biological factors, personal experience, culture and random factors.
It should not depend on the player wanting them to be straight/gay/bi. If Zevran likes both sexes he does, regardless of the player's opinion and it should be this way

Game mechanics are not player decision. I want to reiterate that I am FINE with companions I cannot romance because of their sexuality, but in this discussion on whether companions need to have a set sexuality I argue that either system works and either system could continue to work. Did you feel that Merrill was of any sexuality when you romanced her? When romancing her as a female I did not feel as though I was vying for her affections against either other men or women, neither did I feel as if her and Hawke's relationship was any lesser for it. A moment ago I referenced that I liked tense relationships in Dragon Age, and on that note I'll reference Fenris who ... enjoys the company of Isabela if neither of them are romanced by Hawke ... but I didn't particularly feel that he was either straight or bisexual from the experience. I didn't feel that Merrill was gay for having been with my female Hawke. I felt like sexuality was apart from the game, which was unusual but it wasn't a system that failed to meet my needs of accurate representation, which is what I feel you are arguing.

[Chari]

And they have referenced that. Merrill states her concerns about being with a male Hawke that they may produce a child.

Rubbish. Sexuality does not give more depth. The fact you see the desires of other players as 'silly headcanons' says enough.

A few small details, but still the romances felt like copy-paste with different pronouns

It gives. Everything does. Even colour preferences, food taste, favourite animals... All of it helps to build a detailed character with detailed personality and detailed past
Especially when it comes to such an important part of life as romantic relationship, which is one of the basic needs of any organic creature. Even in the LGBTfriendly world like Thedas different sexualities face different challenges. Homosexual couple can't get pregnant, heterosexual couple has to be careful. Lesbian couple can still have a kid with help of some willing man, gay couple would have to adopt a child. Among high classes. Heterosexual couple may be forced to produce a heir, homosexual couple may be even forbidden by parents or one would have to be a lover, rather than a spouse. Gloyal gay or bi qunari would be forced to have sex with the opposite gender for reproduction purposes.
It all matters, it all influences a person

[Hanako Ikezawa]

A few small details, but still the romances felt like copy-paste with different pronouns

It gives. Everything does. Even colour preferences, food taste, favourite animals... All of it helps to build a detailed character with detailed personality and detailed past
Especially when it comes to such an important part of life as romantic relationship, which is one of the basic needs of any organic creature. Even in the LGBTfriendly world like Thedas different sexualities face different challenges. Homosexual couple can't get pregnant, heterosexual couple has to be careful. Lesbian couple can still have a kid with help of some willing man, gay couple would have to adopt a child. Among high classes. Heterosexual couple may be forced to produce a heir, homosexual couple may be even forbidden by parents or one would have to be a lover, rather than a spouse. Gloyal gay or bi qunari would be forced to the end have sex with the opposite sex for reproduction purposes.
It all matters, it all influences a person

Then have different dialogue written depending on gender. DA2 did it. Companions had completely different conversations depending on gender. And that way you don't rob players of characters they want to romance.

 

Again, limiting choices in an RPG is like limiting enemy numbers in shooters. It goes against the point of the game.  

[Chari]

Game mechanics are not player decision. I want to reiterate that I am FINE with companions I cannot romance because of their sexuality, but in this discussion on whether companions need to have a set sexuality I argue that either system works and either system could continue to work. Did you feel that Merrill was of any sexuality when you romanced her? When romancing her as a female I did not feel as though I was vying for her affections against either other men or women, neither did I feel as if her and Hawke's relationship was any lesser for it. A moment ago I referenced that I liked tense relationships in Dragon Age, and on that note I'll reference Fenris who ... enjoys the company of Isabela if neither of them are romanced by Hawke ... but I didn't particularly feel that he was either straight or bisexual from the experience. I didn't feel that Merrill was gay for having been with my female Hawke. I felt like sexuality was apart from the game, which was unusual but it wasn't a system that failed to meet my needs of accurate representation, which is what I feel you are arguing.

And this is what I am against. Sexuality should be a part of a character, not game mechanics

[ladyoflate]

A few small details, but still the romances felt like copy-paste with different pronouns

It gives. Everything does. Even colour preferences, food taste, favourite animals... All of it helps to build a detailed character with detailed personality and detailed past
Especially when it comes to such an important part of life as romantic relationship, which is one of the basic needs of any organic creature. Even in the LGBTfriendly world like Thedas different sexualities face different challenges. Homosexual couple can't get pregnant, heterosexual couple has to be careful. Lesbian couple can still have a kid with help of some willing man, gay couple would have to adopt a child. Among high classes. Heterosexual couple may be forced to produce a heir, homosexual couple may be even forbidden by parents or one would have to be a lover, rather than a spouse. Gloyal gay or bi qunari would be forced to have sex with the opposite gender for reproduction purposes.
It all matters, it all influences a person

 

I'd prefer if bonding over your favorite food came before bonding over that they like the pronouns you use. At least then we might get a cute scene out of it, and it actually would add a specific depth to their character, since there is literally no set personality trait associated with liking a particular gender identity. Tendencies in our current culture, yes, but that's more how we view said sexualities. Without that, saying that set sexualities add depth and specificity to a character is illogical.

[Chari]

Then have different dialogue written depending on gender. DA2 did it. Companions had completely different conversations depending on gender. And that way you don't rob players of characters they want to romance.

Again, limiting choices in an RPG is like limiting enemy numbers in shooters. It goes against the point of the game.

These characters do not belong to the players. Dragon age is a serious game which shows lots of issues people in RL have to face. Like in any fantasy game, take away the magic and dragons, and you will see people dealing with familiar problems: betrayal, loyalty, responsibility, difficult choices. It is a mature-rated game, players are supposed to be +18 years old. Rejection, people not fitting an ideal image of a friend, lover, comrade are things any adult should be able to accept

Quality over quantity. I'd rather fight one dragon than thousands of rats

[Ryzaki]

I'm still baffled at people who clearly never played a dating sim trying to claim something's like a dating sim.

 

But that's my love of otome games raising up. God getting a bad end in Hakuoki because I drank the blood when I was supposed to refrain ;_; so many feels. And worse the game tricked me. I got a pretty CG and was all "wooo good end." then NOPE.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

These characters do not belong to the players. Dragon age is a serious game which shows lots of issues people in RL have to face. Like in any fantasy game, take away the magic and dragons, and you will see people dealing with familiar problems: betrayal, loyalty, responsibility, difficult choices. It is a mature-rated game, players are supposed to be +18 years old. Rejection, people not fitting an ideal image of a friend, lover, comrade are things any adult should be able to accept

Quality over quantity. I'd rather fight one dragon than thousands of rats

It is also a game. As in a source of entertainment. Something to be enjoyed by the player. 

 

Having to play a gender you don't want to in order to access content you want to access is pretty much the opposite of enjoyable.

[Chari]

I'd prefer if bonding over your favorite food came before bonding over that they like the pronouns you use. At least then we might get a cute scene out of it, and it actually would add a specific depth to their character, since there is literally no set personality trait associated with liking a particular gender identity. Tendencies in our current culture, yes, but that's more how we view said sexualities. Without that, saying that set sexualities add depth and specificity to a character is illogical.

No person lives in a cultural vacuum. And since romance, reproduction and culture are always connected, set sexual life and tastes influences a person. Even rebels have to rebel against something. If there wasn't slavery, Andraste wouldn't have to free anyone
Not to mention that preferences in choice of sex or even love partner can have heavy consequences

[Kalyppso]

And this is what I am against. Sexuality should be a part of a character, not game mechanics

The character is part of the game!!!

I have to think of a better example, apparently.

Isabela and her history with her husband. You NEVER even get this hinted at you unless you romance her. Does this mean that this history is not-canonical unless you romance her? I highly doubt you feel that way. Or even Morrigan and her capacity for love. You could have been down-right terrible to that mage, but her not expressing loving emotion to your Warden would neither make her heterosexual or homosexual - even with the Ritual in the end. Because romances were gender specific in Origins, we meta-game, and we know she's straight, but why would this ever matter to certain Wardens? I feel like it would matter as much to them, as to the average player as if Inquisition adopted a player-sexual companion base ... but it's just an opinion. I'm not trying to change yours but I'm trying to make you understand mine. You're so final.

Do you feel that the companions in DAII were lesser for being player-sexual? That they lacked character depth?

[Chari]

It is also a game. As in a source of entertainment. Something to be enjoyed by the player.

Games like Dragon age, witcher, Elder Scrolls etc are entertaining because they are good at imitating real life people while adding not too much magic/alien glamour
Imagine ME1 with our Virmire choice. Less heartbreaking and less entertaining. A player has to choose one or another, and that's what makes it so powerful

[Ryzaki]

Wow this site loves to eat my posts.

 

Anyway what I said was romances are 20+ minutes of content out of a 40 hour game. I have no desire to replay a game that long (and if Bw's estimates are on point it's more like 50+ hours) as a gender I don't want to play for 20 minutes of content. I can save a great deal of time and youtube that.