12496 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Really? I made BW add voice acting to their protagonists? VA that grates on my ears and puts me in a perma bad mood while playing the game?

 

amazing. How do I undo that?

 

I don't know, but I have a sudden and inexplicable urge to design an RPG with Alpha Protocol like dialogue cues now. 

[Mockingword]

That you cant envisage a situation where setting sexuality might add value to the game us entirely on you Mockingword, not me. Would it not be enough to simply say lets wait and see?

I didn't say you were responsible for my opinion?

 

I'm also not particularly interested in any media that asserts that there are significant differences between gay and straight people, because that's not actually true.

[Ryzaki]

I don't know, but I have a sudden and inexplicable urge to design an RPG with Alpha Protocol like dialogue cues now. 

 

Do it.

 

Do ittttt.

 

*cheers Exile on* 

 

Sorry, I don't understand any of that.

 

It's really simple. I don't like female Hawke's voice acting. Listening it to grates on my nerves. After several hours I get annoyed, that irritation grows, I can not play Fem Hawke cause her VA causes me irritation and severely lessens my enjoyment of the game to the point where I no longer want to play. You're saying this is somehow my doing and not BW's for having a VA in the first place.

 

This is simply one of hte reasons someone might not want to play a certain gender.

 

If we were talking about the warden sure I could switch genders with ease on that scenario if I wanted to access certain content (though it was easier to make attractive femwardens so that's where I usually stayed) but when playing the game has it so the one person I hear speaking the most aggravates me everytime they open their mouth? And that's avoidable by playing another gender? How the hell is that *my* fault?

[Sjofn]

Sorry, I don't understand any of that.

 

Some of the "I don't want to play <gender>" is because of an intense dislike for whoever is voicing that particular gender. I hate the voice of the female wizard in Diablo 3, for example, so I straight up refuse to play one, ever (which is, as an aside, surprising as she is voiced by Grey DeLisle, someone who is usually really good!). And there is waaaaaay more talking in Bioware games to get through, so if you, say, cannot tolerate Jennifer Hale's Commander Shepard one instant longer, that's taking that gender off the table.

 

edit: Ha, posted too slow. STILL.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

But setting sexuality allows for same sex content! Again, yours always seems to be a complaint about not having every LI be available to your protagonist. That's fair enough and I think I understand what you want and where you're coming from, but I'm one of those people who would rather see what value David and his team can add to the game and its cast of charatcers by setting sexuality.

I keep asking everyone that says there's "value" in set sexualities what theories they have on what that value would be. Sometimes I get vague implications of "differences". Literally every elaboration on these differences so far has been some differentiation on how gay characters somehow got damaged from being gay. Even as bad an idea as I think that is, I think it could just as easily be achieved with a bi character with a same sex partner in their past. If I could hear even one example of a decent way this could impact LI stories, maybe I would be optimistic. As is, I don't see how it's not giving up half my options for basically nothing.   

[Ryzaki]

Some of the "I don't want to play <gender>" is because of an intense dislike for whoever is voicing that particular gender. I hate the voice of the female wizard in Diablo 3, for example, so I straight up refuse to play one, ever (which is, as an aside, surprising as she is voiced by Grey DeLisle, someone who is usually really good!). And there is waaaaaay more talking in Bioware games to get through, so if you, say, cannot tolerate Jennifer Hale's Commander Shepard one instant longer, that's taking that gender off the table.

 

edit: Ha, posted too slow. STILL.

 

Yeah I got my FemShep a wee bit past Ashley and then went "Yep. NOPE." and reloaded MShep.

 

I wasn't much better with FemHawke. I think she got to Kirkwall and I just sighed. And now I hear Brynn and I can't even get that far.

 

I'm pretty sure my Femagent is going to be on Balmorra for several months. I just can't play her that long. Even *with* PVP.

[Sjofn]

Yeah I got my FemShep a wee bit past Ashley and then went "Yep. NOPE." and reloaded MShep.

 

I wasn't much better with FemHawke. I think she got to Kirkwall and I just sighed. And now I hear Brynn and I can't even get that far.

 

I'm pretty sure my Femagent is going to be on Balmorra for several months. I just can't play her that long. Even *with* PVP.

 

 

LadyHawke is just a little too ... something. I don't know how to put it. It's like everything she says is smirky, even when she's not being Sarcastic Hawke. And it's EXTRA apparent when she's flirting with someone (although nothing will be worse than Shepard's Creepin' on Jacob voice). I differ from others, though, in that I think she goes between "generic talky talk" and "RAWR AGGRESSIVE RESPONSE" way better than ManHawke. ManHawke sounds like he's bipolar to me when he's AggroHawke.

 

I fully admit to being super picky with lady voices, though, for whatever reason!

 

 

I keep asking everyone that says there's "value" in set sexualities what theories they have on what that value would be. Sometimes I get vague implications of "differences". Literally every elaboration on these differences so far has been some differentiation on how gay characters somehow got damaged from being gay. Even as bad an idea as I think that is, I think it could just as easily be achieved with a bi character with a same sex partner in their past. If I could hear even one example of a decent way this could impact LI stories, maybe I would be optimistic. As is, I don't see how it's not giving up half my options for basically nothing.   

 

I'm just theorizing here, but I think at least part of it is that it makes it more "Yes, there are awesome gay people in your party, even when you don't flip their Gay Switch by being the correct gender to make them so." I mean, we've had bisexual characters in our party before, but never a gay person. That's a total guess, though, and it's not like you can't have gay companions that aren't LIs at all or whatever.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I would say that having explicitly gay characters adds value, in and of itself. Indeed, to take your own point, why should setting sexuality have to have any great significance placed upon it? Why cant the gay and straight people of Inquisition just be? Do you mind my asking what would add value for you?

They don't need to have set sexuality LIs in order to have a gay character. If there are 4 companion LIs, that leaves 5 left to be whatever sexuality they see fit.

 

If I'm giving up half my choices, I would like for there to be a good trade off. If there's not, what's the point of the sacrifice?

 

I don't know what would add value for me in set sexualities. That's my problem with them. If I could see a clear way that they could add value, there wouldn't be an issue. As is, all I see is that they take away options.   

[Ryzaki]

LadyHawke is just a little too ... something. I don't know how to put it. It's like everything she says is smirky, even when she's not being Sarcastic Hawke. And it's EXTRA apparent when she's flirting with someone (although nothing will be worse than Shepard's Creepin' on Jacob voice). I differ from others, though, in that I think she goes between "generic talky talk" and "RAWR AGGRESSIVE RESPONSE" way better than ManHawke. ManHawke sounds like he's bipolar to me when he's AggroHawke.

 

I fully admit to being super picky with lady voices, though, for whatever reason!

 

 

 

I'm just theorizing here, but I think at least part of it is that it makes it more "Yes, there are awesome gay people in your party, even when you don't flip their Gay Switch by being the correct gender to make them so." I mean, we've had bisexual characters in our party before, but never a gay person. That's a total guess, though, and it's not like you can't have gay companions that aren't LIs at all or whatever.

 

Agreed. Whatever it is it's annoying and dude Hawke doesn't have it.  Though yeah Shep being a cougar on Jacob is unparalleled. I watched that on youtube and just went "She's somehow worse than he you want this line. HOW?"

 

XD I like Man Hawke's aggressive though. He sounds pissed.

 

Though yes I'm also super picky. I had a fangirlgasm when I heard lady SW speak. I've been in love with her voice ever since. Even though male SW isn't shabby I can't help it. All my SWs are female save 1. That voice is just so lovely she's the only female VA I actually like in SWTOR the others I either tolerate (barely) fem Smug, BH (though I really don't like her voice either I much prefer the male), Consular or hate Trooper (Hale just had to use her femShep voice), male smug makes me wanna kick him in the stomach fem SI flip flops from tolerate to can't stand. Depends on how often I played male SI really he's superior in almost every way.

 

And I rather have a unromancable gay companion honestly. But I'm one of those weirdos that only want 4 LIs that are all bi and everyone else in the game can be straight/gay/whatever.

[Sjofn]

I like how mad MadHawke sounds, it's just when he's all RAWR AGGROHAWKE then Mild Generic Hawke Asking Questions then RAWR AGGROHAWKE it's a little. Uh. Jarring. The time I'm thinking of specifically is when you're escorting Saarebas. He goes boom and then Aggro!Hawke is all GRAAAH, WTF, then you can ask some questions in a totally mild voice, then you snap back to LET'S GET THIS OVER WITH, SO AGGRO. And it is weeeeeeird. But pretty funny.

 

 

edit: And yes, lady SW is ~wonderful~ and sounded exactly the way I wanted her to at all times. I also am pretty fond of the lady BH.

[Ryzaki]

I like how mad MadHawke sounds, it's just when he's all RAWR AGGROHAWKE then Mild Generic Hawke Asking Questions then RAWR AGGROHAWKE it's a little. Uh. Jarring. The time I'm think of specifically is when you're escorting Saarebas. He goes boom and then Aggro!Hawke is all GRAAAH, WTF, then you can ask some questions in a totally mild voice, then you snap back to LET'S GET THIS OVER WITH, SO AGGRO. And it is weeeeeeird. But pretty funny.

 

Oh I know exactly what you're talking about XD The generic questions seem to use diplo voice so the flip back is whiplash inducing. It's not so odd with funny Hawke. I just headcanon him as being Tsundere. He got upset his aggro demeanor dropped

[Deviija]

 

What if they have something like Iron Bull being Judas because he doesn't think a woman can lead or something =/ that would suck.

 

 

 

y u do dis 2 me?  :C

 

Do not want. 

 

Romance content to us is considered optional.  If we write romance content for all the characters, it will come at the expense of other type of content.  Either we'll reduce the non-romance content, or we'll reduce the romance content.

 

Yes, this is why when speaking in romance discussions I often bring up the reminders that romance content is optional tertiary content at best, as Gaider put it.  Hoping for high numbers of LIs, or using it as an example of how one should divvy up the LI landscape (with over 6 LIs), is something I'd caution against.  That money, time, and content zots are precious.  Something like romances aren't high on that developer zot priority list, even though many of us here enjoy that content.  

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I don't think they would have Iron Bull be "the Judas" because he thinks women can't lead if only because Bioware statistics in the past imply most players don't make female PCs.    

[Ryzaki]

 

 

 

 

y u do dis 2 me?  :C

 

Do not want. 

 

 

Yes, this is why when speaking in romance discussions I often bring up the reminders that romance content is optional tertiary content at best, as Gaider put it.  Hoping for high numbers of LIs, or using it as an example of how one should divvy up the LI landscape (with over 6 LIs), is something I'd caution against.  That money, time, and content zots are precious.  Something like romances aren't high on that developer zot priority list, even though many of us here enjoy that content.  

 

 

I know but it's a gender difference D:

 

 

I don't think they would have Iron Bull be "the Judas" because he thinks women can't lead if only because Bioware statistics in the past imply most players don't make female PCs.    

 

Could have more than one Judas. And if the PC's male maybe he clashes with Cassandra instead and thinks she has too much influence on how the Inquisition is run.

 

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I guess the point would be that there are explicitly gay characters in the DA universe, right? Moreover, characters that are known to be gay could return in future games, not to mention feature in DA extended works in a way that permeates the world and makes homosexuality (and I mean this in the nicest possible way) unimportant. As for the opportunities for additional characterisation and dialogue that are only made possible by setting sexuality, they would arise from our learning that our companions have 'romantic' minds of their own.

Again, there doesn't need to be gay LIs for there to be gay characters in the party. There's no reason why gay companions can't be featured in the games and extended works without them being LIs. 

 

Bisexual characters have romantic minds of their own as much so as any other sexuality.  

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Could have more than one Judas. And if the PC's male maybe he clashes with Cassandra instead and thinks she has too much influence on how the Inquisition is run.

Yeah, it's possible that different people will turn on you depending on your choices/gender/race. I don't know if there actually even will be a Judas at all, though. 

[Allan Schumacher]

I keep asking everyone that says there's "value" in set sexualities what theories they have on what that value would be. Sometimes I get vague implications of "differences".

 

This topic came up at PAX Prime's LGBTQ talk.  It spawned out of a discussion regarding all LI being universally available.  Steve and Samantha came up, and I believe it was Dusty that asked the audience if it would have been better if Steve and Samantha were available to men and women.  In a room of probably 200-300 people, and from what I remember it was a clear majority that did not raise their hands.

 

I talked about it with some of the people I was near.  The biggest thing was representation.  There is someone that gets caught on the mic during the discussion with a statement about representation and included an emphatic "Thank you" at the end of it.  And I think much the same way that you dislike the concept of "NPC romances" because they are "lesser romances," and what I also learned in talking with people in the other romance thread about whether or not romance content is vital: by being a romanceable character it's given as much attention and exposure as possible.  Many, many people in that discussion mentioned that they value romance content in our games because it's an explicit and unambiguous way for LGBTQ views to be acknowledged. 

 

Back to PAX: for some, it simply felt good to have a romanceable character who's romance content was created specifically with them in mind.  (and I think that that is okay) We could handle representation with other non-romanceable NPCs (and I think we should still do that), but I think it's analogous to your concerns about NPC romances.  For at least some of the people that like it from a representation perspective, it's stronger representation than with a character that isn't romanceable.  Maybe it's just me struggling with my own advantages (especially in gaming), the idea that someone felt "This character is FOR ME" seemed reasonable.  Especially as a guy who has a lot of content that specifically targets me and maybe takes for granted that other people don't have this experience as much.

 

 

With respect to romance options, the reality is that if we include romance content in any way, there will always be a degree of being unfair towards someone.  Spoken differently, I think the only genuinely "fair" breakdown is for romance content to not exist.  Because even if there was a perfect split with all the characters you meet in the game in terms of man/woman, and they were all universally romanceable, the reality is that some people are going to look at some romances and consider them superior to other romances.

 

The most common hypothesis for our romance breakdown will be some notion of 2/2/2.  (Disclaimer: I am not giving any validity to the breakdowns, nor the names that I will use... I have taken them from the forum as commonly seen theories/hypotheses).

 

Cassandra - straight

Solas - Straight

Cullen - Bisexual

Scribe Girl - Bisexual

DHMG - Gay

Sera - lesbian

 

With this there are 4 options for a male inquisitor, and 4 options for a female inquisitor (which is equivalent to DA2 in terms of the amount of choice).

 

First off, right off the bat.  Anyone that has already decided that none of these characters are interesting to them as a romance have lost.  The content is inherently unfair to them because they will not have any sort of romanceable character.

 

Now even then, some have already pegged Cassandra and Solas as the "main romance."  So it's also possible that those that don't like Cassandra and Solas are stuck with options that are innately "inferior."  And that might be the case, because some romances will simply be better received than others (especially on an individual player basis). 

 

 

I have seen some say that they'd prefer 4 bisexuals like DA2, because then it's fair and no one gets access to a romance that someone else does not.  Except for those that lose their romanceable content....  Imagine we were to make it Cass, Solas, Cullen, and Scribe girl as all bisexual.  To some, this is fairer.  Except for those that really want to romance Sera or DMHG.  Is this really "fairer" simply because we've restricted people from getting content in the interest of being "fair" by effectively isolating "all those that want to romance a character but cannot all have to suffer together."

 

So I think on some level we have to pick our battles on what is considered "fair" because I feel that the only truly fair way is no romance content, which obviously is not what a lot of people want.  Any decision that we make (and this goes beyond just romances) is going to be disappointing to someone.  The trick is attempting to reconcile the opposing viewpoints.  I think it's also important to note that having set sexualities brings to the forefront that "4 isn't enough if we want to ensure choice."  As such, I don't think it's necessarily accurate to simply say "well do 6 bisexuals" because had we gone into development with the mindset of "lets just make the romances all bisexual" then we may have very well ended up with only 4 (and applied the writing resources elsewhere), because in terms of choice it's all we'd need.  Stated otherwise, it's possible that having set sexualities provides the impetus to have more than 4 romances.

[LiaraShepard]

*snip*

 

Give everyone the same amount of companion and NPC romances and make the "main romances" bisexual, and it's fair.

 

Of course, it's still possible that some people wouldn't get their favorite character. But that's a matter of taste. The things I mentioned above however, are objectively fair.

[Allan Schumacher]

Give everyone the same amount of romances and make the "main romances" bisexual, and it's fair.

 

It's only fair based on choices available and the presumed equivalence of how meaningful/significant those characters will be in the main plot.  Those that don't like the "main romances" are stuck with the lesser romances.  Those that don't like ANY of the romances are simply outright denied romances.  In this sense, it's valid to say that it's unfair to those that simply don't like the romance options romantically (but may still like them as a friend).

[LiaraShepard]

It's only fair based on choices available and the presumed equivalence of how meaningful/significant those characters will be in the main plot.  Those that don't like the "main romances" are stuck with the lesser romances.  Those that don't like ANY of the romances are simply outright denied romances.  In this sense, it's valid to say that it's unfair to those that simply don't like the characters.

 

It's always possible that you don't like the main romances. It's also possible that all characters are bisexual and yet, you don't like any of them. But this isn't the point, because people always have different tastes when it comes to romances. You can't please everyone. But you can create the romance system fair if everyone gets the same ammount of LI's (as for quantity) and everyone has the possibility to choose between a story relevant plot character and a second character (if they don't like the main romanceable person).