130 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

Dave Gaider's kinda like the Morgan Freeman of BSN, any and all quotes will at some point be associated with him. 

 

Haha.  I know people have definitely attributed things I have said to David.

[Allan Schumacher]

 

I think Gaider's comments on the topic have all been "believe what you want to believe, but". For example, Anders:

 

 

"“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.”

 

 

Fair enough.  Although it's a somewhat paradoxical statement, given that it definitively states that Anders has a relationship with Karl regardless.

[Allan Schumacher]

If your male Warden can't flirt with a male NPC, that NPC must be straight?
 

 

I know you're not saying this, but it's as much a symptom of the subject matter being new to us.  Especially in DAO times.  (and I'm including female in this case as well, since it was mentioned a bit below).

 

At the time it didn't cross my mind that I couldn't hit on Alistair if I wanted.  Now it does.

[Allan Schumacher]

Bioware have constantly stressed they want to make it more "realistic" though, or in a sense more like how our world is today in some regard. They've acknowledged that there are people of one orientation, so why not acknowledge that not 50% of the world is bi-sexual. I'm not suggesting that many in Thedas are in-fact bi-sexual, but what I mean is is that there should be less same-sex relationships that heterosexual ones overall in the end.

 

I actually don't think that we are stressing that, even with Cameron's comments regarding realism.  At this point I more take the comments to be referring to the fact that players have a sexual orientation that extends beyond exclusive romance content, regardless of whether that orientation is gay, hetero, or bisexual.

[Allan Schumacher]

No it is. Otherwise you don't think of them as hot, you think of them as aesthetically pleasing. Hot is a word specifically reserved for boinking. 

 

I have asexual friends that state otherwise.  I'm willing to believe them when I say this, because I have no reason to think they'd lie to me about it.

[Allan Schumacher]

Not really. I've just been thinking more about the whole thing.

 

Which is fair.  With time comes some reflection and perspective, and upon hearing the news initially I think a lot of people (especially with the way Cameron ended up wording the whole thing) were afraid that they'd be losing options and the ability to choose.

[Allan Schumacher]

Remember people: Gaider is not accountable for what he writes. 

 

Mockingword's point is correct.  David may be the Lead Writer but there are people that have greater authority over how to direct the entire team and what content makes it into the game than David has.

[Allan Schumacher]

I know it's easy to point at ME irt DA (I do it, too) but they are different teams. And it's really not fair to judge DA based on ME.

 

Even if it was the same team, it doesn't preclude us from learning about what worked, what went wrong, where could we improve, and what should we focus on.

[Allan Schumacher]

What if there were no "main" romances?

[Allan Schumacher]

Cassandra not being romanceable? That would be a first.

 

I don't see why there wouldn't be. I think the romances which weave into the plot can easily be the best.

 

 

Cassandra is romanceable.  It's more the idea of what does it mean to be a "main" romance.  Many people list Morrigan and Alistair from the first game, since they were romanceable and still had some crit path heavy plot elements.

 

Some say Anders and to a lesser extent Isabela.  Again, this is because they are more tightly woven into the plot (I challenge Isabela, however, since I believe she can be entirely skipped as a companion character, and by the same token I could argue Merril is one because she has some crit path elements to her as well).

 

 

I think that on some level, if a character that happens to be romanceable does anything of significance with respect to the main plot of the game, that character is at risk of being "the main romance."  I'm not sure I necessarily agree, but then again I am willing to concede that Alistair and Morrigan were more plot intertwined.

 

I'm probably not the best person to definitively state "yes" or "no" on whether or not there is a "main romance" because I also have a bias in that romance content isn't super vital to me in large part because I typically find it ancillary to the main plot.  I just say this to not read too much into me sassing you guys, but I do think that some people may inadvertently undermine how much they enjoy the game because of an expectation that may not be true.  That is, if someone is expecting Cassandra to be the "main romance" then there's a predisposition to read more into the character and the romance than what really is there.  And if you don't want that, it'll leave you feeling jaded.

[Allan Schumacher]

I never felt that way with Garrus and Tali even though they got together. I never felt like there was any extreme pining going on from one or the other.

 

I actually prefer stuff like this as I find it helps with the feeling that the characters are somewhat autonomous and pursue their own interests.

[Allan Schumacher]

Of course, because there are more straight men in general. But Cassandra is also really popular amongst people who play gay/bi/pan Femquisitors, too. 

 

She's also the one that the people know the most about, too.

[Allan Schumacher]

You know, in all honesty, I'll be happy with whoever I can end up. Wasn't even remotely interested in Zevran or Fenris, and I still had one hell of an adventure with them. So, in that regard, it's all good, no matter what happens.

 

I think it's important to keep an open mind.  Excitement and enthusiasm for a particular choice that may be the case but ultimately isn't can, in my opinion, sour one's gaming experience.  From what I understand it was a non-trivial thing for DA2 actually.

[Allan Schumacher]

Lol, who knows. I might keep up my streak for romancing bisexual elves for the 3rd game in a row.

 

Never know.  It could be the game where there are no bisexual elves!

[Allan Schumacher]

You know half the people that see this are going to swear it's confirmation that the elves wont be bi now.       

 

We'll cross that bridge if it does happen.

 

The alternative is that I choose to talk less.  I'd prefer to frankly not care if people run with it in that way and to continue interacting with the fanbase.  I guess I'll reevaluate that stance if and when it happens.

[Allan Schumacher]

I can't see that. To me, Varric is straight up ugly. 

 

Hah!  Definitely will have to disagree with you there my friend.  I also love his personality

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm personally do not like symmetry that much. It's not realistic (to use the ev0l word), it makes the whole thing looks quite artificial with all the little boxes being arranged the exact same way on both side.

 

Just to be clear, when I read this I see that you also would prefer that we do not have symmetry for class specializations, talent trees, class/race quests, class/race reactivity, or even class specific conflict resolution?

[Allan Schumacher]

Please explain this to me. How in the world do you know for a fact that quality will suffer if there are more LIs, or if they open up the LIs that they do have to more people.

 

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.

[Allan Schumacher]

That's the worst. Characters have their own lives, we may influence their future choices, but not their past or their mind and body
It's just striping them of their own agenda

 

They don't bow to every character's whim.  It's typically only one character that they are interested in.  Sometimes another.

[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.

[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).

[Allan Schumacher]

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).

 

I agree that it's a valid enough measure of fairness.  Though I do get the impression that it's unfair for others simply because one person may be able to romance someone while another person may not be able to romance that same person.

[Allan Schumacher]

Damn, I hate the term "main romance".

 

Not a fan of the term either.  Ideally, for me, none of the romances can be considered the "main" romances.  But I think on some level it's going to be unavoidable for some people based on how they experience the story and how vital they think someone is.

[Allan Schumacher]

Some of this post is based upon the concern I have about NPC romances being bisexual

 

And this is why I struggle with the notion of pursuing fairness because it's nebulous to define.  The only thing I can see as being "fair," as stated, is the lack of romance, because no one person would be advantaged over another (because one person's advantage/benefit is another person's disadvantage/detriment).

 

You're concerned because this implementation may cause the content to be less appealing to you.  But making it in a way that is appealing to you comes at the cost of making it less appealing to someone else.  How do we reconcile this?  More romance content?

 

 

 

 

I've been left with the impression that those that companions are pansexual are suddenly "sex dolls" in the eyes of BioWare.

 

I think you may be mistaking what other people say about them and attributing those comments to us.  What makes you think that I consider them sex dolls?  I'll admit the entire concept of pansexuality is much more relatively new, to me, so I may have made mistakes communicating it.  I'm curious where, so I can learn.

 

 

 

 

One thing that is really bothering me here is the assumption that, there is no way IRL that a poster and my four of their friends of either gender could all be attracted to the same person.  It seems odd that BioWare has this disconnect.

 

I thought that I've been pretty consistent in telling people that their "realism" based arguments are unfounded and superceded by other realism things such as the explicitly finite availability of those that are interested in the player character.  It's certianly never the oft-used (and incorrect) statement that having 4 bisexuals in the group means "everyone is bisexual."  It simply means "the arbitrarily finite amount of people that are romantically interested the player character happen to be bisexual."

 

But it seems I give the impression that you feel I do not believe that you and four of your friends could all be attracted to the same person.  I'm not sure why, however.

 

 

 

 

Now, I know you can exile Alistair and run Morrigan off, but you can't kill off either character and they are automatic recruits. Just think about this: Straight women can become Queen Cousland with Alistair; straight guys, if they play their cards right, through Alistair, can become King Cousland ruling with Anora.  That isn't a big deal?  On the other hand, you can choose to not die (and your friend not dying) by letting a witch get pregnant with the soul of an Old God.  It's implied by Morrigan that you have the chance to redeem an Old God's soul!  Perhaps that was just me, but that was huge.

 

I agree that these are valid concerns.  I think it's ideal if *none* of the romances could be considered the "main romance(s)."

[Allan Schumacher]

This was directed at DG's comments that having a cast that was available to all genders as "wish fulfillment," when truthfully I thought a cast that was mainly ambigous about their sexuality was the most inclusive thing I've ever played.  Do I think that DG feels that way about pansexuals IRL?  Of course not!

 

You made a lengthy post and I don't want to give the impression that it's not interesting in its entirety, but I want to focus here, because you and I because you and I read David's comment differently.

 

Here's the bold heading David said:

I dislike the idea of every character being sexually available to the player.

 

I read this as "I don't want all of the characters in the game to be romanceable."  Maybe I'm mistaken, but it seems that your interpretation of this is "I do not want the romanceable characters to be romanceable by all genders."  As an aside, I'm pretty sure that David has also spoken in the past that choice is very important to him, and that the only way he'd be interested in doing something other than 4 bisexual romance characters is if choice is maintained.  So I confess that don't see how he gives off the impression that 4 different people all being interested in the player character is pandering to the player character.  In fact, whether we were to do 4 bisexual NPCs or 2/2/2, in both cases you'd have 4 different people all being interested in the player character.

 

 

He says he doesn't want to increase the romance content simply for the purpose of having any character be romanceable and to be little more than the happily ever after sense of wish fulfillment, and because of that he feels it objectifies the party members in a lot of ways.  If romance content were to increase, he'd like to do more with them.  He'd like to do more stuff like Thane, have tragedy, increase the chances of "failing" the romance, and simply do more and different things with the romances.

To me, it seems that that post you link is that he doesn't want to simply add romance content that is mostly samey for each of the party members simply to satisfy some individual's desire to romance a party member.  And this makes sense to me given that I don't know if I agree that simply because someone wants to romance Aveline that she should be available.... I think in doing so you'd end up ripping out the entirety of her relationship with Donnic.  I think it's fine for Varric to not be interested in reciprocating a romance.

 

 

I think that where the disconnect happens is if people believe we add romance content simply to appeal to those that want to romance particular characters.  I realize we're kind of behind the 8 ball here and the absence of romance content would probably make a lot of people angry, but I think if we start saying "this character should be romanceable because people would probably like to romance them" then we probably start undermining the creation of romance content.  And as David said, adding the romance content for the sole reason of simply allowing people to romance any of the companions that they want is where we've started to spend a great deal of effort on something we don't consider critical to the crit path of the game.  I think that it'd be better served to do something like this if romance was deemed essential to the plot of the game.  But that's not the goal of our romance content.

 

 

EDIT: Just to clarify, I fully empathize with David's assessment of The Witcher's card system.  It was something that upon recognizing made me feel very, very uncomfortable.  I was absolutely not cool with a mechanic that immediately made me wonder if the woman I was talking to was there for me to "conquer."