130 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

But my question for the fairness issue is, if it's totally fair that the "main romances" go to anyone, then why are they never gay? If NPCs are always just as good, then why are the NPCs usually the bi or gay options? I think we all know it's because everyone knows which options are more desirable among the majority of players, if we're being totally honest. I'm not asking for those options to be made homosexual, though. I don't want the content to be slanted in favor of homosexuals. I just want an equal amount. The position that, "nothing is ever going to be fair unless we just axe the content," comes across as a brush off and maybe even a little bit of a threat, to me. You're generally a reasonable individual, so I want to say that's not how you mean it to sound. It's a personal issue, to me, so I'm probably being over sensitive.

 

When I say I feel that the only way to truly be fair is to axe the content, I am more saying that I feel we need to accept the fact that anything we do is going to be perceived as unfair to someone, and that we'll need to make decisions without handicapping ourselves with an absolute perception of being "fair."  I think areas like choices are valid and fair.  I think not ostensibly biasing the amount of content to a particular orientation is important (side note: it could be argued that bisexuals will always get the most content in this regard, but like I said some "unfairness" is going to be inherent if we are to add the content).  The issue is trying to determine which measurements we think are valid in terms of being fair.

 

 

To be perfectly honest, if it were up to me I wouldn't actually be fair with the choice content either.  I'd deliberately be biased towards homosexual romances simply because it's overdue.  Maybe it's a good thing that it's not my call because maybe that'd be bad for business.  As for the "main romances not being gay."  Well, they weren't in DA2 so that's something.  I do think that it'd be excellent if a gay person was the "primary love interest."  But frankly I'm more inclined to give all the romances some level of their relevance and I think if people can make a compelling argument that any of the characters is "a main romance" (or conversely, that none of them are), then I would consider that a huge win.

[Allan Schumacher]

For one: Not many have asked for 9+ romances.  If anything, 4-6 is the number that seems to be preferred.  So I'm not sure why that was even a point.  I have read several people that feel the same way I do: We aren't asking to romance all the companions, we're asking that those that are designated to be LIs be available to all genders.

 

In almost any thread on companions, you'll find people that want that companion to be romanceable.  For any given companion, there is a chance that a fan will be disappointed because their favourite companion isn't romanceable.  I've seen it with the DA companions (From what I understand it was almost violent when it was revealed that Varric was not a love interest despite having legions of fans that wanted him.  I actually have seen people call us racist for not allowing it).

 

So while it may not be you, specifically, saying that... I do think it's an implicit assumption when people say they consider it maximizing the potential enjoyment by making all the romances bisexual that the ultimate ideal would be for ALL the characters be romanceable, since then no one is left without a party member that they want to romance.

 

That's the way I see it.  Even if people are okay and can understand that it probably won't happen, I wouldn't be surprised if there are people that would see it as preferable if all the party members were romanceable (especially if there were assurances that the romance qualities weren't compromised in the process).

[Allan Schumacher]

He said they might have, but there's really no reason they couldn't have. 

 

If our motivation is exclusively to be fair (when looking at choice), then what motivation is there to increase the romance content?

 

 

This is similar to us deferring to heteronormative biases.  There's really no reason why we couldn't have made all 4 romances in DAO bisexual.  There's really no reason why we couldn't have had the "main romances" of DAO not be the bisexual ones either.  But rather than some sort of nefarious plan/scheme to undermine that sort of content, it's probably a much greater likelihood that it was something that we simply didn't think of.  (Not that that excuses it).

 

 

I've worked for BioWare since 2009, and it wasn't really until PAX Prime 2013 (August last year) that I felt I had a much better understanding of varying sexualities.  Until then, I was much more of an advocate of "who cares it's just romance content" (disclaimer: romance content isn't something I consider necessary to my games, so that's my bias).  Until I posted a question several weeks back, I still didn't really understand why romance content was so important to some people (back when I asked how people would react if there was no romance content in the game).  But some excellent answers, a lot of which were from those advocating LGBTQ helped offer a different perspective that I didn't have.  It's made me much, MUCH more aware of this sort of stuff (and I still make mistakes, misspeak, and all sorts of things).

 

I mean, if you go back to the old BSN you'll see me attempting to eloquently falling on my face in talking with people that were upset because they felt our typical depiction of lesbian relationships in our games was pretty much slap in the face offensive.  I learned that it's very tricky because I'm human, and I have dozens of autonomic defense mechanisms that do their thing without my control to reaffirm to myself that "I'm not a bad person" because it's easy to conclude "That person is saying this thing we did was bad... they must be saying that we're bad!  BUT I'M NOT A BAD PERSON!!! "  I was then introduced to the concept of tone argument, which is something I often still struggle with because I know that how something is stated to me will have a greater/lesser chance of triggering some of those autonomic responses.  And the last thing I want to do is possibly start dismissing a valid concern about representation simply because my brain has decided that my feelings are hurt and starts putting up walls that I don't want to put up.  (For what it's worth I think I'm getting better... and in general, going back the past several years or so, I feel I am more receptive towards cognitive dissonance rather than always reflexively resisting it).

 

At this point I'm rambling now, but more and more I realize that there are things that I quite frankly just didn't even think about until someone called me on it (or I saw it brought up somewhere else, at least).

[Allan Schumacher]

After Allans statement that we wouldn't get more than 4 LI's if everyone was bisexual, I now think, that we definitely won't get more than six LI's this time. If there were 8 LI's it wouldn't be a big deal to consider 5-6 LI's if everyone would have been bisexual.

 

What it does is bring to the forefront to not undermine choice.

 

 

Also note that I'm suggesting to people to have perspective.  You've already now stated that I said there wouldn't be more than 4 LIs, which does a pretty good job of triggering my brain to start putting up walls and reevaluating how much, and in what ways, I try to interact with the fanbase.  But then, I have my own bias in that I'm much more willing to assume ignorance over malevolence in a great many things (especially concerning something like video games), and that colours how I attempt to interact.  But it does serve as a reminder that I need to be particularly vigilant since my status as BioWare employee fundamentally precludes me, in almost every capacity, from simply discussing a topic (woe is me and all that).  Something that I'm probably still learning.

[Allan Schumacher]

If they have enough of a word budget for four Inquisitor voices, I imagine they've got a pretty big budget this time around

 

Inquisitor voices in and of itself don't really affect the word budget (I mean, it's just saying the same words with different people).  There are other aspects that are guaranteed to be an issue regardless of how many voices we have (if we didn't think it'd be worth it, we'd likely not have more than a single voice).

 

There's the obvious things like translation and so forth, and the act of writing the words (and editing and possibly rewriting).  But there's also the design aspects (which types of content is gated for plot flags?  The more conversations there are the more likely these conditions end up getting created).  If we've written this big scene, what sort of demands does that put on Cinematics Design and Cinematic Animation?  What demands will it put on level art?  How about audio (not VO)?

 

Writers write a lot of stuff, and their work comes earlier in the dev cycle.  Where writer work gets shunted is more likely due to technical problems that show up down the line that compromise our ability to keep that content in at high quality.

[Allan Schumacher]

I think ME3 team tried that it didn't go well for them

 

Also I didn't say no romance content I said limited romance content. There's a difference.

 

I take it more as "You are willing to concede some amount of romance content with the understanding that by not making that romance content, you will get other content elsewhere."  (which is a reasonable perspective)

[Allan Schumacher]

Your probably right. I disagree with him that 2-2-2 system would provide equivalent choice to da2 as I view npc romances as deeply substandard to real companion romances & hence the system is in reality going to set up a canon romance per orientation rather than real choice as before.

 

When people are suggesting that "half their romance options are simply taken off the table" I'm going to feel somewhat compelled to point out that you're still going to have 4 options in the hypothesized 2/2/2 relationship, not 3 (regardless of how the romances are broken down).

[Allan Schumacher]

People teasing me for liking ME3 ending. 

 

Today's going to be one of those days. 

 

I liked the ME3 ending.  In fact, I preferred the original over the extended cut.

[Allan Schumacher]

As far as the Witcher Card Effect, don't undersell your fans, or yourselves. The fans that appreciate the romance content care very much for these characters. The fans care very much abt the characters in general. Love them, or hate them, the fans care. They are not approaching it like the Witcher Cards. BW romances are on a whole 'nother level. Which of course speaks to the great job you all do in implementing these romance arcs. So, don't undersell yourselves, either. In my mind, there is no comparison between BW romances and the Witcher Cards. I understand that he prolly means that he does not want them to become like the Witcher Cards, but I don't think that's something you really need to worry abt.

 

I've been giving it a bit of thought, and while the comparison to the cards may not be perfect, it does highlight my own personal challenges and mental hurdles I know I must overcome myself.  Now it's easy to conclude "well at least you're not a writer, so it's not your problem" but that does undermine a bit of the collaborative effort.  If something makes me feel off, I do share that with people like Mike and Mark.

 

 

I suppose there's a context clarification required here, and I'm saying this on the assumption that it's oh so painfully clear that I am speaking on my behalf and under the assumption that people appreciate a degree of transparency and honesty with me.  Though I won't be surprised, and even expect, that some people will find my position simply unacceptable and will probably not be something they consider valid. 

 

Even though I'm not a writer, it genuinely hurts, if just a little bit, to see people conclude that Solas/Beardy/Cassandra doesn't interest them because they're ugly and they don't want to romance them.  It actually frustrates me to see people get very upset because Varric couldn't be romanced because, to me, Varric offered so much more than just a romance (Varric and Isabela are my two favourite characters from DA2, and are a source of pride that I am affiliated with a game that provides two characters that are, to me, so fantastic.  Honorable mention to Aveline who is also flipping amazing to me).
 

I have my own bias.  Romance content has never been particularly vital for me.  As a straight male I was literally teased by peers for not finding the simple act of lesbian sex sexually arousing (it was a non-issue for me.  Two women was as attractive to me as two men).  So intrinsically I had heavy resistance to any sort of character that I felt was added simply to exploit male lesbian fantasies.  You can actively see me deny that Juhani could even be romantically attracted to a woman Revan (note: Link contains questionable language in the text I quote).  In there you can see both my jadedness towards the idea of heterosexual attraction to lesbians, as well as my inherent blindness that a lesbian might actually prefer that and inadvertently, I was seeking to erase that content.  This spilled over into, for a bit, me being somewhat outspoken against romance in games.  In summary, I felt that objectification of characters was a serious enough issue and it made me feel super uncomfortable.  For the most part I've grown up and the various ideas of being a "true gamer" and what is considered "acceptable content" varies from person to person.  I doesn't bother me if someone loves our game only for the characters... that's fine and hey if the game we deliver does that well enough for you, then that's a success.  Especially since I think our characters are typically the strongest parts of our games (it's what I love!).

 

 

So to my point: it actually makes me feel uncomfortable to make someone romanceable solely because someone wants to romance them - this discomfort is accented when I see people dismiss characters because they aren't attractive enough to be romanceable.  It's a position that I struggle to relate to as it's not something that is in alignment with how I gauge attraction.  That's not to say that I think that romance content is worthless.  I think that romance, by its nature, amps up the potential investment.  I liked learning about Isabela's romance content.  Even though Anders in general wasn't my favourite companion, I appreciate that being in a romance makes his actions leading into Act 3 all the more impactful.  I've seen people say how they absolutely love his romance because of how emotionally powerful it is during that scene.  Same with Isabela when dealing with the Arishok.

 

 

I'm at a point where I think that the availability of choice in the romances is absolutely important.  Unequivocally so.  This is because, now that I've grown a bit and learned some perspective: it is easy for me to appreciate that it's a raw deal to have no choice.  Doubly so if you have to deal with nonsense like "well be happy you even got anything!"  I think a part of that choice also lends itself to the meaningfulness of the relationship.  Ideally the quality and quantity of romance content between the various romances has to have some level of parity.  Otherwise we implicitly send messages, and often those messages end up coming across as "the same people that have to deal with the scraps have to continue getting the scraps."

 

If people were to say to me "We need to make Companion X romanceable because people want to romance that I " it feels squicky to me (to use a term I recently learned).  I do not feel comfortable, at all, with the idea of making someone an available love interest simply because someone wants to romance them.  Maybe that's not fair.  It's probably not even rational.  But that is the type of hurdle I have to deal with because I'm well aware that it's actually pretty easy for me to unconsciously objectify a person (especially a woman, in my own experience).  Being more aware of it helps me catch myself, but I am hypersensitive to it.  I ran into the same issue many have with DA2, where initially I had resistance to the characters all being bisexual.  Fortunately I was able to recognize "It provides a fair distribution" which stops my brain from going off and doing its own thing.  It helps me go "okay, I think this is respectful and not objectifying."  It no longer bothers me and I realize that many of my initial concerns weren't really valid.  Maybe this is still the case with the oft discussed 2/2/2.  Maybe I just need to realize "okay I'm being silly."  But my brain still trips up in other places, and it's a constant challenge to dissect how something makes me feel (and even more challenging... why).

 

 

With the way my mind and my thoughts work, if someone is okay with Solas not being romanceable in a hypothetical Cullen/Scribe/Sera/DMHG bisexual romance situation, but they get upset if Solas is available in a 2/2/2, my brain still reads it as: "I'm upset because I want to romance a character, but I can't."  And while I can understand the perception that because others can romance that character, it feels "oh so close," I still mentally trip up and have a hard time seeing it as something other than "I'm upset because I want to romance a character, but I can't."  And I struggle, probably because of my own biases, for why it'd be okay to not romance Solas in the hypothetical 4 bisexual, but suddenly it's not okay once it's 2/2/2.  It strikes me as one of those very complicated "How do I ascertain when one person benefiting is just another person suffering?"  For any particular gender there's still two homosexual and two heterosexual pairings.  Bisexuals still have access to 4 love interests in both systems.  So I start to experience an uncomfortable amount of of very challenging cognitive dissonance because when all the quantity of choice is made equivalent and no group (save bisexuals - since I think they'll always benefit the most) is advantaged over the other, I feel a strong resistance to the idea of making a character romanceable simply because someone wants to romance that character. 

 

My anxiety starts to kick into overdrive as I constantly question: "Is it acceptable to make a character romanceable simply because someone wants to romance them?"  I mean, I have mental hurdles simply ADDING romantic content of ANY kind.  I'm not even a writer, but I wonder (in large part because of personal experience) "is this actually interesting and respectful, or are we just doing what everyone else does and making romance content to be consumed because people want to do all sort of things (sexual or otherwise) with the characters.  While I love, love, LOVE their characters as is, I'm not sure if it's a coincidence that two of my favourite DA2 characters are Varric and Aveline.  But one potential advantage I saw (and maybe believe in, maybe not.  Mostly just confused....) in terms of fairness was representation.  So now my brain overthinks: "Is it worth undermining what that large group from PAX indicated me, by making Steve and Samantha bisexual?"

 

There's a whole host of other overthinking aspects (hello 2:20 AM!): 

 

"Is this just negotiating when they say representation is fine with non-romanceable NPCs?  Do they feel that way because it's less important to them?  Is it worth appealing to those that want all bisexual over those that feel the representation is important to them?  How different is it than me saying I'm okay giving up heterosexual (or even ALL) romances because I prefer other type of character content?"

"If they are given 4 options, just like DA2 did, what does it mean when people say that they're okay with the character not being romanceable by anyone, but it makes them upset if they're romanceable by some people."

"What reasons are there for adding romance content?  Why is romance content added!?  I know why some value it so much (LGBTQ expression).  I think some just happen to really like it because it makes it more personal. Can the content be done in a different way that is less controversial and heated!? [now you know why I posed the question earlier...]"

 

 

So in that sense, I guess "Yay that Allan isn't a writer?"  I think I'd need to become mentally stronger anyways, because even with some degrees of separation from actually creating the characters (both in art as well as in writing), I know it can feel like an emotional rollercoaster when I see people assuming the worst based off a short blurb or dismissing a potential love interest simply because they aren't physically attractive enough.  Or just not interact I guess.  But I have my favourite characters and it's sucky to see people dismiss them as unworthy for a variety of reasons simply at a superficial reveal, even if it's unfair of me to expect otherwise since none of you have much of the context that I have.

 

 

But yes, on a personal level romance content is something tricky for me because I'm always self-doubting whether my assessment is correct and while I can recognize the fairness of choice and amount of content, I mentally struggle when someone says they'd be okay with not being able to romance a character but ONLY if they cannot be romanced by anyone.  I don't know if I can convince myself that it's increasingly problematic and part of that is because I know that it's possible for me to say and do things that are objectifying without even really realizing it.  And if this comes at the cost of valued representation that other people do find, it's just creating mental hurdles because "make this person romanceable for me because I want to romance them" is very awkward for me.  I know that will ****** some people off, but much like telling an anxious person to "just stop thinking about it" isn't that effective, stating "but what you do is better than something like The Witcher cards!!!" is something that my brain trips up on genuinely believing.  Sorry.

 

 

I'm sure I've said something wrong, or misspoke, or just pissed someone off because I wasn't clear in what I was trying to say.  Maybe it's an epiphany I still need to have, but I also think that as long as there are people saying to me "I really appreciate the representation so thank you" it's going to be a challenge.  Apologies in advance if that's the case.  It's against my better judgment to click "Post" but for better or worse, it's 2:40 in the morning and sleep deprivation is impacting my judgment....

[Allan Schumacher]

you have to remember that the people you are dealing with that are Human, and wither or not we want to admit it

 

Funny.  I frequently get the opinion that people don't consider that I am human.  I'm just a game developer and I exist to give gamers what they want and if I don't, I'm just a bad person.

 

 

most people objectify people, and put them into categories of "Attractive and not attractive". Yes its superficial, shallow and what have you. But thats how some people react. If not all. To one degree or another.

 

To me, you have literally just said that my own personal challenges and struggles are "something I just need to get over."  What's next?  "It's not a big deal?"  "Don't worry about it?"

 

Now if I tell anyone that is upset at how they feel romance content will be in the game any of these things, is that acceptable.  But it's extremely unpleasant to basically be told "Hey man, don't worry about the fact that it's something you're hypersensitive to.  It's just the way people are."  Now I'm not in a good mood.  I'm curious how the rest of the thread will come across to me....

[Allan Schumacher]

It just seems absurd to me to create a cast of mostly unattractive characters

 

I don't consider the characters physically unattractive.  I suppose I needed to make that clearer?  The "least attractive" one for me is probably The Iron Bull.  But I can certainly look at it and go "yeah, some people will dig him."

 

Should we have conformed to more traditional standards of beauty?  Because to me that's a knock against including romances, because then it means more people "I want this character to be romanceable because I find them hot."  I consider this an uninteresting way to incorporate romance into a video game.  In fact, I have actually mused to myself (and to friends and colleagues) about how it would go over if the "clearly hot" characters were not the romanceable ones.  I wouldn't be surprised if there was some backlash.  Is it something that I should really take into consideration in the future?  Or is it a case of realizing that we've been catering to particular tastes moreso than others, much the same way we have a history of catering to heterosexuality in the past?  (and male heterosexuality at that)

 

 

If you're not going to give Solas hair, or you're going to make Beardy a big older guy with a heavy beard, or you're going to give the one guy a Freddie Mercury mustache, you have to do so knowing what the consequences of that will be.

 

If the consequences are helping compromise our institutionalized perceptions of what is and is not attractive, then it's worth it to me.  Every single time.  I don't consider it a good thing that people see themselves as unattractive because they are bombarded with imagery that is different than them.  If a requirement for romance content is that they adhere to overexposed standards of beauty, then I don't think romance content is compelling.

 

Further, please do not take my statement as being surprised by people's reactions.  That doesn't mean that I still don't find them disheartening because, to me, the characters are a lot more than their looks (whether it be video games or elsewhere).  I've also become more socially aware that constantly perpetuating a particular impression of what is considered beautiful may not be a good thing.

[Allan Schumacher]

Pretty much this. That's why Cass is the most desirable romance (for ladies and guys).

 

How will these people react if they learn that Cassandra's influence with the main plot is not as much as they believe it will be?  Especially compared to other characters?

 

Will they feel justified in feeling mislead or betrayed because their romance was the one they didn't really like?

[Allan Schumacher]

Thinking about attraction, I'm beginning to realize that the DA team continually subverts my expectations.  Someone that might not be my type upon first appearance can (and has) turned into my favorite LI.

 

This is ridiculously interesting for me to see.  Subverting expectations is very much along the lines of something that is both challenging (and therefore interesting to attempt) while at the same time very rewarding when we're successful.

[Allan Schumacher]

I think it's really as simple as "If I can't have that thing, it hurts less to know that noone else can either." For queer players, being denied something that a straight player can have just feels like twisting the knife.

Which is why I always try to make sure I'm focusing on homosexual representation when I talk about representation.

 

I'm not particularly interested in having set sexualities for the benefit of heterosexual players.  But when a few gay people tell me that they really appreciated it, it makes me pause and wonder if I should reevaluate.  I'm significantly more interested in giving queer players something and denying heterosexual players a piece of content.

 

I think it'd be interesting if the most sought after characters were actually the gay characters. 

 

I hope that makes sense and helps you understand a little better where I think at least your queer audience is coming from.

 

I can understand it.  It's why I am a big supporter of choice being available, and can greatly understand the equivalence of choice.  I mentioned it in my wall o' text, but it was interesting and eye opening to have someone tell me that, frankly, they enjoy the idea of having a gay romance be solely gay simply from the perspective of "it feels like content that was specifically made to acknowledge me and that felt great."  I realized that it's something that I take for granted because content is often made "for me."

[Allan Schumacher]

Um... I don't think my profanity filter is working. 

 

The filter is very specific I believe.  I'd recommend editing out the post (unless you want it to stay there...) and sending someone like Jesse Reid a PM about it.

[Allan Schumacher]

Well, I feel like it makes my point more effectively, but I get in enough trouble already.

 

Eh, if anyone says something about it because the profanity filter isn't working properly (in this case or in any other) let me know.

[Allan Schumacher]

Lol. Good one.

Though i do wonder why h0mo is in asterisks. It's not even an insult. 

 

I often see it used as one.  It's a bit off topic but it does seem to be something about the software.  Queer was filtered before, though was removed when someone brought it up.  I suspect something like homos may get by, but restricting the first 4 letters universally would prevent me from using the term homosexual, which wouldn't be a good thing.

[Allan Schumacher]

And once they find a weakness in a mod or anyone else of power that they will pick and pick and pick until you get so full of rage that you will want to quit. I've been a mod in a game before, sometimes you just need to take a step back and cool down. Take a day off, or just not read the topic you need to for a day.

 

I do this.  Frequently.  No one forces me to come here.  When I'm upset, I stop coming.  I have left for months at a time.  (It's also possibly a problematic privilege.  I silence people and am less able to understand and advocate for things that I think are excellent positions).

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying your veiws are bad or that your even hypersensitive.

 

Just as a note, it was me that admitted that I am hypersensitive to this issue in my large post.  So when I take a comment of "don't worry about it," that part is included in the context of how I interpret the response even if you didn't state it.  I'm already aware that I'm hypersensitive about it, and when I paraphrased my interpretation of what you were saying I didn't include "hypersensitive" as a you disparaging me, but rather an attempt to say "it's okay man it's not a big deal if you are."  Brains are funny like that.  When my brother was killed I had two giant triggers: someone being disrespectful towards him and and polite talk like "he's in a better place now" or "I know how you feel" (caveat, I was more tolerant of the latter if they lost someone unexpectedly).  Even though I can understand that people say those words without any intent on being hurtful towards me.

 

 

I understand that people often are assholes.  If someone wants to come in and tell me how much they hate our characters simply to get under my skin, they probably won't be very successful.  And if they're particularly belligerent about it, they probably won't even be welcome here very long.  I would stop posting for my own well being if I felt that they did get to me.  Those aren't the ones that get to me.

 

But when dealing with content that I already have to put myself out of my own comfort zone for what is tolerable, seeing some of the stuff gets interpreted by my brain in ways I don't even want it to.  The biggest one is typically "I don't understand" (and if you know me, I hate saying those words too).  Now not understanding but having the tools to teach myself understanding can be a valuable thing: I can be very self-motivated in those situations and it has definitely helped a lot of times in my life.  But when it's a struggle it's... well... a struggle and can induce anxiety and/or disengagement.

 

 

I didn't mean to convey with my post that I was at some sort of wits end with the topic, and how I'm just mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore.  I was trying to describe to people why I find the topic a challenge (and I have for over 10 years) and how some things make me feel uncomfortable.  The same way that other people will tell me (or BioWare in general) about how decisions we make can make them feel uncomfortable, and why I struggle to see a distinction between "A character is romanceable by no one, so I cannot romance this character" and "A character is not romanceable by me as this PC, so I cannot romance this character."

 

Especially if choice (and doubly so, the equivalence of choice) is still maintained.  If someone is exclusive to me, but I also have my own exclusive content, it becomes (again, to me) analogous to having gender/race/class specific content.  Obviously not everyone agrees.  But reconciling some of the differing viewpoints as well as determining what it means to provide choice in an RPG.  (If you go back to my first posts, ME3 time, you'll see me having discussions about how I view choice in RPGs as different from some people).

 

 

I'm not at wits end or about to snap with the topic.  I suspect on some level I will always feel disappointment to see a character judged solely on their appearance, regardless of if it's my first time seeing such a judgment in years, or if I have dealt with it on a daily/weekly basis.  I don't believe that taking a short break from the forum will make me any less sensitive to some of those assessments.  It could be argued that exposing myself to them helps me understand what it is that people are meaning when they say those types of things, so that I am provided ammunition for my brain when it goes on some self-destructive interpretation of words that leads me drawing hurtful conclusions.

[Allan Schumacher]

Do you think that these superficial judgments with die down as we get to know them based on other factors?  Right now, we have pretty much only looks to go on for most of the 12 major characters from the last trailer.

 

We only know Leliana, Cassandra, Cullen, Varric, and Cole

We have character descriptions for Vivienne, Iron Bull, Sera, and Dorian (provided that DHMG even is Dorian), but nothing else

We know almost nothing about Solas, The Bearded Warden, and Scribe Girl (we don't even have names for two of them!)

 

I hope that the conversation will move away from looks and towards other facets of the characters as details get released.  Although I do understand why you would find this frustrating given that you know so much more about the characters, including I'm sure some really amazing facts about their personalities and storylines, but then you have to read messages that are all focused on looks.  I get it, but I'm hopeful that BSN will move on once we know more......right?

 

I don't know.  For some probably.  For other probably not.

 

It's a bit tricky because details about the personality and characteristics are more likely to be iterated on throughout, while "the look" of the character can be established and not need much change more easily, I think.

 

Because really how Solas looks doesn't really have to say much about whether or not he is a jerk or if he is a kind person.  I think if we can convey that simply based on how they look, it might have been something we could have done a bit better.  But the alternative would be releasing nothing yet, and I am not really a fan of that since in general I think a lot of fans like getting information on the game, and especially the characters.

 

And some of the "oooo is he/she romanceable" is often cute, playful and fun (heck, two of the threads it could be argued I am an enabler).  As well as a lot of the discussion about the look and what people may think about character based solely on their look.  It's fun to see people make predictions, and see the ones that are way off and even more fun to see the ones that TOTALLY have nailed it (and extra fun to see people convince that person that they're not right).

 

 

And as I stated, I struggle with tone argument and knowing when am I just being crotchety because something is said in a way that I'm sensitive to, and when am I crotchety because there may be a valid reason for it.  So when I see discussion around positive aspects, and I see people saying that Cassandra, or Beardy, or Solas are very attractive I recognize "hey, this pings for these people."  But, like I said, I have my bias.  If characters don't ping for me (and they rarely do in video games), I am perfectly okay with those that are happy being happy that a character resonates with them.  I have probably been reinforced with this perspective as I became a developer.

 

 

I do get concerned when I see people starting to run away with assumption and/or expectations (whether positive).  But tha's actually as someone that wants those people to enjoy the game.  Again, there's bias since I (perhaps too liberally) apply my own experiences to others when it may not work out.  But I find going into something with the expectation that it will be bad is often a self-fulfilling prophecy.  By the same time I don't want people so enamoured with a particular character that expectations are so high and that despite all confidence that a character must be romanceable, only to find out that that character isn't.  Which is why I try to encourage people to be open especially in light of not having all the information and context.

[Allan Schumacher]

Yeah, for me, it's gay > LGBT >  homosexual  > > > > > queer

 

I never really embraced queer.  I get it's purpose, but I just don't use it (or like it) as a personal identifier. 

 

In my experience it was often used as a pejorative, and on top of that also used as a synonym for "weird" which I find problematic.

 

 

I tend to use homosexual because I'm using it in tandem with heterosexual.  I will use the term gay, although I have been called out for misusing it by some (I historically equated the term with homosexual, and I had some people get upset with me using the term to refer to a lesbian... go figure :\).  I tend to use gay in tandem with lesbian now (since it seems gay is often used in context to refer to m/m), or in tandem with straight.  But I have reservations with straight for similar reasons for why I can understand how queer can be off putting.

[Allan Schumacher]

I don't think "queer" has ever actually stopped being an insult to the majority. It's not really like it hasn't been used that way in a decade. I've been in areas where almost no one realizes that some people think it's been reclaimed, and that's within the last few years.     

 

I don't know.  The Q is a relatively new addition to LGBTQ in my experience.  Maybe I was less aware of it.  But queer came up as a non-negative descriptor during the LGBTQ panel at PAX Prime.  Someone came up to the mic and admittedly struggled with remembering the comment and Karin (if there's one person I would consider to be wholly in the camp of LGBTQ advocacy at BioWare, it's her) suggested to the nervous speaker to just say queer if they are struggling on how to frame the discussion.

 

(I see others pointing out that it appears to be a reclaimed word).

 

I use the words homosexual and heterosexual mostly because they are clinical and lacking in ambiguity.  I have a reasonably high degree of confidence that what I am talking about will be clearly understood and any misunderstandings won't come by my use of the word.

 

 

Oh I'm sure Solas will be a wonderful character, well-written and full of fascinating depth.

 

The context of post was that Solas' look works for any type of personality, and as such it's easier for it to be finished.  While the character interactions are the things that will receive more scrutiny, where people will give feedback and mention the things they do and do not like about the character.  When I say Solas could be a jerk or kind, I literally mean that his look doesn't really convey much on the type of person he will be.  People can have an assumption that Sera will be a particular type of character, but really there's not much stopping her from actually being completely opposite.

[Sheryl Chee]

I wouldn't be entirely surprised though. He looks pretty Cheeish to me.

 

Whaaaaaaat?

[Sheryl Chee]

How does that work?

"Someone came along and smeared this entire character design with Chee! Like they dipped him a giant, bubbling vat of Chee and now I'm going to need a sandblaster and a bottle of turpentine to clean it all off."

 

And I suppose the appropriate term for this would be "Chee-sy," not "Chee-ish."

[Allan Schumacher]

Well, either way is fine, I guess. They can slim down/humanize the males or bulk up the females. As long as there wasn't a huge double standard there.

 

What if we went in a different direction with the females, but kept the move away from conventional attractiveness?

[Allan Schumacher]

Well, the main problem is that they're very human in comparison to the males. It gives a strong impression that they're meant to titillate. Making them look more like the males by changing one or the other seems like the most obvious/easy choice, but I suppose if they were taken in another direction that the lore explained as to why they looked extremely different than males and didn't seem like a cheap excuse to make them sexy fantasy chicks, it would be an improvement.  

 

That's what I am saying.  Most people seem to be asking for a convergence on the two models.  I'm curious if it'd be interesting if they went in a different direction than the males, but still moved away from human like.  I actually find the concept of dimorphism an interesting one (although I'm more familiar with it happening in insects and whatnot, as opposed to mammals).

 

I should load up the game and go through chargen proper again.  I am curious what the Qunari looks like (men and women) at this point.  It's been a couple months.