1323 réponses à ce sujet

[Mes]

I don't think history/reality is a very good predictor of Thedas.  I dislike the premise because people often use it to mean "we shouldn't have 4 bisexuals, because that's not realistic."  When, in reality, it's actually possible to hang out with 4 people and they all happen to be bisexual.  Even if it's unlikely it doesn't mean impossible and as I tried to break down in a boring, mathy post, any permutation that we give you will not be "likely" anyways.

 

Especially given that the "reality" of the game is that you can only romance whom we allow....  Which in and of itself isn't very "realistic."

 

Much the same way that my DNA falling into alignment to create me, specifically as I am, is not very likely... it doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

 

*LIKE*

 

Dangit why are my likes gone.

 

Very nice post, Allan. Gotta love that realism argument....

[Dobyk]

I don't think history/reality is a very good predictor of Thedas.  I dislike the premise because people often use it to mean "we shouldn't have 4 bisexuals, because that's not realistic."  When, in reality, it's actually possible to hang out with 4 people and they all happen to be bisexual.  Even if it's unlikely it doesn't mean impossible and as I tried to break down in a boring, mathy post, any permutation that we give you will not be "likely" anyways.

 

Especially given that the "reality" of the game is that you can only romance whom we allow....  Which in and of itself isn't very "realistic."

 

Much the same way that my DNA falling into alignment to create me, specifically as I am, is not very likely... it doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

 

Fair enough, but I just used this to illustrate a point. But then again, unlikely is a bit unrealistic, isn't it? Of course it's not impossible, it is perfectly possible, but then again it is possible I get hit by a car tomorrow, or that I become a billionaire in two years. Many possible things, not all of them realistic per se. Of course, you are right that, in restricting us, you are indeed removing some of that realism and freedom, but I still think sticking with a particular sexual orientation for characters is the right way. And again, everything is possible, meeting 10 gay people by chance, at once, even. But possible and realistic are not the same

[Mes]

But possible and realistic are not the same

 

Hmm. Sounds like synonyms to me... 

 

Is your definition of realistic then more along the lines of "common"?

[tmp7704]

I tend to like women more than men. I know lesbians, however, who have mostly male friends and don't get along with many women. Likewise, there seems quite a number of straight men who don't like women. There are people of all sorts of genders and sexual orientations who like (or dislike) men and women equally.

While it's natural to assume that my liking women in general is because of my attraction to women, or vice versa, those could easily be unrelated.

Yeah, I don't think sexuality is always going to be the strongest factor overwriting everything else -- so it's perfectly possible some people will prefer persons of one gender over the other based on their previous experiences with both, generalizations they'll make about them and/or simply due to preferences other than ones which are sexual in nature. I just believe it's going to be /a/ factor.

Straight men not liking women specifically, I think lot of that has to do with being raised in environment where opinions how "women are dumb, only good for one thing and not worth interacting with seriously" are prevalent. Sadly.

[Dobyk]

 

This is perhaps overstating the case, but the problem I have with some of the arguments that insist on the superiority of the playersexual/ambiguous approach, is that it cripples the characters' agency in favor of the player's. Their sexuality is reduced to merely the consequence of your preferences. For players like Sylvius the Mad, probably nodding vigorously while endeavoring to articulate the most emphatic "duh" in the history of the universe in response, this is no problem at all. But I don't see much merit in arguing that characters with no agency with regards to their sexual preference can really be described as genuine representations of characters with fluid sexuality.

 

Forget my "realism" rant, this makes perfect sense. Thank you! Agency, agency, how could I forget this word. It does remove some of the character's agency and shifts it towards the player. And again, it is a game, yes, and we are supposed to live out our fantasy, yes, but it's nice to see those virtual people actually imitate real-life behaviour and show some agency.

[Dermain]

Honestly, I thought the motto was "if we can't romance it, complain about in the forums until the next game is released"?

 

And THEN we kill them.

 

I believe there's some base at the core of the person that determines how aggressive, passive etc they are 'on average' so to speak, when compared to others, and i'll readily agree that the 'levels' of these traits aren't linked to the person's sexual orientation, i.e. a gay man for example isn't going to be more argumentative in general than the same man if he was heterosexual instead. In my opinion sexual orientation doesn't affect these.

It's just the way I see it, "acts (relatively) friendly towards women", "acts cold(er) towards men" etc, these are also aspect of someone's personality, and that is something sexual orientation is likely to affect. So in the end depending on that orientation we may get (slightly) different "versions" of the same person, and your /impression/ of that person can wind up very different depending on your own gender, because this impression will be in no small part formed by how they acted towards you, specifically.

 

*The proceeding is in generalities*

 

I am unaware of a theory in personality psychology that includes sexuality as a core component (please correct me if I am wrong, also do not mention Freud). I am more familiar with the Big Five trait theory (openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) and slightly with attachment theory. I can almost assure you that the Big Five have absolutely nothing to do with sexuality, but attachment theory does in a way.

 

In attachment theory we form an attachment style with our caregiver (parents etc) which would be stable, anxious-ambivalent/resistant, avoidant, or disorganized. These styles then carry over into our interactions with others including love interests albeit with different names.

 

Both of these theories determine how aggressive, passive, etc towards other people. Does this mean that sexual orientation is inherently a subconscious part of a person's personality? I don't think so, but feel free to disagree. If a person's sexuality does define their personality perhaps that is a conscious choice of there's to do so, or it could be something else entirely. A heterosexual/homosexual person may act more hostile towards the opposite/same gender for differing reasons that may or may not have to do with their orientation.

 

And now back to lurking.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I just hope this gets cleared up before it's too late to pre-order, because I just want to know there are at least 2 m/m choices without more than like an extra +1 more choices elsewhere, like Sebastian was an extra in DA2, and I'm totally ready to lock in my pre-order. It doesn't have to be the LI names, just the raw numbers. I saw everyone I wanted to see in the trailer group shot for companions and the story sounds great this time. This is the only thing making me hesitate.   

 

I realize it's a long way off, but there's also been a lot of vague commentary about leaving stuff like this until after release. I really want a unicorn, though. 

[Twilight_Princess]

Sounds like they're going to represent different sexualities equally , I approve

[Maria Caliban]

Having a bunch of queer friends is far more likely than becoming a billionaire overnight or even being hit by a car tomorrow. In college, the group I did PnP RPGs with was three bisexual women, two lesbians, one bisexual man, and one straight dude.

It wasn't planned. It wasn't a 'Gay World of Darkness' club.

In fact, being openly gay or bisexual is a great way to end up with a bunch of gay and bisexual friends.

[Dobyk]

Hmm. Sounds like synonyms to me... 

 

Is your definition of realistic then more along the lines of "common"?

 

Yes? Pretty much so. In model United Nations at university, for example, we get together to simulate and debate international relations. Sometimes we go nuts and enact nuclear war or nuclear threat scenarios. Is it possible? Very much so. Is it going to happen? I'm not sure about North Korea, but the rest of the world is pretty much sure that things won;t go to such extremes. Sometimes there are "uncommon" and really cool things happening to us, that may even seem realistic, a chance of fate, perfect. But since we are conceptualizing "realism", we are looking at the expectable, the predictable, what makes sense. Something that continues to occur often and is tried and tested is more realistic that something which happens sporadically.

[upsettingshorts]

For what it's worth, I suggest that a more useful distinction would be between "possible" and "probable."

[Dobyk]

Having a bunch of queer friends is far more likely than becoming a billionaire overnight or even being hit by a car tomorrow. In college, the group I did PnP RPGs with was three bisexual women, two lesbians, one bisexual man, and one straight dude.

It wasn't planned. It wasn't a 'Gay World of Darkness' club.

In fact, being openly gay or bisexual is a great way to end up with a bunch of gay and bisexual friends.

 

Not arguing it's not likely, and good for you. I also find the majority of my gay acquaintances to be from my gaming club. But I still don't think it's so easy, at least not now. Not everyone is open, maybe it will change in time.

PS: I LOVE World of Darkness! Vampire the Masquerade is suuuch a brilliant game!

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I know dozens of gay people and I haven't gotten hit by a car once. I would consider myself pretty lucky, but I'm not a billionaire yet. So, all in all, I guess I'm pretty average. 

[Maria Caliban]

Again, you're comparing having four bisexual friends to nuclear war breaking out.

Queers are not magical unicorns that only appear when the hunter's moon is high and a virgin weeps over a marble pool filled with icy mountain water.

[Mockingword]

Just because it exists doesn't mean it is prevalent
If we go by that logic, then we should scrap a lot of things from the real world "just because it is fiction". A Song of Ice and Fire is also fiction, but we can relate to the characters and the story because it borrows so much realism from European history, and in general, human experience. They have dragons too, but the setting is (largely) realistic.

This is a joke, surely.

 

What part of ASOIAF am I supposed to think is drawn from "real European History"? The Undead monsters? The decades-long winters? Or the absurd prevalence of slaughter and rape? The level of violence in the series is impossible for the "real-life" period on which the setting is supposedly based. Not only would people never have put up with it, it's simply not sustainable. If people had behaved like that in Medieval Europe, the continent would now be a blighted wasteland, incapable of sustaining life. No, GRR Martin deliberately crafted a fantasy setting that would allow his characters to behave so putridly, because that was the kind of story he wanted to write. It has nothing to do with realism.

 

Which characters am I supposed to be "relating" to? The brutal, rapacious, incestuous tyrants? Or the faceless dirt-farmers that get trampled under their horses? No, I don't find the characters of ASOIAF to be relatable.

 

Realistic doesn't necessarily mean it has to be borrowed directly from the real world.

Actually, that's exactly what it means.

 

Realism: the quality or fact of representing a person or thing in a way that is accurate and true to life.

 

Realistic: representing things in a way that is accurate and true to life.

 

 

To make the player's experience in a roleplaying game meaningful and relatable, you need to hit a couple of references from the real world.

 

Maybe that's what you need to make an experience "meaningful and relatable". But not every player is you. I don't are what you find meaningful or relatable. I don't need it, and I don't want it.

 

What I need to make my experience meaningful is the freedom and options to create my own character and craft my own story that were given to straight people, but denied to me by literally every single Bioware game prior to DA2, not to mention every other game throughout the entirety of history.

 

And who says I want a meaningful and relatable experience at all? What do vague buzzwords like that even mean? 

 

 

I feel like making everyone bisexual is just satisfying the fans who can't get over that hot, virtual stud not wanting to cuddle with their male warden, or that enigmatic witch not wanting to kiss your female elf. 

Oh, you feel? That's your argument? Feelings?

 

Well I feel that resticiting romances is just satisfying the snobs and bigots that can't stand the thought of sharing their pixel dolls with the icky gay people.

 

And you know what? I'm willing to bet money that my feelings are a more accurate reflection of "realism" and the "human experience".

 

 

Also remember that the system is going to change quite a bit (apparently), so romance and friendship will develop somewhat differently than either DA:O and DA2

I'm not the slightest bit interested in how they are going to develop. My previous interest in the feature at all is effectively null and void.

[Wulfram]

The way I see it, there are more or less 4 possibilities

 

1.  There are more resources for romance.

More resources can solve everything, but I believe we've had indications that this isn't the case

 

2.  There are 6+ romances, but no more total romance

This seems quite possible, but IMO would be bad.  The romances are way too abbreviated as it is.

 

3.  There are 4 (or less) romances, some of which are not bisexual

This means that some people would have at most 1 romance of compatible orientations.  Which IMO would be bad.

 

4.  There are 4 romances, all of which are bisexual

This would be fine by me

[Mockingword]

Not Dragon Age 2's version of it. For Dragon Age 2's version of ambiguous sexuality to exist in the real world, it would demand an alternate universe in which I was into dudes.

Since Dragon Age is already an alternative universe in which your choice of potential partners is already extremely limited, who gives a crap about the rest of this hypothetical gibberish?

 

Since the sexuality of the DA2 companions is completely unknown to us in both an in-game and meta sense, we're in no place to determine their agency or lack thereof.

[upsettingshorts]

Well I feel that resticiting romances is just satisfying the snobs and bigots that can't stand the thought of sharing their pixel dolls with the icky gay people.

 

 

On what basis did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

 

Since Dragon Age is already an alternative universe in which your choice of potential partners is already extremely limited, who gives a crap about the rest of this hypothetical gibberish?

 

Hypothetical gibberish is merely a logical consequence of your stated position.

 

 

Since the sexuality of the DA2 companions is completely unknown to us in both an in-game and meta sense, we're in no place to determine their agency or lack thereof.

 

If their sexuality is unknowable, instead of as I assert simply conditional, then they represent no-one.

[SurelyForth]

Having a bunch of queer friends is far more likely than becoming a billionaire overnight or even being hit by a car tomorrow. In college, the group I did PnP RPGs with was three bisexual women, two lesbians, one bisexual man, and one straight dude.

It wasn't planned. It wasn't a 'Gay World of Darkness' club.

In fact, being openly gay or bisexual is a great way to end up with a bunch of gay and bisexual friends.

 

This is the absolute truth.

 

And I am just so bemused/baffled that the BSN is seems so weirdly split between "Hurrah, hurrah! Companions have the agency to reject me based on my gender, oh the depth!" and "**** companions who think for themselves, I will crush all dissent beneath my heel!" If "playersexuality" wasn't a thing people had to flail over, I'd swear that character agency is the #1 narrative enemy of the average BW fan, kept at bay only by the promise of the murder-knife. 

 

also this isn't directed at anyone in particular, especially not Shorts as  it is too early/late for that

[Ymirr]

I don't get why some people talk about it being realistic, they have dragons! That fly! Fatty fatty fly fly!

Though for those who are angry, would you allow for an asexual option?

[wright1978]

If it goes like this: 1 straight male, 1 straight female, 1 bi male, 1 bi female, 1 gay male, 1 gay female, then there are two options for a straight female.

 

That's the most plausible approach given this new info. It still doesn't resolve the issue of where the additional content for 2 extra LI's is going to come from or whether there will be an equal number of companion romance per orientation or whether NPC romances will be only option for those that don't like the primary LI for their orientation.

[Darth Krytie]

I don't get why some people talk about it being realistic, they have dragons! That fly! Fatty fatty fly fly!

Though for those who are angry, would you allow for an asexual option?

 

I think an asexual option would be lovely.

[tmp7704]

In attachment theory we form an attachment style with our caregiver (parents etc) which would be stable, anxious-ambivalent/resistant, avoidant, or disorganized. These styles then carry over into our interactions with others including love interests albeit with different names.
 
Both of these theories determine how aggressive, passive, etc towards other people. Does this mean that sexual orientation is inherently a subconscious part of a person's personality? I don't think so, but feel free to disagree. If a person's sexuality does define their personality perhaps that is a conscious choice of there's to do so, or it could be something else entirely.

This is going to get dangerously close to bringing up Freud (which isn't really my intention) but if we presume sexual orientation may affect how we perceive and/or interact with our caregivers (both your orientation and theirs) ultimately it may have impact on how aggressive, passive etc we wind up, without really conflicting with these theories.

Personally I believe sexual orientation (which I choose to model as two separate 'meters' of attraction towards each sex, independent of each other) is subconscious part of personality, and the conscious part is just learning the state of these meters, through experiences and choices made in (and also shaped by) given environment with its specific norms and whathaveyou. This is nothing but a personal attempt to make some sense out of these things, though. It's not based on any existing works that I'm aware of, as I didn't really study this subject.

[LadyMacTir]

Stupid question: Is there a possibility to have 4 female, 4 male LI?

[upsettingshorts]

This is the absolute truth.

 

And I am just so bemused/baffled that the BSN is seems so weirdly split between "Hurrah, hurrah! Companions have the agency to reject me based on my gender, oh the depth!" and "**** companions who think for themselves, I will crush all dissent beneath my heel!" If "playersexuality" wasn't a thing people had to flail over, I'd swear that character agency is the #1 narrative enemy of the average BW fan, kept at bay only by the promise of the murder-knife. 

 

also this isn't directed at anyone in particular, especially not Shorts as  it is too early/late for that

I don't disagree with Maria Caliban's points (that I've seen made in the last few pages, that is, I haven't read any previous ones) anyway. I've been for the playersexual approach for efficiency reasons, and I've been against it for representation reasons.  If BioWare can afford to be less efficient, then I see less need for playersexual characters. That's basically my take on the tradeoff.

 

FWIW my suggestion that plausible/possible is a useful distinction was meant as a general statement, but I can see how that might confuse people as to where I stood.