Ce sujet est fermé
And ya know what, I bet when we live in a world in which all things are equal, that sentiment will carry real weight.
It's not sentiment, it's a factual statement.
What happens in the real world isn't even slightly relevant to the issue, despite what Bioware staff seem to think.
What's the purpose of this statement? Do you fear that I've forgotten my place at your heteronormative feet, and so seek to grind my face in the dirt?
Because that's how you come off.
Yes, this could be done through NPC's but why not companions? There are the most important characters after all, and having a non-white or non-straight companion character has a far larger impact and leaves more of an impression of equality than a minor NPC.
I'm not sure. Companion content can easily be avoided/missed if you don't recruit/use the companion. Almost feels like it's being cordoned off.
Having a spread of LGBT throughout the world seems like it would be harder to completely avoid LGBT representation (and would feel as if it's a more natural part of the world to me).
@Upsetting once I learn how to quote properly lol
I don't think of that as part of player agency because it is a level of control and they have already asserted you cannot pick and choose between all romanceables but have to accept the variables they have created. I don't look at it as stripping away the choice maybe it limits head canon creation but that is all. Each specific romance is still in the game you bought just you have to experience it in a manner the cerator chose to dispense it.
I do understand some people dive more heavily into the roleplaying aspect creating backstory and the like and more power to them. Just they should not be upset when it doesn't mesh with what the game provides.
Not true. Oghren was very clearly heterosexual, despite never saying it outright.
Oh, don't I know about that... One could argue that he reacts a little too strongly to Zevran's joke, a little insecure about his sexuality, maybe? 
You're just looking for fights now. I suggest you calm down before you alienate everyone m8It's not sentiment, it's a factual statement.
What happens in the real world isn't even slightly relevant to the issue, despite what Bioware staff seem to think.
What's the purpose of this statement? Do you fear that I've forgotten my place at your heteronormative feet, and so seek to grind my face in the dirt?
Because that's how you come off.
I dont give two frakks whos swinging what way... just hope for no more DA2 reply scenario cause... you know:
It's not sentiment, it's a factual statement.
What happens in the real world isn't even slightly relevant to the issue, despite what Bioware staff seem to think.
What's the purpose of this statement? Do you fear that I've forgotten my place at your heteronormative feet, and so seek to grind my face in the dirt?
Because that's how you come off.
Anyone else want to endorse that description of my behavior?
The purpose of the statement was entirely the opposite, and I cannot fathom how you arrived at this characterization of my position. It's plainly obvious given what I've been consistently saying. What is not equal is the representation of non-heterosexuals in media. In advocating the superiority of ambiguously sexual characters that purportedly represent everybody, you are saying that people who want to see gay or bisexual characters in media have to share those characters with straight people who put those characters in straight relationships.
Not true. Oghren was very clearly heterosexual, despite never saying it outright.
So a child in Thedas is not an example of a child? Vivienne is not an example of a non-white person? The characters in Thedas represent people in real life just as much as fictional characters in any other setting.
He said he didn't like men. That's not enough evidence to conclude anything. Sexuality does not exist on a heteronormative tri-nary of gay/bi/straight. Based on the limited information we have about Oghren, there are still dozens of labels he could potentially fit, assuming he fits any.
The characters in other fictional settings also do not represent real people at all. Any sense of representation you feel comes from within you, and is your own interpretation, and not something that exists in the work itself, regardless of author intention.
You're just looking for fights now. I suggest you calm down before you alienate everyone m8
Like I care? I don't need "friends" who try to silence me. I have enemies for that.
If people are upset, or "alienated" by what I have to say, it's their own attitudes that they need to examine, not mine.
I'm not sure. Companion content can easily be avoided/missed if you don't recruit/use the companion. Almost feels like it's being cordoned off.
Having a spread of LGBT throughout the world seems like it would be harder to completely avoid LGBT representation (and would feel as if it's a more natural part of the world to me).
I agree that having it displayed in the world is important, but I think that having the most important and prominent characters in the story also display different sexualities will just make it even better.
Pot. Kettle.Like I care? I don't need "friends" who try to silence me. I have enemies for that.
If people are upset, or "alienated" by what I have to say, it's their own attitudes that they need to examine, not mine.
If you're referring to them with words that only exist in Thedas, then that's still not representation.
And it doesn't refute my point. Characters can represent homosexuality without being "gay".
Surely a rose by any other name...?
But I wasn't intending to refute your main point, just being a lore pedant
He said he didn't like men. That's not enough evidence to conclude anything. Sexuality does not exist on a heteronormative tri-nary of gay/bi/straight. Based on the limited information we have about Oghren, there are still dozens of labels he could potentially fit, assuming he fits any.
If you're saying that somebody saying they don't like men and saying they do like women is not enough evidence to conclude that they are heterosexual I honestly don't know what to say to you. By that logic no-one I know has any sexuality, because I don't have enough evidence to "determine" it.
By that logic I don't even know my own sexuality.
DAO all over again the only romance I wanted was off limits, I'll be stuck with the fugly elf again, I don't bother with romances when I play DAO anymore.
You're basing that on absolutely nothing but speculation.
I agree that having it displayed in the world is important, but I think that having the most important and prominent characters in the story also display different sexualities will just make it even better.
I still don't see how it's better. Though, I'm not quite sure what people want when they say 'representation'. Does it still count if the gay characters can be avoided/missed and possibly some number of people don't experience it?
So mocking is it fair to say you want all available males for romance as an option at the expense of having an organically portrayed gay male character that is perhaps the only option? This one option could have true depth while all the other following the DA II blueprint would just be the same whether male or female and you find that appealing? So you just want to assuage physical attraction then not have a satisfying same gender romance?
So mocking is it fair to say you want all available males for romance as an option at the expense of having an organically portrayed gay male character that is perhaps the only option? This one option could have true depth while all the other following the DA II blueprint would just be the same whether make or female and you find that appealing? So you just want to assuage physical atatraction then not have a satisfying same gender romance?
What exactly is this "true depth" that you can't have with bisexual romances? Give me something less vague and gossamer than this, because I'm not really seeing what you could possibly be talking about.
I still don't see how it's better. Though, I'm not quite sure what people want when they say 'representation'. Does it still count if the gay characters can be avoided/missed and possibly some number of people don't experience it?
Yes, as long as they exist. But obviously the more people who are exposed to that character the better, which is why I think companions and important NPC's are the best place to include them.
I do think "depth" is a loaded term in the context of this discussion, and is something of a dead-end regardless of what angle you try to come at it from.
http://www.ausgamers...ntation-bioware
From article:
Thoughts? Personally, I cool with this. It gives me more incentive to play different characters and classes. I will never understand why some people refuse to play anything other that their gender choice. You AREN'T the Inqusitior, you're just playing as him/her.
You are playing as the inquisitor, which means that in the game world, you are the inquisitor.
I have to make decisions and pick what to say, I don't want to stop and think what the psychology of a female with such and such a background would have me say.
I have to be able to properly relate to the character, otherwise there's no point in playing a game like this, other than as an interactive movie, which is not the experience I'm looking for.
Anyone else want to endorse that description of my behavior?
The purpose of the statement was entirely the opposite, and I cannot fathom how you arrived at this characterization of my position. It's plainly obvious given what I've been consistently saying. What is not equal is the representation of non-heterosexuals in media. In advocating the superiority of ambiguously sexual characters that purportedly represent everybody, you are saying that people who want to see gay or bisexual characters in media have to share those characters with straight people who put those characters in straight relationships.
How else am I supposed to take "OHOHO YOU FORGOT THAT SOCIETY ISN'T EQUAL?" I know it isn't ****** equal, I live with that inequality everyday. The only purpose you could possibly have in bringing it up is to implicitly remind me of my place as a disenfranchised minority. No other explanation makes sense.
But it's not a statement on your overall position, it's strictly a statement on the thing you just said.
I'm saying that the romanceable characters should be shared, and that they do represent everybody, at least everyone who wants to be represented by them. Everything else is just your baseless extrapolation.
I do want more gay and bi characters, but guess what? You don't have to segregate the romances for that! Nothing is stopping Bioware from including "gay" or "bisexual" characters who are simply not romanceable by anybody.
Hmm. I liked the post, but...
...it's kind of a dilemma for me. On the one side, I'm probably also one of those who're on the whole "it's more realistic" side of the argument, on the other side I do understand it's a game - and especially since it doesn't impact me as much as others - I wouldn't really mind other people getting more out of this, if it's player-sexual/pansexual/whateversexual companions they want. As long as they're well written, of course.
Also, keep in mind I haven't played DA2 yet.
As an aside, it is a bit funny to me how Allan decides to "protect" the "poor" forumites who've been "attacked" by the ones who thought LIs are a minor part of the game. Now, I don't know which tone those posts had, but why shouldn't they be allowed to state their opinions? Again, I hope you deleted them just because of the tone of the post...
(I'm saying this because I'm hanging out at a mostly unmoderated forum where people can handle their own problems and aren't offended that quickly, so that's why I wrote this)
If you're saying that somebody saying they don't like men and saying they do like women is not enough evidence to conclude that they are heterosexual I honestly don't know what to say to you. By that logic no-one I know has any sexuality, because I don't have enough evidence to "determine" it.
By that logic I don't even know my own sexuality.
Everyone has a sexuality, even the absence of sexuality, or an aversion to sexuality, is a kind of sexuality. What only some people have is a label. Which is not the same thing.
You know what label fits you best, because you decide that for yourself.
You don't know what labels suit your friends, because you are not them, and you don't decide for them. But you still have to respect the label they give themselves, if they give themselves one.
@Mort he could show his attraction to only men in certain ways via cutscene that would not be created otherwise because they'd have to make another cutscene for a female inquistitor romance as a bi-sexual option. He could flirt with a male npc not the inquisitor . If each romance gets a similar amount of content it is better to be more focused ie m/m only m/f only or f/f only. I have no idea if BW is going to those lengths but ME 3 each romance had a unique feel to them because they were tailored. Just the same scene with the pc you created is weak (whether they are male or female matters not) makes it generic quality. They can read poetry to either but it is the same for both get the picture?
Retour en haut