1323 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

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.

 

I disagree. My explanation makes plenty of sense. How could anyone need a reminder of inequality in this thread? What could my motivation for undermining my entire argument with some petty implied power-play possibly be? No, my explanation makes more sense than deciding making you feel bad is worth more to me than continuing to make the same case I've been making. I've been in a lot of arguments in a lot of threads and I've never stooped that low, what makes you think I've started now, here, with you?

 

In fact: I agree with you that they ought to include gay, lesbian, and bisexual NPCs all over Thedas, and this - broadly speaking - shouldn't be a discussion limited to romanceable characters.

 

On the other hand, I'm not imagining the barely disguised - and often not disguised at all - hostility that has arisen within fandoms when people with different preferences and orientations fight, occasionally bitterly, over which gender's with the character is better. Or passed around passive-aggressive notes about being sick of seeing one kind of fanart/fic or the other. I'm not going to name characters, and I don't need to. What I'm trying to do here is add my voice to the people who would like to see more gay characters they can have to themselves. I think it's a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for.

[Mockingword]

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?

Yes, I want all available males for romance as an option, at the expense of your pseudo-literary wankfest.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

@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?

They're going to have to make a whole new 2 romances for balance, so I doubt they're saving any resources. 

 

Nothing here seems particularly magic, to me, though. 

[stuffystuffs]

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.

 

To me it just seems like, having a major NPC like Empress Celene being gay and part of everyone's playthrough is better than a companion that can be missed/avoided if we are talking about representation for the sake of it.   But you were saying the latter was better but haven't really explained why that is.

[InvincibleHero]

I thought Wade and Herren were possibly examples maybe a bit stereotyped though. Is there a specific number you need mocking? In fact, by your own standard there could be 200 gay males in the game yet they do not explicitly show their sexuality overtly. So what makes it count for you?

[CannotCompute]

My guess is we will get 6 romance options - 2 NPC's (Cullen and Scribbles) and 4 followers. At least 2 of them will be bisexual.

[Estelindis]

I admit to feeling surprised at this news.  I had thought that all-bi romance was the policy for future DA games.  Well, as I am a straight woman and usually play straight women in RPGs with character generation, I guess now I'll get to experience some of what gay people have experienced, in terms of not being able to romance anyone I please from the list of romanceable characters of the sex to which I am attracted.  Seems fair.  I may be slightly worse off than I was before, but the boot could do with being on the other foot for once.

[Ianamus]

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.

 

Amazingly a lot of gay people relate with gay characters. I know a lot of women who relate to female characters. I also know that I can relate to male characters and British characters. 

 

It doesn't matter what you believe about labels or characters in fiction, a lot of people enjoy having characters that they feel represent them.

[Mockingword]

On the other hand, I'm not imagining the barely disguised - and often not disguised at all - hostility that has arisen within fandoms when people with different preferences and orientations fight, occasionally bitterly, over which gender's with the character is better. I'm not going to name characters, and I don't need to. What I'm trying to do here is add my voice to the people who would like to see more gay characters they can have to themselves.

Well, I don't support the notion that gays need to hoard characters "to themselves" in order to be represented fairly.

 

I'm adding my voice to the people (apparently only me) who think gays can stand to share their characters with people who fit other labels, or don't have any labels, who also deserve representation.

 

Especially because gays do not lose anything if label-less individuals can find representation in these characters. Just like heterosexuals don't lose anything just because some gay people are able to see themselves in the love interests of DA2.

[CybAnt1]

I think this means they are going after the so-called 2-2-2 option: 2 het, 2 bi, 2 straight. But, I bet out of that 6, some will be non-party/companion NPCs. 

 

There are a lot of ways you could take this announcement. Bisexual IS a set sexual orientation (even if some think it's just confusion) and theoretically it could mean 6 bisexual LIs, but ... given previous remarks by Gaider, and the new remarks by C. Lee, don't think so. 

 

I don't really see this bothering me; of course, I also may be interpreting it wrong. 

[Ricky Rozay]

Yes, I want all available males for romance as an option, at the expense of your pseudo-literary wankfest.

#CLICKCLICKBRAPBRAP SHOTS FIRED!

[Mockingword]

Amazingly a lot of gay people relate with gay characters. I know a lot of women who relate to female characters. I also know that I can relate to male characters and British characters. 

 

It doesn't matter what you believe about labels or characters in fiction, a lot of people enjoy having characters that they feel represent them.

And how do gay people lose any representation if those characters declare themselves to fit some label other than "gay", but still continue to openly express same-sex attraction, and engage in same-sex relationships?

[Ianamus]

 

To me it just seems like, having a major NPC like Empress Celene being gay and part of everyone's playthrough is better than a companion that can be missed/avoided if we are talking about representation for the sake of it.   But you were saying the latter was better but haven't really explained why that is.

 

 

Empress Celeme being gay and a part of every playthrough is really good. I only think that companions are even better because you tend to interact with them a lot more. 

[Milana]

at least iin my country most people seem very happy with the news,because they assume there will be less gays...and yes i live in Russia,where ppl never fail to dissapoint me with homophobic attitudes

[InvincibleHero]

I explained it poorly I guess Mort sorry. What I mean is along the lines if they only budget 2 or three cutscene per romance that would be shared by two with a bi sexual option which means they will make it generic so the scene is the same for both rather than unique scenes for m/m with the same budget. Vocal and text budgets are limited as well. So I hope they better spend the resources and make them adequate for everyone.

[Kidd]

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?

I really don't see how the DA2 LIs were lacking in "true depth" in any measurable way compared to the DAO LIs. More dialogue was relegated to quest lines instead of idle talk by the camp fire, but that's true for all characters and not just LIs.
 
 

(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)

*looks at avatar, then the message, then the avatar again* The Codex? ^^
 
 

I admit to feeling surprised at this news.  I had thought that all-bi romance was the policy for future DA games.  Well, as I am a straight woman and usually play straight women in RPGs with character generation, I guess now I'll get to experience some of what gay people have experienced, in terms of not being able to romance anyone I please from the list of romanceable characters of the sex to which I am attracted.  Seems fair.  I may be slightly worse off than I was before, but the boot could do with being on the other foot for once.

Wouldn't it be better if we could simply ignore the boots together? There's no need for you or anybody else to find themselves limited.

Well aside from this is how it's been decided to be for Inquisition I guess, but hypothetically for a future Dragon Age 4 or something.

[CybAnt1]

Gaider said earlier ... wish I could find the quote ... there will be an NPC who is struggling with their sexual orientation. This may mean that they are gay, but haven't come out of the closet yet ... or maybe to complete self-acceptance. This fits with the more recent announcement. BTW, it is exactly the kind of more "realistic" romance writing some have asked for. As in, yes, it mirrors the problems people face IRL.

[fiveforchaos]

Hmmm if they're really doing the 2/2/2 thing. Then for the sake of fairness Scribbles is probably also romanceable (since it seems as though Cullen will be an NPC). That means that likely 2 of the 6 guys, and 2 of the 3 women will be available for romance. We already know Cass is an option, and I'm leaning towards Sera as the other one, I don't think anyone could ever live up to Viv's standards. As for the male romances, my money's on Solas and DHMG, quite a lot of mage for one Inquisitor but they're the two most "generically handsome" characters in the party. Scribbles and Cullen will probably be the same orientation, again for the sake of fairness, probably Bi or Straight seeing as how Cullen has a demonstrated interest in women. Either way, straight players who don't want to romance an NPC will have one other option. At least, that's what it looks like from here. Overall sounds like a nice spread to me. I'd be happy romancing any one of the possible male romances, and if I have to play a gay guy on my next play through to get the other one, then so be it. 

[Ianamus]

And how do gay people lose any representation if those characters declare themselves to fit some label other than "gay", but still continue to openly express same-sex attraction, and engage in same-sex relationships?

 

Because if that person also expresses opposite-gender attraction and engage in opposite-sex relationships they are not gay, and cannot represent gay people. 

[upsettingshorts]

Well, I don't support the notion that gays need to hoard characters "to themselves" in order to be represented fairly.

 

I'm adding my voice to the people (apparently only me) who think gays can stand to share their characters with people who fit other labels, or don't have any labels, who also deserve representation.

 

Especially because gays do not lose anything if label-less individuals can find representation in these characters. Just like heterosexuals don't lose anything just because some gay people are able to see themselves in the love interests of DA2.

 

Okay, I think we understand each other better now.  If that's your position, I'm not gonna get in your way - intentionally at least - of arguing it. It seems to me like something best decided by gay people without my getting further involved.

 

I still have plenty to say about the relative merits of DA2's approach versus DAI's alleged set sexualities, but I think I have a better feel for who is advocating what and why now.

[stuffystuffs]

 

Empress Celeme being gay and a part of every playthrough is really good. I only think that companions are even better because you tend to interact with them a lot more. 

 

 

I see.  I agree that the individual the experiences the romance/companion content with the gay companion will get more out of that than through interactions with an NPC like Celene (that's kind of a general rule even with non-romance stuff).

 

I was thinking more of the general audience and how it's possible they might not even know they have a gay companion (or actively avoid them b/c they do know) or never experience it.

[Estelindis]

Wouldn't it be better if we could simply ignore the boots together? There's no need for you or anybody else to find themselves limited.

 

It's not something that I can just ignore.  Not everyone feels the same way about these things, and that is perfectly okay,

[InvincibleHero]

@mocking wow such hostility given your previous posts you are asuuming me to be hetero and attacking me thusly. I have never disclosed nor will because it is irrelevant because none of you know me in real life as far as I know and I need not espouse any lifestyle as superior or inferior by stating my preference and acting prejudiced.