Ce sujet est fermé
Good news, everyone! (The real kind, not the Professor Farnsworth kind.) From the twitter thread:
Can you elaborate on 1 sexual orientation? Did Lee mean there will be varied orientations like gay/bi/hetero?@Mike_Laidlaw@BioMarkDarrah
@TheEdibleDragon @Mike_Laidlaw there are gay characters, bi characters, and hetro characters
... which is what I thought, but I'm happy to have it confirmed.
Well I'm glad that cats out of the bag.
Good news, everyone! (The real kind, not the Professor Farnsworth kind.) From the twitter thread:
Can you elaborate on 1 sexual orientation? Did Lee mean there will be varied orientations like gay/bi/hetero?@Mike_Laidlaw@BioMarkDarrah
@TheEdibleDragon @Mike_Laidlaw there are gay characters, bi characters, and hetro characters
... which is what I thought, but I'm happy to have it confirmed.
Well I guess that was a given but the problem is going to be, which ones are the npcs.
Guest_Fandango_*
Now, I haven't gone through all 60 pages of this thread, so pardon me if I'm repeating someone else's thoughts here, but...
Somebody said he thought Mr. Lee stuttered on the word "realistic" as if it weren't his first word choice. I thought that was the case, not because it was a misstep on his part, but because, earlier in the same interview, he had used the word realism and added that he was talking about a world where you could throw fire from your hands. It's an attempt to qualify/clarify, I think. Like, "Okay, yes, fireballs and dragons are not realistic, but they're an essential part of Thedas and the Dragon Age, so accept them, and then talk about realism, given those things." My interpretation, at any rate; not trying to put words in the good Mr. Lee's mouth.
I'm so happy about this! And I definitely plan on doing multiple runs of varying race, sex, and sexualitywoo hoo!
It's not what the poster's point was. He/she was responding to a claim that heterosexual males could never cope with only having single (if any) romance option in Bioware game, with example of situation where they did."Back in my day it was X way and WE WERE ARE GRATEFUL" Is not an argument.
They can't make a game specifically for you, the sooner you realize that the better.
No but they can make a game for everyone. The sooner you quit thinking that people aren't allowed to express dissatisfaction in a product, the better.
Well I guess that was a given but the problem is going to be, which ones are the npcs.
I do think it's premature to assume that NPCs necessarily imply significantly reduced romance content.
In fact it's probaby premature to assume quite a lot of things about characters whose role in the story we have no knowledge of.
"Let me whip up a quick straw man so I don't have to address the actual argument"
The argument is stupid, it doesn't deserve addressing.
The fact that nobody complained about a lack of representation in much, much earlier Bioware games (if that's even true, and frankly, I doubt it) is not grounds for invalidating current complaints. Gay people as a whole are used to being ignored, they had no reason to ever suppose, even in their wildest dreams, that Bioware would dare create same-sex romance content.
There aren't a lot of requests for same-sex content on most other developer forums either, and that's probably because those developers haven't even expressed the remotest interest in being inclusive to LGB gamers.
It actually isn't a step-up. It can potentially offer the same amount of romance content for every sexual orientation as playersexuality.
Assuming 6 LIs in Dragon Age: Inquisition compared to the 4 LIs in Dragon Age 2 (excluding Sebastian).
2 for straight
4 for bi
2 for gay
2 for lesbian
If you view it as a step-up, it's a subjective view on whether you can accept playersexuality or you find a fixed sexual orientation necessary for a character.
Playersexuality is a step back, because its simplified, I guess.
What I meant though, was that now we get 3 set sexualities, spread out equal over the board. The same amount for 3 sexualities.
Equal, being the word I felt was a step up.
It doesn't invalidate current complaints. It potentially invalidates the "argument" used to support these complaints, which was along the lines of "oh you could never cope with being in my shoes".The argument is stupid, it doesn't deserve addressing.
The fact that nobody complained about a lack of representation in much, much earlier Bioware games (if that's even true, and frankly, I doubt it) is not grounds for invalidating current complaints.
Playersexuality is a step back, because its simplified, I guess.
What I meant though, was that now we get 3 set sexualities, spread out equal over the board. The same amount for 3 sexualities.
Equal, being the word I felt was a step up.
I agree that the even split is more "refined", but playersexuality had the advantage of choice.
Still, you're right that general equality was preserved and that's the most important part of all.
Guest_Rubios_*
No but they can make a game for everyone. The sooner you quit thinking that people aren't allowed to express dissatisfaction in a product, the better.
And that's exactly what they're doing, they have the exact same amount of content for everyone.
And no, you can't really express dissatisfaction with a product that you don't own nor even exist yet, not in a reasonable fashion anyway.
I do think it's premature to assume that NPCs necessarily imply significantly reduced romance content.
In fact it's probaby premature to assume quite a lot of things about characters whose role in the story we have no knowledge of.
Unless I can take the npcs with me, than it is a reduced romance content, there is no banter and it is not going to feel organic. I dislike what they did on ME 3 and I hope at least they balance it with the bi option. Which is sad to see the bi option on the npcs after DA 2, I hope they would not go to that route because of "realism".
I just want to romance Dorian with my f!Inquisitor.
The only thing I'm reasonably sure of is that Cullen and Cassandra are not s/s because they're romantic history includes the opposite sex.
They could also be bisexual, since they never explicitly stated that they are not into the same sex.
1. You are not the main character. The main character is character you play as, not you.
2. You hardly pay enough money to be entitled to anything, least of all telling someone else how to make their product.
God forbid someone makes a story that they want to tell. It's all about the romance options in the end. Specifically, what I think these romance options should look, think, and act like, because this is BioWare's story for me. I'm entitled to make the characters I want.
1. That kind of clean seperation rarely works.
2. I pay enough money to be entitled to my opinions. More than that, I am entitled to stating that opinion. When I think that something is crap, then I will say that it is crap. (And no, I am not saying that.) I am also entitled to decide not to give away my money for something I'm not having fun with. Simple as that.
I just think that every consumer who pays money for a product has the right to expect that product to suit their tastes. If that does not happen, it is within the consumer's right to be disappointed.
And please refrain from putting words in my mouth.
It doesn't invalidate current complaints. It potentially invalidates the "argument" used to support these complaints, which was along the lines of "oh you could never cope with being in my shoes".
It's not necessarily a valid comparison.
If one Li is all you got, it's all you got.
But it's different when the straight fans get two options and the gay fans get one.
The argument is stupid, it doesn't deserve addressing.
The fact that nobody complained about a lack of representation in much, much earlier Bioware games (if that's even true, and frankly, I doubt it) is not grounds for invalidating current complaints. Gay people as a whole are used to being ignored, they had no reason to ever suppose, even in their wildest dreams, that Bioware would dare create same-sex romance content.
There aren't a lot of requests for same-sex content on most other developer forums either, and that's probably because those developers haven't even expressed the remotest interest in being inclusive to LGB gamers.
Romances were just starting to be added to roleplaying games in the early Bioware games. I think BG2 was the first of their games to have romances. 3 for men (3 elves, actually) and 1 obnoxious human for women. In Kotor it was 1 for each gender. And, if I remember correctly, Jade Empire had gay options. and that go the ball rolling. Come DA:I and we have an equal amount of options for everyone. Steady improvement, no?
And that's exactly what they're doing, they have the exact same amount of content for everyone.
And no, you can't really express dissatisfaction with a product that you don't own nor even exist yet.
Lolololololol. Tell that to film adaptations of video games and comic books.
I just want to romance Dorian with my f!Inquisitor.The only thing I'm reasonably sure of is that Cullen and Cassandra are not s/s because they're romantic history includes the opposite sex.
And that's exactly what they're doing, they have the exact same amount of content for everyone.
And no, you can't really express dissatisfaction with a product that you don't own nor even exist yet.
Well we're all speculating here, so dissatisfaction with speculation about a product would have been more proper wording on my part
Although I agree that general equality has been preserved, the approach is still different enough to warrant discussion.
Ok, you need to stop
Oh, well, since I need to... 
I understood 'realistic' to be referring to those opportunities for additional characterisation and dialogue that are only made possible by setting sexuality.
"Why can't you homos go back to being quiet and letting us ignore you?"
(Quick word of appreciation/pat on the back to every poster who is choosing to approach this topic with an attitude of respect and level-headedness, giving their dissenters the benefit of the doubt. Every single one of us, at some point--depending on the subject and on the people we're talking with--feels ire and the temptation to respond with cutting words, but I am truly appreciative of everyone who is refusing to descend to unfair characterizations, outright attacks, or personal assumptions. Yay for you guys!)
This is a fair point, the gay players have not only to cope with having limited options, but also with other people getting more options than they do.It's not necessarily a valid comparison.
If one Li is all you got, it's all you got.
But it's different when the straight fans get two options and the gay fans get one.
True. Let me rephrase. They won't be the exclusive s/s option.Including the opposite sex does not exclude the same sex.
Retour en haut
