Ce sujet est fermé
I get the feeling that people who want the more restrictive design actually don't want the content to be the same in the first place.
That's a different issue, though. If that's the case, they were complaining about the wrong thing.
I'd also like to hear arguments why the content shouldn't be the same.
It does make replays feel more unique in a sense. I imagine for someone like you they're already perfectly unique so that doesn't matter, but I do tend to look for and appreciate exclusive content that sets one character apart from another.
I don't really think the romances should be among that list of exclusive content, but I can see how that appeal would apply there too.
People keep saying that they can see how it would appeal, but they don't explain how.
Right, so you saw a flirty guy who makes off-hand comments about a girl as straight and others saw him as either straight or bisexual. Turns out he was bisexual.
Not everyone assumes that expression of interest in one gender (without saying that they don't have interest in the other) means that a person is straight. That's all. I think that it's common to make this assumption, but it doesn't mean that it's always accurate.
Wasn't talking about DA:A as he wasn't an LI there, but yeah, when someone is only flirty in regards to female people, it's save to assume that he most likely only has the hots for female people unless he's deep, deep in the closet. There wasn't a single moment in DA:A that suggested he might go for males, too. Anyway, what I meant is this:
"Oh, I love you karl, I'll always remember yo- Wait, the main characters a girl? Well then I'll always remember k..ummm..kkkk...ummm, I'm sure it started with a K...Ah well, doesn't matter. He meant nothing to me anyway. Yup...absolutely nothing...so when can I get your number, miss?
It means that we can have a love interest be clearly gay, for example, and have interactions with that character about that, even if that love interest is not being actively pursued during a given playthrough.
It's mostly the original poster's use of the word "personality" that I'm questioning. I don't see sexuality as being a part of someone's personality like I wouldn't see a person's skin or hair color as a part of their personality.
I'm not exactly sure what to think about this in a personal history sense. Thedas doesn't seem to have a problem with homosexuality, so I'm not sure how much insight we're actually looking at. I suppose some areas have different attitudes. I'll just have to see it in practice.
I guess what I'm basically thinking is, has a character being obviously straight ever really added much to their character? It's always been a non-issue without any extended focus or explanation. So, I'm a little confused about how this works with homosexuality as a focal point and I'm not exactly sure how much relating to it couldn't be as easily accomplished with a bisexual/ambiguous character with a history of same sex relationships.
But 4-6 herosexual characters would be better, with the same (or lower) development costs.
Oh, 6 bisexual LIs would be the dream, but I can't see them doing it.
I like the fact that 2/2/2 would offer 6 total LIs (I would eventually try straight female and gay male LIs), rather than 4. There's also the representation issue - we haven't seen any gay characters in DA besides Wade/Herren (which is largely implied), and perhaps Hespith (Branka and Marjolaine potentially being bi).
I'm trying to stay optimistic that gay LIs would have equal content.
Part of my feelings about the 2/2/2 idea though is simply that I have little interest in Cassandra/Cullen. I assume the all-bi approach would mean 4 LI, which would mean 2 left to choose from, regardless of the gender I play.
The paragraph was really written in irritation about how people constantly keep asking for characters to be welcoming in every way no matter what they do. I know it's not what playersexuality really does, but I was really just speaking in general. Bisexual means bisexual. Nothing changes about a bisexual character regardless of who they romance. You say Gaider hints at all characters in DA 2 being bisexual, but did he ever say that? I don't remember where he said that not all companions are bisexual, maybe I'm remembering it wrong.
I know Bioware's past isn't much to go on but as I said, it's a ballsy move, and they know they can trip over pretty badly if they don't get it right. I've said this before in another thread but honestly, I wish they'd go with alternating between number of available romances for gay/lesbian and straight groups. They did 2 straight and 2 bi in DA:O, and they could do 2 gay/lesbian and 2 bi characters this time around. That is possibly the best compromise I see here because no matter what, people are not going to stop whining over which one's got the better deal regardless of whether or not the numbers are equal.
I can understand your point. I can also understand the other point. I think it's hard to just relax and wait for it to be announced when, historically, the news is going to be bad. I have faith that it will be better implemented this time, but I can see why people are skeptical.
I think that they should just go with the 2/2/2 approach and 'realism' be damned. This way everyone gets two options.
Regarding the "DA 2 bisexual" thing. In this blog post, he speaks of the LI's (it's mostly about Anders, but he references the group at large several times) and he only uses the term bisexual.
Plus he makes this statement: "Sometimes you’ll even get someone who counters that by saying, no, they weren’t bisexual… the same-gender romance options were gay and the opposite-gender romance options were straight, depending on your player character." This, to me, indicates that he sees them as bisexual.
http://dgaider.tumbl...tions-on-anders
Wasn't talking about DA:A as he wasn't an LI there, but yeah, when someone is only flirty in regards to female people, it's save to assume that he most likely only has the hots for female people unless he's deep, deep in the closet. There wasn't a single moment in DA:A that suggested he might go for males, too. Anyway, what I meant is this:
You could assume this. And then, you would be wrong in some situations, including this one.
But why does this aspect have to be "realistic" for you to enjoy the game? You have no problem with dwarves and elves and a brand new 'qunari' race, but the idea that the proportion of sexualities being more equally distributed is an issue? I just can't ever follow this kind of reasoning.
It's usually the people in the 95% who are okay with the 5% not being "pleased". Things don't ever change for the 5% unless people speak up.
Who said I couldn't enjoy the game if that were the case? I sure didn't. I never had an issue with homosexual relationships in these games. In fact, I wish they weren't such a hot button topic and just "were."
My only issue is with creating every character as bisexual to appease the masses. It hurts the storytelling and immersion for me, even if you can head cannon that a given character is not that way on a particular play through. It feels more genuine to have each character have their own identities, be it straight, gay or somewhere in between. Why? Because that is life as we know it.
Getting bogged down in the numbers game proves nothing from a storytelling perspective. You can want a 2/2/2 mix for your game if that gives you some comfort or satisfaction. You are welcome to that opinion. I would still enjoy a game with that makeup even though I am straight. BUT, it would be better characterization and more immersive for me if character's sexual identities, like real life, were consistent.
That's all I am saying...
I don't agree with this. There is no necessary connection between one's sexuality and one's personality. This could only possibly be of concern if there was some incongruity that might arise from a combination of personality and sexuality, and that simply isn't the case.
Any person can have any sexuality. Some combinations make the character more complex or less obvious, but they can still occur. A gay Fenris is difference from a bisexual Fenris, yes, but it's possible that all of the characteristics we actually see don't change when his sexuality changes.
Varric loves his Bianca. it's a major part of his character. He named Bianca after the love of his life, a woman named Bianca. So Varric is most likely straight (though I guess he could be bi).
If they really wanted to keep Varric's sexuality ambiguous, they probably wouldn't have given him that backstory, which would probably weaken his character a bit. And if he had named his crossbow Brian, after a previous male lover, it would no doubt have changed people's perception of him.
Why should it be ok for non-love interests to have defined sexualities that give them strong backstory material and behavior motivations, but not ok for love interests?
I have no doubt in my mind that Bioware is going to make it as fair as possible for all genders, orientations, whatever. But I look at it as a way to add complexity to the companions that may not otherwise be there - as a straight female gamer, I look forward to the possibility of romancing DHMG. And the thought of him potentially not being available to me is disappointing, but I appreciate the complexity it would provide my character's relationship with him.
Who said I couldn't enjoy the game if that were the case? I sure didn't. I never had an issue with homosexual relationships in these games. In fact, I wish they weren't such a hot button topic and just "were."
My only issue is with creating every character as bisexual to appease the masses. It hurts the storytelling and immersion for me, even if you can head cannon that a given character is not that way on a particular play through. It feels more genuine to have each character have their own identities, be it straight, gay or somewhere in between. Why? Because that is life as we know it.
Getting bogged down in the numbers game proves nothing from a storytelling perspective. You can want a 2/2/2 mix for your game if that gives you some comfort or satisfaction. You are welcome to that opinion. I would still enjoy a game with that makeup even though I am straight. BUT, it would be better characterization and more immersive for me if character's sexual identities, like real life, were consistent.
That's all I am saying...
Yeah, "not enjoy the game" wasn't really what I meant. I meant, "have it take away from the game".
It's easy to say this when you can feel comfortable with assuming that, if they didn't "get bogged with the numbers game" (i.e., ensure that everyone gets equal opportunities), you will still get your opportunities. History has showed that, when Bioware doesn't actively concern themselves with this, straight players get more options and gay and lesbian players get very little (and in many cases no) options. The reality is that you have very little to lose if they go back to the way to the way that they used to do it, but other people have alot to lose and that's why they are concerned about it.
Yeah, "not enjoy the game" wasn't really what I meant. I meant, "have it take away from the game".
It's easy to say this when you can feel comfortable with assuming that, if they didn't "get bogged with the numbers game" (i.e., ensure that everyone gets equal opportunities), you will still get your opportunities. History has showed that, when Bioware doesn't actively concern themselves with this, straight players get more options and gay and lesbian players get very little (and in many cases no) options. The reality is that you have very little to lose if they go back to the way to the way that they used to do it, but other people have alot to lose and that's why they are concerned about it.
In that case, I vote they go back to Baldur's Gate 1 mode and focus on the story and gameplay and remove romance as it has never been my favorite part of Bioware games, anyway.
EDIT...
I will add that even by making characters not all bi but some straight, some gay and some bi, I am essentially also asking for my options to be reduced, which is perfectly fine.
What perks? Aside from a trivial reduction in recorded Inquisitor lines, I don't see any.
I don't agree with this. There is no necessary connection between one's sexuality and one's personality. This could only possibly be of concern if there was some incongruity that might arise from a combination of personality and sexuality, and that simply isn't the case.
Any person can have any sexuality. Some combinations make the character more complex or less obvious, but they can still occur. A gay Fenris is difference from a bisexual Fenris, yes, but it's possible that all of the characteristics we actually see don't change when his sexuality changes.
Your sexuality informs your experiences. Your experiences inform your personality. Of course, in broad strokes (or, as I suspect, using a narrow definition of "personality") it usually doesn't matter much and theoretically anyone can be anything, but going by your argument, you may as well reduce all companions back to mere stat pools.
Also, C.) On a purely emotional level: The feeling of actually getting represented.
Guest_Puddi III_*
The thing is that you can take a reaction that's exactly the same, to a line of dialog that's exactly the same, across two playthroughs and treat it as if it's meaningfully different depending on the character you're currently playing. I don't understand that, but you find value in doing that, right?People keep saying that they can see how it would appeal, but they don't explain how.
Agree with you to a certain extent....but also think that companies can get themselves in trouble by trying to please EVERYONE. That is absolutely impossible. They should continue telling the stories they want to tell and feel comfortable that they are doing a great job casting a pretty wide net. Maybe 5% are not pleased...but it is better than 40%-50% not pleased.
True. But other games that don't have any romance or only imply romance don't have:
1. Homophobes trolling about BioWare through the internet and
2. Heterosexuals or homosexuals creating thousands of threads and constantly stating that they feel discriminated by BioWare, because there are more companions of a sexual orientation in the game, that they do not prefer.
3. Morons joking by writing: "When will BioWare finally stop discriminating trannys [please excuse the derogatory term, I am quoting] and add them to the game as a romance option"
4. I, as well as others, wouldn't have to point out that a minority of heterosexual companions is possible, but very unlikely, and therefore unrealistic.
(Don't get me wrong, I am all for equality and stuff. If homosexual romance is not forced upon me, then I am fine with it having homosexual companions.)
(Don't get me wrong, I am all for equality and stuff. If the homosexuality is not stuffed down my throat, then I am fine with it being there.)
This is really not an appropriate comment for a number of reasons. I'm going to just say that and move on, but hopefully, you realize why that's not appropriate.
That is according to you. Most game/film/book worlds, even if fantasy, utilize some common forms of understood realism to help us connect with the story. There are humans in Dragon Age, right? Is that realism? There are many typical REAL medieval technologies, dress, weapons and architecture in Dragon Age. I know, REAL, right? The character interactions, and ideas about politics, government, society are drawn from various REAL cultures throughout history.
I am not buying the dismissive "it's a fantasy world so realism is unimportant because it makes my argument more convenient" vibe.
To be blunt, I think what you're missing is that straight players have the luxury of being able to enjoy a romantic fantasy in a game that's made with them in mind without needing to worry about other people's ideas of what is "realistic" or "believable" – LGBT players don't have that luxury because they don't have a wide variety of games to choose from that include romance content that's made with them in mind.
The fact that the underrepresentation of LGBT characters across games in general is not typically remarked on as being "unrealistic" (I encourage people to listen to Manveer heir's GDC talk which goes into this) demonstrates that not everyone's perception of what is "realistic" is treated equally – some people's perceptions of what is "realistic" carry more power when it comes to determining how other people are represented.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for equality and stuff. If the homosexuality is not stuffed down my throat, then I am fine with it being there.
I've always had a hard time understanding this kind of statement. How do you decide when representation of homosexuality is on the "equal", above board level and when it's gotten to "throat stuffing" level?
(Don't get me wrong, I am all for equality and stuff. If the homosexuality is not stuffed down my throat, then I am fine with it being there.)
Oh, this is interesting. Please, tell me how two bisexual companions in Origins, one flirt from a guy in DA2 (one stupid flirt that can be ignored. If +15 rivalry bothered you that much, then take him on some mage friendly quests and grow up,) romances available to all genders (in only one game, may I add,) and a handful of gay NPCS are "shoving homsexuality down your throat"?
Nice word choice, by the way.
Plus he makes this statement: "Sometimes you’ll even get someone who counters that by saying, no, they weren’t bisexual… the same-gender romance options were gay and the opposite-gender romance options were straight, depending on your player character." This, to me, indicates that he sees them as bisexual.
I read the whole thing, that doesn't indicate that sees the characters as bisexual. He only talks about Anders and asks why all romanciable characters can't be bisexual, but never says one or the other is right.
I read the whole thing, that doesn't indicate that sees the characters as bisexual. He only talks about Anders and asks why all romanciable characters can't be bisexual, but never says one or the other is right.
I always find it interesting when people take different meaning from the same information. I mean that literally, not sarcastically.
So this part, in particular, indicates to me that he sees the DA 2 LI's as bisexual (emphasis mine):
Which leads me to my third thing: while I get that some people might not like the discovery that those followers can potentially romance either gender (something you can really only discover on subsequent playthroughs or by reading about it), a lot of the things people post on the subject is… awkward. “It makes the characters inconsistent.” Meaning that… bisexuality itself is indicative of inconsistency? Only people who can’t make up their minds are bisexual? “It’s unrealistic that everyone is bisexual!” Which ‘everyone’? Everyone in Thedas? Or are we talking four people in your party of folks who already exceptional in a large number of ways, two of which have no sexual past or preferences that they even discuss with you? “It just made them seem like they were all sexually available to me!” So… was it having three romance options for any PC gender, just like in Origins, that threw you off? Or does the idea of potentially sleeping with either gender just make them seem inherently wanton to you?
You could assume this. And then, you would be wrong in some situations, including this one.
True enough. Still doesn't change how he's written in regards to Hawke in DA2, though. If you contest the term "player-sexuality" completely, fair enough, but if you find there to be truth in the term but don't include Anders as he appears in DA2,* I'm at best stunned. Either way, we have to agree to disagree.
*Word of God matters precious little in that regard, especially when said god doesn't have the rights to the world.
This is really not an appropriate comment for a number of reasons. I'm going to just say that and move on, but hopefully, you realize why that's not appropriate.
Sorry. I changed it a bit, I hope it is ok now.
Anyway, I am out of here. I am just going to make somebody mad by stating my opinion and views on this subject.
To be blunt, I think what you're missing is that straight players have the luxury of being able to enjoy a romantic fantasy in a game that's made with them in mind without needing to worry about other people's ideas of what is "realistic" or "believable" – LGBT players don't have that luxury because they don't have a wide variety of games to choose from that include romance content that's made with them in mind.
The fact that the underrepresentation of LGBT characters across games in general is not typically remarked on as being "unrealistic" (I encourage people to listen to Manveer heir's GDC talk which goes into this) demonstrates that not everyone's perception of what is "realistic" is treated equally – some people's perceptions of what is "realistic" carry more power when it comes to determining how other people are represented.
I am not missing that at all. I just think making every character bisexual is not good characterization. The crusade for increased LGBT representation across all games is beyond my scope of concern as it pertains to enjoying a video game. I don't knock anyone for trying to improve it, but if it comes at the expense of taking something away from the storytelling, I am not a fan. As to minority representation in media, that is the case across many demographics and many mediums, unfortunately. Some of us are part of some of those demographics, and some are not.
Representing the LBGT community (or any minority) can be better served than watering down the characters to appease the masses. I don't think there is anything wrong with that sentiment.
Retour en haut