546 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

Who are the people who consider the existence of butch lesbians to be offensive?  Not lesbians, generally, because gender non-conformity, to some degree, is pretty common amongst lesbians, and gender non-conformity is not an offensive or negative thing by itself.  
 
"Butch" lesbians deserve representation in media just as much as any group, and it's being discussed more and more lately, because while femme lesbians are represented pretty well, the lack of non-feminine lesbian representation is pretty obvious: Why Are There No Butch Lesbians on Television?
 
I mean, yeah, someone might have gotten upset if a character like Aveline had been a lesbian, but I assure you, she would have had lesbian fans, and if Bioware is actually including more diverse representation of LGBT characters *for* LGBT players, shouldn't those people, the ones who take inspiration from characters who look and act like real people they know and identify with, be the ones Bioware worries about?

This is interesting article, thank you for linking it. My impression was that having the butch lesbian character would be seen as throwback to those pre-2000 times the article mentions in the opening and so caused negative reactions, but then going by both the rest of it and your comments, it'd seem that things have moved on to the point where that's no longer the case? If that's so then yes, I can see how having some butch lesbian characters could be net positive thing.

[daveliam]

Sorry. I changed it a bit, I hope it is ok now.

 

While I appreciate that you changed the wording, it's just as bad now.  You now state that you are "okay with homosexual companions" as long as it's not "forced upon you". 

 

Anyway, I am out of here. I am just going to make somebody mad by stating my opinion and views on this subject.

 

Yes, unfortunately, if your views are that gay people are okay as long as you don't have to see it, then you will make people mad because, frankly, that's an offensive stance to take.  Here's a hint, replace "homosexual" with "black" or "jewish" and if your statements sound offensive to you, then they are offensive to gay people.

[WildOrchid]

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.

 

This.

Heterosexuality is the only sexuality that's being shoved down your throats, in every form of media.

[jillabender]

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? 

 

Very well put – I think it's important to keep in mind that the content we're used to seeing influences our perceptions of what is "equal."

 

As an example, this transcript from a radio show references a study showing that if a group of people is made up of 17% women, the men in the group often perceive the group as being 50% women, and if the group is made up of 33% women, the men in the group will often perceive the group as having more women than men. The study suggests that this could be because media representation has trained us to see the 17% ratio as normal. http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=197390707

 

(Apologies for not being able to link to the study itself – I searched for it, but it appears that it may not be published yet. I wouldn't expect or encourage anyone to take a single study as the final word, but I do think it's some interesting food for thought.)

[PSUHammer]

While I appreciate that you changed the wording, it's just as bad now.  You now state that you are "okay with homosexual companions" as long as it's not "forced upon you". 

 

 

Yes, unfortunately, if your views are that gay people are okay as long as you don't have to see it, then you will make people mad because, frankly, that's an offensive stance to take.  Here's a hint, replace "homosexual" with "black" or "jewish" and if your statements sound offensive to you, then they are offensive to gay people.

 

While I don't share the guy's stance, you realize that people may view one's sexual orientation as a choice, and a choice that goes against their religion.  Race, on the other hand is not a behavioral choice to them.

 

Just playing Devil's advocate as to why that counter doesn't work with many people.

[oceanicsurvivor]

 

(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.)

 

And yet some people still wonder why LGB gamers take these conversations about in-game romance so seriously.

 

 

Also, playing devil's advocate for the sake of playing devil's advocate (and in the process condoning bigotry) totally not ok.

[CronoDragoon]

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.

 

But I'm not sure why Lee's comment on realism is being interpreted as specifically only negatively impacting LGBT interests, besides a general (and justified) concern of being underrepresented by commercial stories at large. Gaider has since clarified that this was in regards to the player determining someone's sexuality, which is frankly how I always took it. This new system seems to impact all sexualities in the same manner, doesn't it?

[PSUHammer]

And yet some people still wonder why LGB gamers take these conversations about in-game romance so seriously.

 

 

Also, playing devil's advocate for the sake of playing devil's advocate (and in the process condoning bigotry) totally not ok.

 

Diminishing others and their views, even if you disagree with them is also not ok and bigoted.

 

You would do well to try and understand opposing viewpoints instead of attacking them.

[TurretSyndrome]

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):

 

Sorry but that's just not enough to go on. He may be talking about the assumption of some of the comments itself, and is like "say the characters are indeed bisexual, why can't all of them be so without being inconsistent?" If he really says anywhere that all the characters in DA 2 are indeed bisexual, that certainly changes things.

 

 

Respectfully, I think the argument that DA2's model took away agency from the characters is confused.

 

It's the nature of game mechanics that optional romance content is always going to come down to the player making a choice to pursue the romance, and a romance flag being set as a result of that choice. There could perhaps be situations where there could be further conditions on the circumstances needed to activate a romance, as well as choices that might end the romance without that outcome being immediately obvious – but by definition, any agency on the part of non-player characters is always going to be an illusion.

 

I agree with the idea that there is perhaps more that could be done to better maintain the illusion that the NPCs are people with agency, and that ideally, the romances should feel more as though the NPCs are responding to the specific personality that the player has helped to define for their PC. But I can't agree that the lack of set sexualities was the cause of any shortcomings DA2 had in that regard, and I think the challenge of making the romances feel more personal requires more than simply restrictions based on choices made in character creation.

 

Why? The very reason I and many others(probably everyone) here love Dragon Age is because of character believability. We all love characters and companions in Dragon Age games because they feel different every time. You need to understand that character agency is what it stems from, as it applies to everything they do. It is because of that that they feel different, it is because of that why we hate some characters, love others. They don't have to bow down to player whim because they are the player,  and especially not due to some game mechanic constraint. Romances and companion interaction in general should never be limited by a game mechanic, something that happened in DA 2.

 

I understand that some believe that player agency trumps character agency when it comes to romances, but that is where I disagree. Romances may be optional content but that doesn't make it okay to let go of the sexuality part of character's personality, not to mention allowing players to dictate it. I know people keep saying that that is not it and that the sexuality is left ambiguous but that's not really true as replaying the game easily identified what it is. Set sexuality is not a game mechanic, if it's a restriction, it's a natural one. You can have all romances as bisexual if you want, at least then we know they are bisexual and not "player-dictated" sexual. 

[Mihura]

Very well put – I think it's important to keep in mind that the content we're used to seeing influences our perceptions of what is "equal."

 

As an example, this transcript from a radio show references a study showing that if a group of people is made up of 17% women, the men in the group often perceive the group as being 50% women, and if the group is made up of 33% women, the men in the group will often perceive the group as having more women than men. The study suggests that this could be because media representation has trained us to see the 17% ratio as normal. http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=197390707

 

(Apologies for not being able to link to the study itself – I searched for it, but it appears that it may not be published yet. I wouldn't expect or encourage anyone to take a single study as the final word, but I do think it's some interesting food for thought.)

 

Wow this could not be more accurate really lol.

 

Also good luck for everyone expecting better representation on romances, on the female queer side. There are like three of them. 

[dlux]

While I appreciate that you changed the wording, it's just as bad now.  You now state that you are "okay with homosexual companions" as long as it's not "forced upon you". 

 

 

Yes, unfortunately, if your views are that gay people are okay as long as you don't have to see it, then you will make people mad because, frankly, that's an offensive stance to take.  Here's a hint, replace "homosexual" with "black" or "jewish" and if your statements sound offensive to you, then they are offensive to gay people.

I already said I have no problem with homosexual companions, I just don't want them to throw a fit, because my PC doesn't want to have a homosexual romance with them. Remember Anders in DA2? It makes me feel bad, I hate to be put in that type of situation.

 

If you don't get it, then you are just too sensitive.

 

Anyway, I really think that everyone should be treated equally no matter what their sexual orientation is. If not stating my opinion is the best way to avoid conflict, even though I am for equality, then so be it.

 

And yet some people still wonder why LGB gamers take these conversations about in-game romance so seriously.

 

 

Also, playing devil's advocate for the sake of playing devil's advocate (and in the process condoning bigotry) totally not ok.

But... but.. I am talking about Anders in DA2...

 

Oh forget it. Let every gay companion in the game throw a fit because my PC won't sleep with them, if that makes the gay community happy. I am tired of this BS.

 

 

And now I am really off.

[oceanicsurvivor]

Diminishing others and their views, even if you disagree with them is also not ok and bigoted.

 

You would do well to try and understand opposing viewpoints instead of attacking them.

I understand their views just fine thanks.

 

Tolerance isn't a two way street. I don't have to be ok with the views of people who think my existence is inherently icky or wrong.

 

 

Or god forbid, unrealistic.

[Vandicus]

No, I really wouldn't.

 

Tolerance isn't a two way street. I don't have to be ok with the views of people who think my existence is inherently icky or wrong.

Well then its unreasonable to expect them to change their viewpoint, as you consider it bad behavior to try to understand their way of thinking, and its nigh impossible to change a person's way of thinking without understanding it.

 

I would not expect someone brought up to be say, a racist, to be non-racist. If I don't understand their reasoning behind their racism, there'd be no way for me to persuade them that their racist attitudes are incorrect.

 

If I simply call them a bigot and walk away, I abdicate any chance I have to change their views on the topic.

[Grieving Natashina]

And yet some people still wonder why LGB gamers take these conversations about in-game romance so seriously.

Yeah.  The "sit down and be grateful" approach by some of the posters has gotten stale.  At least I know those few are not a reflection on how BioWare feels.  BW is going to make a few missteps along the way, but they know that telling the LGBTQ community (or women, or minorities) to just "stay quiet and be thankful"  is wrong.  The company is actively working hard to give the most representation as possible while giving the best game experience they can.  We know this, and most of us have been more puzzled than angry over some of these decisions.  

 

We also know that the DA team and BioWare as a whole cares a lot about this.  That being said, we have the same privilege as anyone else does to express sadness and concern over the handling of some of the content. 

[daveliam]

While I don't share the guy's stance, you realize that people may view one's sexual orientation as a choice, and a choice that goes against their religion.  Race, on the other hand is not a behavioral choice to them.

 

Just playing Devil's advocate as to why that counter doesn't work with many people.

 

Well then, frankly, he is wrong.  Someone who views this is incorrect the same way that people can be incorrect about other things.  Religion, by the way, actually is a choice, but people find it offensive to discriminate against that, so the whole argument has little weight.

 

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.

 

Yeah, I think that this is where our difference lies.  I am firmly among those who think that we have never seen a true "playersexual" romance in a Bioware game.  For that, I would expect to see a character, say Merrill, say to male Hawke, "I am straight" and to female Hawke, "I am a lesbian".  (Obviously not those words, explicitly, but to that extent).  Anders is the closest to it because of the fact that he doesn't mention his relationship with Karl to a female Hawke, but, to me, word of god that states that Anders is, confirmed, as bisexual, is enough to make me think that it's not the case.

[PSUHammer]

I understand their views just fine thanks.

 

Tolerance isn't a two way street. I don't have to be ok with the views of people who think my existence is inherently icky or wrong.

 

 

Or god forbid, unrealistic.

 

"Bigotry is bad if it goes against my world view.  But OK if it jibes with mine."

 

Got it.  Keep in mind that this kind of thinking will never advance your cause or help you reach others who feel the way you are describing.

[oceanicsurvivor]

Well then its unreasonable to expect them to change their viewpoint, as you consider it bad behavior to try to understand their way of thinking, and its nigh impossible to change a person's way of thinking without understanding it.

 

I would not expect someone brought up to be say, a racist, to be non-racist. If I don't understand their reasoning behind their racism, there'd be no way for me to persuade them that their racist attitudes are incorrect.

 

If I simply call them a bigot and walk away, I abdicate any chance I have to change their views on the topic.

I've explained my perspective and why inclusion matters MANY times across MANY threads.

 

Ultimately however, it shouldn't be the responsibility of any minority to force the majority to be less shitty people. I shouldn't need to spend my life playing the thought police to every homophobe who couldn't crack open a book or take the time to listen when gay people talk about their experiences.

 

"Bigotry is bad if it goes against my world view.  But OK if it jibes with mine."

 

 

Your fundamentally misunderstanding what bigotry means and SUPPOSIDLY you're arguing with me as a 'devil's advocate' but I'm beginning to suspect you agree with dlux more then you originally suggested

[jillabender]

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.

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with preferring set sexualities – they can provide opportunities for characterization by providing chances to represent a character's sexual orientation outside of romance-specific content.

 

What I take issue with is the idea that making every LI romanceable by either gender without having them explicitly declare their sexual orientation is poor characterization or makes the characters "watered-down." I can't agree with the idea that not having a firmly established sexual orientation makes a character "watered-down.' And while it's not an unfair interpretation to see the sexualities of the LIs in DA2 as bisexual across-the-board, I can't agree with the idea that making all of the LIs bisexual is "watering-down" – I think that kind of sentiment often comes across poorly by implying that bisexuality itself is somehow "watered-down" or a non-identity.

[PSUHammer]

 

Your fundamentally misunderstanding what bigotry means and SUPPOSIDLY you're arguing with me as a 'devil's advocate' but I'm beginning to suspect you agree with dlux more then you originally suggested

 

You are incorrect on both accounts.  I will stop conversing with you, now, as I find your outlook rigid and negative, hence not worth any more effort.  Good day!  

[daveliam]

Alright, this thread is bound for getting a lockdown.

 

Here's the last thing I'm going to say on the matter.  People are allowed to say whatever they want, but they then need to be prepared for the consequences of those words.  The same way that people are allowed to get offended by words that they find, well, offensive.  I'm kind of sick of being told that I'm being equally intolerant of people who dismiss me because of my sexuality because I don't become the bigger man and turn it into a teachable moment.  There are, literally, no people on this board who don't have access to media.  And on that media, there are plenty of sources to teach people about tolerance.  It's not my job to do so and I'm not being intolerant by not wanting to engage with someone who makes those kinds of comments.

 

Back on topic, this entire issue is avoided if they go with a 2/2/2 split with even distribution of sexualities.  Then, I'll deal with the girls hitting on my gay guy and the straight guys will have to deal with the guys hitting on them.  It's all even.

[Allan Schumacher]

Thread locked.

 

 

If Anders hitting on you makes you feel bad to be in that type of situation, please do not accuse other people of being too sensitive.

 

If you are someone that needs David to explicit state "All the characters in DA2 are bisexual" in order to change your world view on how DA2's characters are represented, I challenge you to examine why you feel your current view must be the correct way, and why it's important to you that that view is the way it is short of overall authority.

 

Referring to LGBT content as a "crusade," frankly makes me angry.

 

The "realism" argument is irrelevant when you're already artificially restricted to a specific subset of people that are purely romanceable because we have allowed them to be.