20 réponses à ce sujet

[Rowe]

I originally posted this thread in a different part of the forum. It's sparked quite the conversation. I'd like to get the opinion of people in this group:

 

Worried About Having my Romance Options Limited

 

I’ll admit, reading the recent comments by David Gaider about romance in the upcoming DAI game has made me a bit worried. While nothing concrete has been said I’m really hoping, as a gay man, that my romance options have not again been narrowed down to abstaining or choosing a character simply because they’re the only other gay male. That’s what DAO was for me. I found it very frustrating that I couldn’t even express my interest in Alistair, even if it would have been just for him to turn me down. I would have been fine with that; it would have been a realistic way to show sexuality, rather than just making him 100% off limits to male characters. I was not interested in Zevran and since he was the only gay male option I simply abstained.  

 

Then there was DA2, I don’t know if calling the romance mechanics an improvement is accurate, but it certainly presented more choices of which I was very appreciative. I had expected Anders to be the only option for a gay male, and he was certainly the more overt of the two, actively coming on to your character and mentioning a previous relationship with a man (if you were a male PC), but I was pleasantly surprised at Fenris being a option as well! I was wary that the male character I wanted would not be available to me, but thankfully that turned out not to be the case. Still, I couldn’t reconcile the oddity of everyone being openly bisexual; it just struck me as unrealistic.  I kept waiting for a conversation regarding his sexuality that never came. So, while I appreciated the options, it certainly could have been executed in a more realistic way.

 

I don’t want options taken away from me in DAI (I must admit that is largely due to the fact that I have been waiting to romance Cullen as a male PC since he was first introduced in DAO), and while I don’t want the “everyone is inexplicably bisexual mode” either, I’d prefer that over pining over a character I cannot have. Since this forum is for suggestions, here is mine:

 

In an older Bioware game called Jade Empire, you could romance Sky as either a male or female PC, but what set it apart was how different the romance was for male PCs. He is seemingly a heterosexual man, having lost his wife and daughter, and if you’re playing a female character he will openly flirt with you and show interest. As a male PC, he shows no romantic interest unless you completely rebuff the two female LI’s, at which point he will “approach you with his suspicions,” where you can admit to being interested in him. It makes him uncomfortable and he doesn’t want to talk about it anymore until he’s had time to think. He is hesitant and unsure about beginning a relationship with you if you are a male PC, but eventually he falls for you. On the other hand, as a female he is very easy to romance.

 

I really find this to be a great alternative to either making everyone openly bisexual or restricting options. It shows a plausible way for the PC to romance whichever LI they want while still taking gender and sexuality into account. The character actually falls for the PC because of who they are, maybe in some cases despite their predisposition, and they still take gender and their own sexuality into account. I don’t know why this hasn’t been done again in any of the DA games (or ME in that case), but I really thought it worked very well. Anyone else have an opinion?

 

 

 

 

 

[The Uncanny]

 

*snip* while I don’t want the “everyone is inexplicably bisexual mode” either, I’d prefer that over pining over a character I cannot have. *snip*

 

I don't have as much of an issue with that and never have. Personally I've always found the way people judge character sexuality on how they respond to the protagonist in completely different playthroughs a little bizarre.

 

Either way, I've always been in favour of options. More options, more choice.

 

What I don't want is to go through Miranda-syndrome again. The only options for women interested in women (not head-bumpy blue aliens) in the Mass Effect series were, for me, a little unconvincing to say the least. (And yes I acknowledge that guys got just as raw a deal.)

 

I try to imagine how I'd have felt if DA2 had had one f/f LI and that had been Merrill. Honestly, I wouldn't be anywhere near as fond of the game as I am.

[jlb524]

We will have 'options' but it might be like how we had options in ME3

[The Uncanny]

We will have 'options' but it might be like how we had options in ME3

 

And that allied to what I said is precisely what worries me. 

[jlb524]

Wow, I've noticed a sudden increase in forum support for the 'all bisexual/playersexual LI' system that DA2 brought us.   You know, the system a few of us (including me, omg so painful at times) fought to defend for two years (often times with little support from the general forum populace).

 

It seems like LITERALLY YESTERDAY more and more people have begun to jump on the playersexual express.

 

I WONDER WHY THAT IS???

[The Uncanny]

Wow, I've noticed a sudden increase in forum support for the 'all bisexual/playersexual LI' system that DA2 brought us.   You know, the system a few of us (including me, omg so painful at times) fought to defend for two years (often times with little support from the general forum populace).

 

It seems like LITERALLY YESTERDAY more and more people have begun to jump on the playersexual express.

 

I WONDER WHY THAT IS???

 

Wow... so now MORE PEOPLE SUDDENLY THINK WE WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG?!?!?!?!?!?

 

[Pups_of_war_76]

even if there were something wrong with all or most characters being bi (which there isn't), playersexual works because bioware doesn't traditionally plan for the ultra-enthusiastic player who is going to do several complete playthroughs of the game. 

 

The average player will do one or two playthroughs and thus, in a game like DA2, will not even realize that the bi characters are bi unless the internet tells them so. Because they're generally only going to experience one or two romances in those one or two playthroughs. 

 

So there's no reason for Bioware to change the policy other than in response to a few dweebs whining about that one time anders mildly flirted with their player-insert characters.

[The Uncanny]

[AlexWk31]

In an older Bioware game called Jade Empire, you could romance Sky as either a male or female PC, but what set it apart was how different the romance was for male PCs. He is seemingly a heterosexual man, having lost his wife and daughter, and if you’re playing a female character he will openly flirt with you and show interest. As a male PC, he shows no romantic interest unless you completely rebuff the two female LI’s, at which point he will “approach you with his suspicions,” where you can admit to being interested in him. It makes him uncomfortable and he doesn’t want to talk about it anymore until he’s had time to think. He is hesitant and unsure about beginning a relationship with you if you are a male PC, but eventually he falls for you. 

 

I really find this to be a great alternative to either making everyone openly bisexual or restricting options. It shows a plausible way for the PC to romance whichever LI they want while still taking gender and sexuality into account. The character actually falls for the PC because of who they are, maybe in some cases despite their predisposition, and they still take gender and their own sexuality into account. I

 

 

This is the kind of romance I like. One where gender and sexuality matter because it feels more real that way. I understand being bitter about not being able to romance someone but that doesn't really affect how I see the game or anything. I actually liked Zev a lot so I wasn't celibate in DA:O and Fenris was mine from the first screenshot I saw of him 

 

I mean, for me, it adds extra incentive to play a female inquisitor now that I know Sera is female exclusive. I was going to anyway, but that's not the point.   Throughout Fenris' entire romance I was curious as well what his sexuality actually was but he didn't mention it all. I would've felt more comfortable in the relationship had I known that he did like both, or only men when I played as a man like Anders does.  

 

Just don't pull a Zevran and tell my male Inquisitor that you prefer women but, hey, yolo. That was ridiculous. 

[Fiery Phoenix]

Wow, I've noticed a sudden increase in forum support for the 'all bisexual/playersexual LI' system that DA2 brought us.   You know, the system a few of us (including me, omg so painful at times) fought to defend for two years (often times with little support from the general forum populace).

 

It seems like LITERALLY YESTERDAY more and more people have begun to jump on the playersexual express.

 

I WONDER WHY THAT IS???

ikr

 

It's not like they even had an argument to begin with.

 

Also, it's been 3+ years

[The Uncanny]

This is the kind of romance I like. One where gender and sexuality matter because it feels more real that way. I understand being bitter about not being able to romance someone but that doesn't really affect how I see the game or anything.

 

Great! I'm so glad we have that established.

 

More 'real' in a universe of dragons, fireballs and other Tolkien knock-offs. Sure.

 

Feel free to get back to me when you do have to play through one of these games as celibate because the single substantial option doesn't work for you, though. Maybe then you will see how it can potentially affect a narrative-led game.

[AlexWk31]

Great! I'm so glad we have that established.

 

More 'real' in a universe of dragons, fireballs and other Tolkien knock-offs. Sure.

 

Feel free to get back to me when you do have to play through one of these games as celibate because the single substantial option doesn't work for you, though. Maybe then you will see how it can potentially affect a narrative-led game.

 

Whoah. Claws away. Can we assume that I possess just a little bit of empathy? I was expressing an opinion.. Not trying to offend you.. What I was saying is there are other "real" elements to Dragon Age like monarchical politics, race relations, slavery, and others that are mirrored from the real world. For me, for me, mirroring sexuality in the same way allows a greater immersion in the game. 

 

I'm on your side. But being hostile to someone else's opinion like that doesn't lead to constructive conversation. It leads to more fights and more negativity that we don't want to see. I want there to be more choice. I don't want anyone to be stuck with someone they don't want, something that most likely won't happen in DA:I because we're gonna have the greatest amount of LI in this game than any other Bioware game. 

[The Uncanny]

Whoah. Claws away. Can we assume that I possess just a little bit of empathy? I was expressing an opinion.. Not trying to offend you.. What I was saying is there are other "real" elements to Dragon Age like monarchical politics, race relations, slavery, and others that are mirrored from the real world. For me, for me, mirroring sexuality in the same way allows a greater immersion in the game. 

 

I'm on your side. But being hostile to someone else's opinion like that doesn't lead to constructive conversation. It leads to more fights and more negativity that we don't want to see. I want there to be more choice. I don't want anyone to be stuck with someone they don't want, something that most likely won't happen in DA:I because we're gonna have the greatest amount of LI in this game than any other Bioware game. 

 

If you have an issue with my sarcasm, fine. But do try and manage without the deeply patronising tone.

 

Believe it or not I get that you were expressing an opinion, You expressed it by suggesting that anyone with an alternate viewpoint was 'bitter'. I don't think that constitutes constructive criticism either. I think that is extremely passive aggressive.

 

Yes, I hear you. You believe this artificiality of love interests is somehow more credible than that artificiality of love interests. I don't agree with that. But if you want to be nice, polite and constructive about the fact that we disagree then we can do that.

[AlexWk31]

If you have an issue with my sarcasm, fine. But coming back at me with this deeply patronising tone and trying to claim the moral high ground? No.

 

Believe it or not I get that you were expressing an opinion, You expressed it by suggesting that anyone with an alternate viewpoint was 'bitter'. I don't think that constitutes constructive criticism either. I think that is extremely passive aggressive.

 

Yes, I hear you. You believe this artificiality of love interests is somehow more credible than that artificiality of love interests. I don't. You think the greater number of supposed LIs will benefit the game. I don't.

 

However, if you want to be nice, polite and constructive about the fact that we disagree then I can do that. But that would have to come from both sides.

 

First, let me say that when I wrote the first post I was in no way trying to be 'passive aggressive' in any way. I never said anyone with an opposing viewpoint was bitter. That's insane. What I said was someone who can't romance someone else would be, understandably, bitter. It was a word that came to mind that I didn't really think about. I misspoke, I admit that.

 

"Great! I'm so glad we have that established. More 'real' in a universe of dragons, fireballs, and other Tolkien knock-offs. Sure." This came across to me, also, as passive aggressive kind of sarcasm that was meant to provoke.Tone is incredibly difficult to get across through text, I understand that. 

 

If I'm wrong in any interpretation of your words, then that's on me. But explain that I misunderstood you. And I wasn't trying to take any high ground. I was trying to say that we can disagree and talk about something without passive aggressive sarcasm which is often times taken completely wrong and can lead to unwarranted fights. But if that's just how you speak, then so be it. Learning that is part of meeting new people! 

 

I'm just curious, how is more LIs a bad thing? 

[The Uncanny]

"Great! I'm so glad we have that established. More 'real' in a universe of dragons, fireballs, and other Tolkien knock-offs. Sure." This came across to me, also, as passive aggressive kind of sarcasm that was meant to provoke.

 

Oh, it was! I'm a fight-fire-with-fire kind of girl. 

 

I acknowledge the smidge of an overreaction on my part, however. (Hey, take it while you can get it. Ask anyone around here who knows me: this does not happen often.  )

 

 

I'm just curious, how is more LIs a bad thing? 

 

That is a good question.

 

On the surface of it, it isn't. At least that is what I thought ahead of ME3.

 

Then I played ME3.

 

Now I think it is potentially catastrophic. 

 

I don't know what the perfect balance is. I suspect none of us do. All I can say is that I thought at the time and I still think that DA2 had the balance right. Now I'll admit that execution could have been better... but I liked the balance.

 

Perhaps DAI will prove me wrong. Perhaps they can juggle all these characters, make it work and satisfy everyone.

 

I hope so, actually.

 

I'm just sceptical. (To say the least.) But what the hell do I know? I'm an old, over-reacting, short-tempered, passive-aggressive b!tch who has been having these arguments - or variations on a theme - for waaay too long. 

[AlexWk31]

Oh, it was! I'm a fight-fire-with-fire kind of girl. 

 

I acknowledge the smidge of an overreaction on my part, however. (Hey, take it while you can get it. Ask anyone around here who knows me: this does not happen often.  )

 

 

 

That is a good question.

 

On the surface of it, it isn't. At least that is what I thought ahead of ME3.

 

Then I played ME3.

 

Now I think it is potentially catastrophic. 

 

I don't know what the perfect balance is. I suspect none of us do. All I can say is that I thought at the time and I still think that DA2 had the balance right. Now I'll admit that execution could have been better... but I liked the balance.

 

Perhaps DAI will prove me wrong. Perhaps they can juggle all these characters, make it work and satisfy everyone.

 

I hope so, actually.

 

I'm just sceptical. (To say the least.) But what the hell do I know? I'm an old, over-reacting, short-tempered, passive-aggressive b!tch who has been having these arguments - or variations on a theme - for waaay too long. 

 

"Fight-fire-with-fire" That's an admirable trait to have, imo! I wish I was more like that 

 

I actually understand the celibate thing, btw. ME3, while I appreciated the fact they added a gay character and allowed Kaiden to be romance-able I wasn't interested in either of them. It felt weird romancing Cortez pretty much after his husband was killed and Kaiden was just boring. But I tend to find the good of a bad situation, or at least attempt to, to make it easier but ME3 was just.. no. I got lucky in DA:O that I actually liked Zevran and in DA2 I liked Fenris. I loved the concept of everyone being in the same boat. Everyone gets the same amount of LI, whether you're gay or straight or somewhere in between. 

 

I think I have high hopes because I trust the DA team. I've had two games of "romance trust" built up!   I know a lot of people don't so I hope they hit it out of the park with this one. It looks fantastic! 

 

I hear calling yourself a short-tempered, passive-aggressive b!tch does incredible things for your self-esteem 

 

So, do you think romances are worth these arguments? 

[The Uncanny]

"Fight-fire-with-fire" That's an admirable trait to have, imo! I wish I was more like that 

 

Oh! Believe me, don't. My capacity for red-mist venting allied to my venomous short-temper is pretty much exactly why I don't post on the forums any more. 

 

 

I hear calling yourself a short-tempered, passive-aggressive b!tch does incredible things for your self-esteem 

 

My disarming honesty is great for suckering people in before I hit them with the psyche! 

 

 

So, do you think romances are worth these arguments? 

 

Actually, I do.

 

There has been a lot spoken and written about 'maturity' in video games. Let me say this: any conversation comparing gaming to Hollywood forgets one thing. When it comes to issues of sex, sexuality, love, passion, relationships, and so on which are issues that a 'mature' form entertainment would be required to deal with, gaming still has the 'maturity' of a sniggering twelve year old boy.

 

So I do think we need to see this kind of content. I think we need to see more of it. But I also think we need to question it, push it, examine it, tear it down and build it up. And I think we need to do that both to examine the context and both why it is there and what effect it has AND so that we learn from it and strive to do better on the next pass.

[AlexWk31]

Actually, I do.

 

There has been a lot spoken and written about 'maturity' in video games. Let me say this: any conversation comparing gaming to Hollywood forgets one thing. When it comes to issues of sex, sexuality, love, passion, relationships, and so on which are issues that a 'mature' form entertainment would be required to deal with, gaming still has the 'maturity' of a sniggering twelve year old boy.

 

So I do think we need to see this kind of content. I think we need to see more of it. But I also think we need to question it, push it, examine it, tear it down and build it up. And I think we need to do that both to examine the context and both why it is there and what effect it has AND so that we learn from it and strive to do better on the next pass.

 

 

 

I read recently something that really made sense. The reason gaming has that twelve year old maturity, while not entirely their fault, is due to game developers making games that treat us as such. The ideology that gaming is a male-centric medium is due to the fact that 9.99999 times out of ten a game stars a middle-aged, straight, white man. As an industry, we've been bombarded with game after game that engrains that mentality. Meanwhile, 48% of gamers are women.

 

Games are also a more intimate than tv or movies, or even books. In games like Dragon Age and Mass Effect or Skyrim, any RPG where you can create a character, you're basically playing a digital you in a way! At least I am. You bring your own prejudices, your own morals into that world. 

 

Do you think adding that optional content, as romances tend to be, will do anything to advance a progressive mentality? Or is it simply having a diverse cast of characters- women, LGBT folks, racial minorities, etc. I mean, I think it's all about exposure and disassembling the preconceived thoughts we have about different people. 

 

I've seen a lot of people in the past saying they actively avoid characters like that given the choice, or even want to kill them. Is there a fix? I like what Bioware and many other companies have done. Looked the discrimination from their, albeit a small minority, disgruntled fans in the eyes and saying "This is what we're doing. Get over it." 

 

Now that the next-gen has finally started, do you think we'll see more diverse games? E3 was kind of a bust for female representation 

[twincast]

Truth be told, I find that I don't actually care that much about romances for my player characters after all. (Although I'm still somewhat pissed that the other options for female Bhaalspawn didn't get finished.) What I truly care about however are prominent (so Herren and Wade don't cut it by any means) male homosexuals, preferably as unavoidable (In your face, haters!) companion characters. If they're romanceable, great. If not, no problem either, as long as I (or rather my gay PCs) get as many (or as few) options as everyone else who doesn't swing both ways. I'm glad for every other corner of the queer spectrum getting coverage as well, but I'm unashamedly selfish enough that I'm not satisfied without a solid six on the Kinsey scale--at least until queer characters are finally as commonplace as they should be.

 

That said, half--or rather two thirds(!), only counting the main ones--of your companions "coincidentally" having the hots for you regardless of almost anything remains ridiculous, so I am very much in favour of the change. If my main Inquisitor doesn't get to romance who I'd want for him, bummer, but such is life. (In DA2 I actually enjoyed playing Cupid for Aveline way more than any of Hawke's groupies*, so I'd totally be up for more of that sort of thing.)

 

*To clarify: For the most part I liked them as characters, but I didn't enjoy any of the romances much.

[The Uncanny]

 

That said, half--or rather two thirds(!), only counting the main ones--of your companions "coincidentally" having the hots for you regardless of almost anything remains ridiculous.

 

Absolutely.

 

Unlike fireballs. Or giant spiders. Or magic boots. Or Isabela's gravity defying cleavage.

 

Actually forget that last one. I'm happy to accept the ridiculousness of that last one.

[The Uncanny]

 

Do you think adding that optional content, as romances tend to be, will do anything to advance a progressive mentality? Or is it simply having a diverse cast of characters- women, LGBT folks, racial minorities, etc. I mean, I think it's all about exposure and disassembling the preconceived thoughts we have about different people.

 

It's a very reasonable question.

 

I don't believe that culture taken en masse changes in seismic shifts (or at least not in the social media age) so waking up tomorrow expecting everyone to act differently on the basis of a videogame is inherently absurd.

 

That said, I think culture and, perhaps more crucially, specific branches of culture can evolve significantly over time. Look at the post-punk movement which took on increasingly fascistic overtones in the 80s until the musicians and the fans pushed back against it until these people were effectively disenfranchised and marginalised.

 

The abuse Anita Sarkeesian has been subjected to is eye-watering but, to her credit, she hasn't run from it. She's continued with her message and people who have been willing to listen have heard it. That's brave and that has the potential to change things. Maybe the incremental shift is (or will be) hard to see. But I'm certain it is (or will be) there.