168 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

Thus exactly why I am pissed off. Screw having people like me represented in games I guess. 

 

I'm blind to the representation of sexual ambiguity.  I've done a little bit of exploration and have learned about things like demisexuality, pansexuality, and so forth.

 

As such, can you help explain and provide some context towards the orientation of ambiguously sexual.  My lack of experience has trouble differentiating it from someone that simply doesn't advertise their sexuality, but could still identify as pan/bi/straight/gay/etc.

 

 

EDIT: I just saw someone else asked this, so I'll continue reading the thread.

[Allan Schumacher]

But the praised "gay man would get more time time around at the expense of straight men" also means it's a at the expense of lesbian women, how on earth is that a good thing ?

 

Because we're talking in hypotheticals about whether or not it's all "just equality" and whether or not it is or is not the same in terms of fairness.

 

I'm also biased and see the situation as being so lopsided towards one grouping.  How do we define a "good thing?"  Is it good that we're precisely even in the distributions?  Then I guess we could cut the unannounced romance options since we're currently sitting at 2/2/2, and just make sure that no race gating exists.

 

Is cutting content "good?"  What is good though?  I fully expect that there's going to be people that are hella pissed off no matter how the 2 remaining love interests fall.  Even if they were bisexual, because there's still going to be people that are upset because they're not getting the love interest that they want.

[Allan Schumacher]

To be honest, even when talking about gay men, it's always about gay white men, just look at all the TV shows and movies featuring gay characters. That is why Dorian is very refreshing because he don't look "white" in your typical sense. I would want to see more LIs that are not white by default in general.

 

For sure.  There's still issues of intersectionality that we'll still need to continue working on trying to improve.

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm sorry but I disagree, I understand, but I disagree.

You see the only way to defeat inequality is not by giving the oppressed more privileges than the oppressors, even though the oppressed do deserve better, but by giving everyone the same treatment. But that's just me

 

Well it's a fundamental difference.  For me, equality is in aggregate and if equality exists, then case by cases bases where one game happens to provide a particular orientation more choice are not even topics of discussion because on the whole in their gaming experiences, no group feels marginalized.

[Allan Schumacher]

it's different from bisexuality where there is a certainty of being attracted to both male and female, whereas with ambiguous sexuality, there's no certainity, probably not even at all, and you're only sure of just how you feel when you develop a close and intimate relationship with someone who just... "clicks" with you.

 

Asexuals, the know they attracted to neither gender. Heterosexuals know they are attracted to the opposite gender. Homosexuals know they are attracted to the same gender. Bisexuals know they are attracted to either gender. 

 

Sexually ambiguous on the other hand, don't have that. As knight_mage_rogue put very well: with ambiguous sexuality, there's no certainity, probably not even at all, and you're only sure of just how you feel when you develop a close and intimate relationship with someone who just... "clicks" with you.

 

I know asexuals that are attracted to people though.  They don't consider themselves aromantic (I see you've acknowledged this already).

 

Is yours analogous to demisexual?  I mean, I identify as a heterosexual, but there's no certainty that I'll be romantically or sexually attracted to any particular woman.  But demisexuals can still identify as demi-heterosexual if they choose to, for example, so I'm still not sure if it's the same thing and hence my requests for clarification

 

Most of my learning has come from places like AVENwiki which doesn't cover a sexual ambiguous trait, which could be an omission on their part, but it's the principal reason why I struggle to understand because it's the first I've seen someone describe their sexual orientation as sexually ambiguous.

[Allan Schumacher]

A choice does not mean more than 1.

 

Unless they said more than one?

 

1 is not really a choice.

 

Selecting your race will not restrict you to only one possible romance.

[Allan Schumacher]

I don't think it's fair to say that it lacks perspective.

 

Many men felt the #YesAllWomen wasn't fair either. I consider it precisely because they lacked the perspective.
 

I just try to think of players as individuals rather than groups. Some people will be coming in having played every Bioware game to date, others will be coming in fresh. 
 
Those coming in fresh will have never experienced having less options or having more options. If a straight players comes in to Inquisition having never played a Bioware game before and finds they have less options then they would be just as entitled to be upset as gay people who went into Mass Effect 3 and found they had less options. It's easy to say that the group always got more, but not all of that group necessarily played the games or experienced having more.

Unless they're completely new to gaming, I don't find the "coming in fresh" argument all that meaningful. They'd have to be completely devoid of other exposure to romantic distribution in games (and maybe even all media consumption).  Given that our games do not exist in a cultural vacuum, the only way I could see a straight male feeling "entitled to be upset" because they have a personal experience of being consistently denied opportunities to consume positive content that depicts heterosexual relationships while being exposed to primarily other forms of romantic experiences.

 

This is what the concept of (male) heterosexual privilege is, because in my experiences it's only an issue once they see the consequences, and then suddenly it's an issue of "all equal all the time."  The thing is, I'm not actually against any particular orientation occasionally having additional options because sometimes things just work out that way.  But there's a caveat, and that's examining whether or not it's reinforcing particularly problematic viewpoints.  So yes, if it were up to me (and it's not) I'd be predisposed against giving straight males additional romance options over other ones simply because others haven't benefited as much from some extra focus.  And I have no problems with some people occasionally getting additional stuff sometimes not as a form of pandering, but because we think that that can make for an interesting narrative.

 

And although it's walking on thin ice, you also get to the whole demographics thing. There are more straight players than gay players, so a larger number of people have less options than in the other games. A larger number of new players will have come in and been faced with less options than in any other game with uneven LI distributions. 
 
It's just... messy trying to decide what's right and what's not. It's why I take my admittedly black-and-white stance that no one group having less options is better than another group having less options.

The demographics argument is irrelevant to me because the existence of LGBT content doesn't preclude straight gamers from still consuming that content and enjoying it. As such, I don't consider it to be excluding straight gamers.  At this point I'm almost at the point of doing a lets play of our games as LGBT characters just to prove this point....

If it bothers a straight male, then yes I think that that straight male lacks perspective for why it's not actually equivalent when examined beyond the scope of a single game that isn't built in a vacuum.

[Allan Schumacher]

I meant within f/m constraints. I should've clarified to be fair.

 

I know. But will it restrict me to one f/m romance is my question? If the answer to that is no I will celebrate.

 

I was being universal.  No matter what type of character you wish to play (within the confines that we tend to, for better or worse, adhere to a binary gender convention) choosing your race will not deny you choices.

 

 

EDIT: At least I'm 99% sure this is the case (it wasn't always).... I'll need to confirm.

[Allan Schumacher]

This is one of the things about this that I always struggle to really "get" though. I find it hard to see "gay players not getting romance options" as a prominent thing, because so few games even have romance content at all. The only AAA games with romance options I've played personally outside of Bioware are by either Obsidian and Bethesda, and I'd say that at least half if not more of them had m/m options, and even more had at least one f/f option.

 

It's not just interactive romance content though. But I mean, BioWare's first game with romances had 3 women for straight guys, 1 (annoying) man for straight women. It wasn't until Dragon Age: Origins that we explored this more thoroughly and openly.

Ignoring this, there's other games that still have romantic connotations. Alyx and Gordon Freeman from Half-Life. Mario and Peach.  Uncharted has Nathan Drake have sex with women.  David Cage's games have featured heterosexual love scenes.  Tamagotchi Life doesn't allow gay relationships.  Max Payne goes crazy because he lost his wife.  My compile just finished so I have to stop, but I bet I could go on for a very long time pointing out video games that have you play heterosexual characters just from memory while the number of games that I can think of by memory where I can play a gay man.... all still provide the choice to be heterosexual (i.e. RPGs that have customizable protagonists).

[Allan Schumacher]

And straight men had two and straight women had two. What's the point here? Two being a vast increase over one? It is only a supposed issue when you consider the greater picture of the game having four LIs total and options for gay players. Plus a brothel.

 

The point is often more "you were given some choice" compared to "this is your option and I hope you like it."

 

A brothel is a sexual encounter, not a romance.

[Allan Schumacher]

Part of why I don't see much of an issue with Bioware games is because the first post-puberty Bioware game I played was Origins. I had played Neverwinter Nights and KOTOR as a child but didn't really "get" the romance stuff at that point (other than some vague memories of finding the brothel in Neverwinter Nights, finding it hilarious, and then being slightly disappointed that the male guy kept telling me to go to the women, who I'd already spoken to. God knows how old I was then). Since So my experience is mostly with 'modern' Bioware.

 

It's partly why I don't count games like Baulders gate or Balders gate 2. Some of Inquisitions playerbase won't even have been born when Balders Gate one was realeased. Heck, I just turned 20 and I was too young to play them when they came out. So using them as an argument for things now seems a bit of a stretch. Mass Effect I can understand more.

 

That's fine, but recognize that you're ignoring and erasing other people's experiences.  Which is, in my opinion, a lack of perspective.  Many many MANY will still be fans of us that have played all of our games, and I won't ignore them because a younger crowd may not have played the earlier games.  Especially since I'd wager that a lot of our fans are reasonably old.  I'm 33 now, and BioWare games are still very much the style of games I want to play.

 

 

I don't count games with fixed straight protagonists, because those aren't really options.

 

They ARE options.  To borrow my mathematical brain, it's just a simpler case:  You typically have 1 option for hetero, and 0 options for gay - so it still satisfies the criteria.  There's nothing stopping game developers from making more games that have more varied sexual orientations, which in and of itself is an option that so few people actually take.

 

 

Because as you say, they are fixed protagonists, which is why I do not feel that "perfectly even distribution" is what we need for equality.  We need for equality to exist in aggregate, across the entire game industry (and well, other places too).

[Allan Schumacher]

And more often than not it's all the same, but regardless, when the subject boils down to "who gets what" it looks a lot like the former as opposed to the latter.

 

I'd argue that the romance content is more than just some sex scene at the end (especially with a game like DA2).  I'd also wager that many would still enjoy the romances if sex wasn't something that really came up in them.

[Allan Schumacher]

Characters like the prostitutes in Grand Theft auto maybe, but I can't see princess peach or Zelda as romance options. 

 

Then I think your perspective still needs to grow.  They are heterosexual love interests for the protagonist of video games.  And they are everywhere.

 

They may not be a choice that the player can make, but that doesn't mean they are exempt from contributing to "heterosexuals get the love stories, others do not" images.

[Allan Schumacher]

Well, randomly choose is the approach ignoring everything else, focusing just on LI numbers. The more grounded one is that they give the characters sexualities when they are first created and then assign the extra LI's based on those characters pre-determined sexualities, without worrying about which demographic gets them as a result. 

 

Ideally we're picking the romance options because they are interesting, and we're at a point in society where we're just innately less discriminatory in how we pick them that we'll just be creating them without having to give any second thought because our natural biases have eroded enough to the point that we're not inadvertently marginalizing any particular group over the course of our games (and all games).

 

We're not there at this time, though.  And if the group that typically gets the content is still saying "wait it's not fair for me to get less for this one game" then I consider that a measuring stick that we're still not there and have to keep going.

[Allan Schumacher]

I am really sick and tired of this myth that the video game industry is homophobic or sexist. I'm sure there are those out there claiming it's racist too. Not only is it false but to label the entire industry as such is downright insulting. Companies focus on certain markets and not seeing content suited to your own preferences simply does not equal bigotry.

I cannot comprehend the lengths some here are going to defend the double standard of "it's not okay to have more straight than gay options, but the reverse would be okay". It pure and simply a double standard and there is nothing to be respected about such a thing.

 

 

That you see THIS as a double standard, but not the historic, long running double standard that has existed and continues to exist, is a large part of the problem.

 

There's two double standards here, but one of them is a consequence of the other.  Fix the one, and the other goes away.

[Allan Schumacher]

Hi Allan, I think it is wishful thinking to assume that the playing field will be level everywhere. IMHO it is better to be realistic and set realistic expectations accordingly. How long ago was segregation as an example outlawed, but even today it still exists. The video game industry is after all in the business to ultimately make money, and it is becoming harder to find games that are not generic. What's my point: don't compromise the quality of games. Some crusades end in martyrdom, and there is no victory.

 

This just reinforces the problem.  It's privileged and advantaged to say "lets just set realistic expectations."  It does nothing to weaken my resolve in this matter, however (it probably strengthens it).  While I won't disagree that, sadly, it's wishful thinking to assume that people can actually be respectful to each other, that doesn't mean I'll stop advocating for it.

 

My statement, however, indicated the word "ideally."  I recognize it's an ideal.

 

If you think that this undermines the quality of the games, then you're telling me that you feel the existence of LGBT content is a problem, and with the implied threat of "no victory" (i.e. our financial ruin), then the reality is that if you don't advocate as well, your inaction and willingness to defer to the status quo will have allowed a game company that you presumably enjoy go out of business because of things like sexism and homophobia.  Because doing nothing is the same as siding with the privileged.

 

 

(it should be noted that I don't believe us seeking to be inclusive will be bad for us, but I guess time will tell)

[Allan Schumacher]

I just hope the writers shared the same sentiments that he expressed in his most recent posts when mapping out the LI's.

 

I just want everyone to have the same number of options this time around, which is why I want the last two LI's to be a bisexual Vivienne and a bisexual guy (hoping for Blackwall or Solas).

 

Well, to be fair, my privilege is that I have a better understanding of "straight man getting more the others" as opposed to say, something like "straight women get more than gay women" and other forms of intersectionality (which I am only just recently learning about).

 

So I'm probably more prone to think that one way of doing things is better, while it may not necessarily be as good (or even better) from a different perspective that comes from different experiences.

 

 

I'm not really against the idea of having some people get more romances - but have a bias against giving those bonus romances towards straight men at this point if that were to happen, because I think there's a strong legacy of straight men having the most representation.  That said, I'm reasonably certain that some would still be upset if it were straight women, or gay men, or gay women, that came out on top because of intersectional reasons.

 

Just wanted to be clearer on that particular point as I feel that's where the conversation had gone.

[Allan Schumacher]

They did say that they prefer having set sexualities. Them doing the ambiguity in DA2 was just since they had only 4 romances to work with. And some people's reactions to it sure seemed to turn them off to the idea of doing that again. 

 

I value representation more than those that were upset because of "realism" or anything like that.  I'm more concerned with people saying "I like to see people like me because I rarely do" and was able to make the connection of going "yes, I can understand that and it seems pretty clear."

 

I used to be more keen on "playersexuality" and the notion of the characters were "ambiguous" in the sense that, from the outside looking in we couldn't definitively state that a character was a particular orientation.  Until I learned that bisexuals (and perhaps bisexuals) have to battle that all the time.  Stuff like that, (coupled with my own frustration towards those that would always decry how unrealistic it was) made me reevaluate.  I made a choice to refer to them as bisexuals because there's a valid case that any of the companions can be shown as being attracted to either men or women.  (Someone like Maria can probably recall that I used to speak more for the other side, as I remember her pointing out that my original defenses of metagaming weren't really applicable).

 

So when I say that I moved away from referring to Merril (or Fenris) as "ambiguous" it was more from the outside perspective (Allan can look at Merril and say she is gay, straight, or bisexual), as opposed to any concept of "Merril is uncertain/unclear of her own sexual orientation." 

 

 

In the context of DA2's romances, there was a very even split between who would like something like that and who preferred not to, when discussing LGBTQ content at PAX Prime.

 

Before this thread, the concept of someone with your sexuality was foreign to me.  Like, entirely oblivious.  And it was reinforced because my mind kept trying to put you somewhere else. (i.e. maybe they're pansexual and gender is irrelevant... maybe they're demisexual because you need that deep connection... although can't demisexuals still have preference!?  I don't know!!! System crash: CONFUSED!!!).  I still struggle with things like non-binary gender because in my past 30+ years, that was all there was to me.

 

 

Hopefully that can help provide some context!

[Allan Schumacher]

There is only ONE double standard here and that is the one you are defending. In the real world gays represent about 5% of the population perhaps? Yet you seem to expect an unrealistic proportion of content to be made to specifically appeal to that piece of the market. That's not accurate representation. That's not some sort of achievement. Of course you're going to have to lower your expectations when those expectations aren't grounded in reality. That's life for everybody. But I suppose you'll just claim I have "straight privilege" or "white privilege" or some other nonsense. One moment you'd speak of "respect" and in the next you'd dismiss other viewpoints as "privileged". Do you think those in question have never had to work for a living, never had to deal with any challenges, are less worthy than others? That is nothing short of arrogance as is this entire postmodern use of the concept of "privilege".

 

Just so I'm clear here, you think that society at large treats LGBT people equivalently to people like you and me, and that neither group is the victim of systemic, targeted attacks based on their sexuality.  I'm less aware of people being murdered or picked on because they are straight. 

 

 

Further, as a straight person, there's nothing stopping me from still wanting to play LGBT content.  About 15% of the people pick evil choices, yet we still try to give more than 15% evil choices in our game, so the demographics argument is a red herring and irrelevant.  Unless your argument is that we shouldn't be very fair towards them either.

 

If you consider the term privilege to be disrespectful, then why isn't it for me?  I'm a straight white guy and I can recognize "by being straight, white, and a male, I am granted some opportunity and have the benefits of a legacy in North America where myself, and my family, are not overcoming issues with systemic discrimination based on the fact that I am white, straight, or a man.  Particularly in North America.

 

 

Sure, people have to work for a living, and presumably work hard.  I've never said anything like that, but you misunderstand the term privilege.  It doesn't mean "life is as easy as can be with no challenge."  It if I take the challenges that I have in life, there's a greater chance that I'd have had to face additional challenges on top of that if I wasn't a straight, white person.  It doesn't mean that life is as easy as can be for me.  It means though, if I get pulled over by a police officer the odds are I can get away with a warning more easily.  It means that if I get stopped for a "random" check at customs, there's likely a very clear reason why (i.e. I filled out my declaration incorrectly).  Heck, if I forgot something and went running in an airport... people aren't going to blink an eye.  It means that my dad's parents didn't have to worry about their property being devalued simply because a non-white person moved in as a neighbour, meaning that when my grandma died, there was a bit more inheritance money that went to my parents to take care of their debt, and as such my inheritance will be a bit better because my parents will have more equity when they die.  All because they don't have a legacy of having to deal with the implicit racism that would devalue their property because some racists felt that a black person living in their neighbourhood was undesirable.  This is the type of thing that makes "I'm sure he's a nice person" types implicitly racist, because they also see "But I just lost a few thousand dollars of equity because he moved in beside me!"

 

 

 

Note that this doesn't make me feel like I should feel guilty.  But I do think that I should feel aware, and make a conscious effort to enable the benefits that I am able to enjoy across all people.  But hey, that makes me "arrogant" in your terms, so there's that I guess?

[Allan Schumacher]

My opinion is that straight women getting more options is only extremely marginally better than straight men getting more options. Straight romance, generally, is ingrained in almost all media and straight women have gotten substantially more options in nearly every Bioware game. To me, there's almost no difference. 

 

I can understand that, and it's the type of thing that I trip up on (the idea that all people asking for more all want the same thing more).

 

Or that sometimes things are not even in direct alignment.  A white woman looking at Uhura with Spock as though "Nooo, she's giving up her strong womanly independence."  While a black woman looking at Uhura with no Spock may see it as as "By virtue of being black, you're not worthy of being in a relationship with these white looking men."

 

 

So yeah, we're still going to make mistakes because some of these perspectives are things we don't realize.  Many of these different perspectives I've only learned in the past couple of months.  And people might get upset about it (and they probably will) so it'll be about reconciling that, improving perspective, and iterating on our efforts to do better.

[Allan Schumacher]

Yes I do think that modern western society does generally treat gay/lesbians equally under the law. And it is the law which matters, not individual acts or the opinions of some in society. Every day innocent people are killed for countless different "reasons", yet one death isn't more tragic than another based on the reason. A gay kid being picked on is no worse a problem than a straight kid being picked on. What point are you trying to make here? That the straight should be thankful they're not gay? That the world is unfair? All that can be done is that equal treatment under the law.

 

You've moved the goalposts and dodged the question.  I'm making the point that LGBT people are picked on BECAUSE they are LGBT.  The law is one aspect of how people behave, and it has little to do with experiencing content in video games.

 

To leverage your example: do you think that a gay kid is more likely to be picked on for being gay than a straight kid is for being straight?

 

Before I continue, I need to see an answer for this question.

 

 

EDIT:

I can't help but see arrogance when many of your posts have themes along the lines of "I don't think this individual recognizes their own privilege" or "maybe if they weren't so privileged they'd have a different view." Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't, maybe the sun will explode tomorrow, who can say? But the question of their supposed privilege is irrelevant and detrimental to honest discussion.

 

You're not interested in an honest discussion in retrospect.  You've already shown that you're willing to shift the goalposts and apply arbitrary definitions to frame questions in evasive ways.  So moving on.

[Allan Schumacher]

This thread took a turn for the very hilarious.  (Thanks)

[Allan Schumacher]

_{Must stay SFW.  Must not go for obvious jokes about eating our companions in a romance thread....}

 

Time to test your skill with varying innuendeo and (not so)subtle references? >.>

 

 

EDIT: Post mostly in jest.  If you have concerns about it being flagged, probably best not too.  I don't mean to be an enabler

[Allan Schumacher]

This is a lie, and you know it .

If someone were to actually post something that got them in trouble, I'd actually feel pretty bad!

[Allan Schumacher]

If I encouraged someone to do something (even in jest) and they got in trouble for it, I'd feel guilty.

Important public notice: Even though I joke about eating people, you shouldn't really do so. People are not a food source.

 

More for yourself then eh?  Well played.