Ce sujet est fermé
One of the other problems with relying on authorial intent is that what the author says the intent is can change over time. Their own interpretation of the characters and situations shifts just as easily as a fan's does.
I think I can agree with such reason and justification.
I understand that there are people with sexualities that don't fit cleanly into gay, bi or straight (mine doesn't either!), but leaving a character 'ambiguous' is leaving them undefined, is leaving it open for straight people to argue that I'm wrong when I experience a character as queer. And I'm tired of fighting with straight people over whether a character in media is straight or not. It's TIRING. There's a reason I play Dragon Age games and a reason I've stopped watching shows like Supernatural and Teen Wolf, which love to leave the sexualities of their characters ambiguous to "appeal to" (really, tease) their queer fans without having to commit to real representation and scare away their more conservative fans. I HATE that. I'm sick of it.
That's why I'm happy that Bioware has decided to be explicit with identifying the sexuality of their characters right now. Maybe some day, there will be so many LGBT characters on TV and in games that leaving some of them ambiguous won't be harmful, but that day isn't here yet and for all intents and purposes, "ambiguous" just means "I can argue that the character is straight and tell LGBT people that they're wrong".
But that's the point, Merrill wasn't sexually ambiguous. Not how you seem to define it, anyway.
Merrill's sexuality was unclear from an outside-looking-in perspective. She could be anything in the sense that the player could perceive her as anything, just as you perceived her having a sexuality similar to yours. This doesn't mean she actually had a sexuality similar to yours, any more than me looking at her and thinking she was bisexual made her have a sexuality similar to mine.
She was never a representation of the sexuality you perceived her to be. Not any more than she was a representation of a straight or gay character.
And that's why I view the ambiguity as a problem. You perceived her as something that she was not intended to be, and it clearly made you upset when the Developers said that she was not how you perceived her to be. I have no issue with a character with the sexuality you want appearing in game, so long as the character makes it clear that they have that sexuality. I just don't want more characters who never talk about their sexuality at all, leave it unclear, and don't represent anything.
She was the closest I ever got and will ever get. So why couldn't they have just left it alone? Even if it was a delusion, at least I had something. Now I never will.
No worries, but may I ask what you thought I meant? I'm mostly trying to stay out of this debate, because folks on both sides have been articulating my thoughts better than I could. I'm trying to read and learn as we go.
I thought you meant that because he didn't like the word playersexual the concept behind it never existed in DAII.
I don't agree with this , some people don't talk about their sexuality , I've met a lot of people I have no idea if they are single , in couple , gay , straight , bisexual etc...
And I don't care.
I'm fine with having companions who just don't get into details about their private life.
I feel that way with most characters in the game, but not with the LI's. Either the LI's are available to both genders or they are limited to one, in which case their sexuality is already being broadcast to the player. In this case it's better for the developers to just write them with a particular sexuality in mind and express that in the game.
If I can ask, who are you talking about in Supernatural?I understand that there are people with sexualities that don't fit cleanly into gay, bi or straight (mine doesn't either!), but leaving a character 'ambiguous' is leaving them undefined, is leaving it open for straight people to argue that I'm wrong when I experience a character as queer. And I'm tired of fighting with straight people over whether a character in media is straight or not. It's TIRING. There's a reason I play Dragon Age games and a reason I've stopped watching shows like Supernatural and Teen Wolf, which love to leave the sexualities of their characters ambiguous to "appeal to" (really, tease) their queer fans without having to commit to real representation and scare away their more conservative fans. I HATE that. I'm sick of it.
That's why I'm happy that Bioware has decided to be explicit with identifying the sexuality of their characters right now. Maybe some day, there will be so many LGBT characters on TV and in games that leaving some of them ambiguous won't be harmful, but that day isn't here yet and "ambiguous" just means "I can argue that the character is straight and tell LGBT people that they're wrong".
I understand that there are people with sexualities that don't fit cleanly into gay, bi or straight (mine doesn't either!), but leaving a character 'ambiguous' is leaving them undefined, is leaving it open for straight people to argue that I'm wrong when I experience a character as queer. And I'm tired of fighting with straight people over whether a character in media is straight or not. It's TIRING. There's a reason I play Dragon Age games and a reason I've stopped watching shows like Supernatural and Teen Wolf, which love to leave the sexualities of their characters ambiguous to "appeal to" (really, tease) their queer fans without having to commit to real representation and scare away their more conservative fans. I HATE that. I'm sick of it.
That's why I'm happy that Bioware has decided to be explicit with identifying the sexuality of their characters right now. Maybe some day, there will be so many LGBT characters on TV and in games that leaving some of them ambiguous won't be harmful, but that day isn't here yet and "ambiguous" just means "I can argue that the character is straight and tell LGBT people that they're wrong".
Yep, set sexualities is better for representation.
I understand that there are people with sexualities that don't fit cleanly into gay, bi or straight (mine doesn't either!), but leaving a character 'ambiguous' is leaving them undefined, is leaving it open for straight people to argue that I'm wrong when I experience a character as queer. And I'm tired of fighting with straight people over whether a character in media is straight or not. It's TIRING. There's a reason I play Dragon Age games and a reason I've stopped watching shows like Supernatural and Teen Wolf, which love to leave the sexualities of their characters ambiguous to "appeal to" (really, tease) their queer fans without having to commit to real representation and scare away their more conservative fans. I HATE that. I'm sick of it.
That's why I'm happy that Bioware has decided to be explicit with identifying the sexuality of their characters right now. Maybe some day, there will be so many LGBT characters on TV and in games that leaving some of them ambiguous won't be harmful, but that day isn't here yet and "ambiguous" just means "I can argue that the character is straight and tell LGBT people that they're wrong".
Exactly. I know that there are people in real life who don't talk about their sexuality much (hell, I'm one of them) but 9 times out of 10 when it happens in fiction it is not trying to represent people who don't talk about their sexuality much, It's just keeping it ambiguous because they don't want viewers who dislike that sort of stuff to be put off.
And again, this Thread teached me about some Sort of Sexuality that I didn't know existed.
I'm pretty sure that in this Thread alone, more sorts of Sexuality have been mentioned than LIs exist in DAI.
That made me wonder - do People expect BioWare to present everyone of them Representation? or is it more of wishful thinking that their Sexuality is one of the ones that get Representation?
I don't really have a Clue about that, because I'm boring enough not to care (also, because as that stereotypical straight guy, I can't think of any Instance, where there wasn#t something for me. Maybe I'm too spoiled.)
Aha. I heard of this type of sexuality, honestly though our community seems to be coming up with new labels each year, it is hard to keep up. Maybe I should check into tumblr, then I will be on top of it! 
As for your question honestly, wishful thinking, expecting Bioware to cater for every sexual spectrum out there, that's cute but be realistic. They have already made huge steps for the LGBT gamer as it is, no-one else really caters for us like they have/do. I'm content with what we are being offered as it is but I know others will disagree and that's their prerogative.
I feel that way with most characters in the game, but not with the LI's. Either the LI's are available to both genders or they are limited to one, in which case their sexuality is already being broadcast to the player. In this case it's better for the developers to just write them with a particular sexuality in mind and express that in the game.
So pray tell, how would they write it so that we know they are my kind of sexuality.
If they write them as being available to one gender, they will be seen as just heterosexual or homosexual.
If they write them as being available to both genders, they will be seen as just bisexual.
In either case, not representing me.
So where should I be seeing the positives of the set sexuality system?
I thought you meant that because he didn't like the word playersexual the concept behind it never existed in DAII.
Unrelated question; is your avatar Andy Whitfield of Spartacus fame?
She was the closest I ever got and will ever get. So why couldn't they have just left it alone? Even if it was a delusion, at least I had something. Now I never will.
The same reason they had to tell the men who wanted to romance Sera that she was a lesbian, or the women who wanted to romance Cassandra that she was straight. People viewed the characters in a particular way, but that was not who they were.
It may be a harsh truth to face but there are so many different sexualities, ethnicities, and so on that Bioware will never be able to represent them all in their games. Getting angry at them and sending them angry messages about Merrill not being what you wanted her to be won't get you the representation you want.
I also don't believe in the word of god if it isn't reflected in the writting. The best example is J.K Rowling saying dumbledore was gay. I wish I could notice such thing in the books. My friend told me, and someone who told to my friend learned this on twitter. Mhh.
And I didn't take what said Gaider seriously to be honest and I liked what a fan said to him on his tumblr about that.
I would even have written much more. I like Gaider, but there he lost me. What he said doesn't mean much to me. It's Bioware that said that it's left to interpretation, not the players. And now he is saying that it's irrelevant, she is bisexual despite what people want to think a long time after the game. Nope. I'm sorry, but nope. Don't take us for fools.
I used to say the same thing until I came to the conclusion that it was worse to consider them "playersexual" because I was oblivious to the concepts of such things like bisexual erasure, so I ended up referring to them explicitly as bisexual.
I also changed my mind on this because of the well thought out explanations posters on this board gave me regarding why things like metagaming need not apply when ascertaining whether or not a character is bisexual. Some of those posters post in this thread and the other threads.
One of the most compelling ones was the reality that bisexual people shared with me, which is that simply because they do not outwardly display attraction to both sexes (often due to being in a relationship already) doesn't mean that a person is not bisexual. Couple this with the previous concerns above, and it became apparent to me that the way I framed it was wrong and that entertaining any notion of "playersexuality" was actually helping to contribute to the erasure of bisexuals. So I stopped, especially given the context of the game was enough for people to tell me that they identify the characters as bisexuals and I don't really have a compelling counterargument beyond "metagaming."
I don't believe in "owning" something that I no longer believe. Unless the critique is that David (and I suppose me) are trying to duck the accountability of our previous statements, which is a position that I don't agree with. If someone wishes to call me out on my prior statements being inappropriate and conducive towards erasure of sexual identity, I won't deny that I said it nor the validity of their interpretations of what I said. I can't speak for David though; you'll have to ask him if that's what he's doing.
Aha. I heard of this type of sexuality, honestly though our community seems to be coming up with new labels each year, it is hard to keep up. Maybe I should check into tumblr, then I will be on top of it!
As for your question honestly, wishful thinking, expecting Bioware to cater for every sexual spectrum out there, that's cute but be realistic. They have already made huge steps for the LGBT gamer as it is, no-one else really caters for us like they have/do. I'm content with what we are being offered as it is but I know others will disagree and that's their prerogative.
The thing about that is, if no asexuals had spoken up, they wouldn't have looked into it for an idea for romance. These different sexualities, for me, are more than just representation for romance of one orientation or another. This allows for new stories and new types of characters to be written, something that I think the writers love. Part of what makes these discussions so important is that it helps the writers to not just fall back on what's comfortable, or familiar. It gives the writers some new areas to explore and even can teach the player in the process.
Representation is romance is wonderful, but it can go far beyond sex or love. Think about the story potential in and of itself. That's part of what representation means to me. Not having to see the same archetypes over and over again because a writing team is willing to expand their horizons? I'll take it. 
The same reason they had to tell the men who wanted to romance Sera that she was a lesbian, or the women who wanted to romance Cassandra that she was straight. People viewed the characters in a particular way, but that was not who they were.
It may be a harsh truth to face but there are so many different sexualities, ethnicities, and so on that Bioware will never be able to represent them all in their games. Getting angry at them and sending them angry messages about Merrill not being what you wanted her to be won't get you the representation you want.
I never sent an angry message. 
I never sent an angry message.
I think Ian meant "they" in a general sense, not specifically towards you.
I feel like I'm probably jumping into the fire zone here, but I just want to say while I have no problem with wanting representation in the games, I do wonder what the final outcome would be. It could mean that more common sexuality types: Straight, Bi, Gay would be discarded in favor of more obscure ones, but it also could eventually lead into more rounded characters as well. It seems like a double edged sword, and personally I'm of the opinion that the writers should tell a story with interesting characters, and perhaps sexuality should be limited to functionality except in the case where it is important to the character's story (like Dorian's history with his family, for example).
I don't know, sometimes it feels like people just want to be offended and go out of their way to feel excluded. Though that's probably just the cynic in me.
Unrelated question; is your avatar Andy Whitfield of Spartacus fame?
Yes, I'm a fan of this actor. Too bad he died. It wasn't the same serie without him. 
So pray tell, how would they write it so that we know they are my kind of sexuality.
If they write them as being available to one gender, they will be seen as just heterosexual or homosexual.
If they write them as being available to both genders, they will be seen as just bisexual.
In either case, not representing me.
So where should I be seeing the positives of the set sexuality system?
Make them available to both, but add some dialogue or banter indicating that they view their sexuality as ambiguous internally.
I drafted a few banters to that effect but didn't post them because they were awful 
I never sent an angry message.
You were posting something about Bioware being idiots or something the other day, I can't remember exactly what it was. It was quite... heated though.
And I'm tired of fighting with straight people over whether a character in media is straight or not. It's TIRING. There's a reason I play Dragon Age games and a reason I've stopped watching shows like Supernatural and Teen Wolf, which love to leave the sexualities of their characters ambiguous to "appeal to" (really, tease) their queer fans without having to commit to real representation and scare away their more conservative fans. I HATE that. I'm sick of it.
That is the main reason why I do not ambiguity when it comes to portrayal, because visibility is a key part in representation. If it can't be visible, if it isn't shown and acknowledged, then it is easy to overlook or ignore or altogether straightwash. Queerbaiting -- the term used for purposely creating ambiguous relationships between people in tv and movie media, to purely lead (queer) fans on and get fandoms buzzing (think Supernatural, Teen Wolf, Hannibal, Sherlock, and on) -- is a very frustrating and often very harmful thing. It can become a taking advantage of people invested in queer relationships and representation, by people making content enough to keep these people interested, and to take their money, but yet not be willing to actually make real queer characters for real visibility and representation. It lingers in a limbo and is unsatisfying for many and for many reasons.
Not against representation of demisexuality or being specific person-sexual, or anything of the sort -- I want there to be representation. I'd just rather such concepts and characterization be shown and stated within the character for actual visibility and clarity.
So pray tell, how would they write it so that we know they are my kind of sexuality.
If they write them as being available to one gender, they will be seen as just heterosexual or homosexual.
If they write them as being available to both genders, they will be seen as just bisexual.
In either case, not representing me.
So where should I be seeing the positives of the set sexuality system?
I did have a question for you, if you don't mind me asking. If you wanted to see demisexuality represented correctly in a BW game (and romance,) how would you go about communicating this to the player character?
I don't mean this with any sarcasm or snark, but I was wondering how you (or anyone that isn't in the most known aspects of the LGBT spectrum,) would go about tastefully presenting the companion's sexuality while keeping representation clear? I've been curious about this for awhile now. 
Having conversations about characters is not metagaming, nor is basing your interpretation of a character on multiple playthroughs. Yesterday I saw a video of Morrigan and Leliana fighting over the (male) Warden. It added to my perception of who Leliana is because she displayed traits that were new to me.
Having official word is good, but what's better is having textual support. A demisexual character can talk about their sexuality. Representation should be more than projecting yourself on a character and hoping the author never gives their own opinion.
As for Leliana, if David said she was straight, people would reject his statement. She obviously is not. I don't need headcanon for Leliana to be bisexual. If Sasha needs headcanon for Merrill to be demisexual then she wasn't portrayed that way.
Metagaming is about the world outside the game itself too right? their sexualities do not have the same meaning in game and our definitions are not in the game itself, so this is what than? I can change my PT romance according to what the devs say about a character. I always saw this as metagaming when we talk about RP.
Strange that I have the same sensation with Merrill, that she is demisexuals. I head-canon it because the canon is supposedly bisexual but than again if the word of the author is so unimportant, why people want confirmation on sexuality so bad to being with???? The game will tell you?
I really do not think this works like that when it comes to sexuality. At least not to the full extent of it.
Make them available to both, but add some dialogue or banter indicating that they view their sexuality as ambiguous internally.
I drafted a few banters to that effect but didn't post them because they were awful
If they write them as being available to one gender, they will be seen as just heterosexual or homosexual.If they write them as being available to both genders, they will be seen as just bisexual.
In either case, not representing me.
I suppose it'd be more, does it seem like it's appropriate for you? There's likely going to be people that will assume you're heterosexual/bisexual/homosexual when viewed externally in real life too. People already called Merrill all sorts of other things before David referred to her as a bisexual. So why does it matter what other people would think with a future character?
Make them available to both, but add some dialogue or banter indicating that they view their sexuality as ambiguous internally.
I drafted a few banters to that effect but didn't post them because they were awful
You were posting something about Bioware being idiots or something the other day, I can't remember exactly what it was. It was quite... heated though.
That wasn't me. The meanest thing I ever said about this whole thing was David was a jerk for what he said in the interview, but later stated I don't mean to be mean to him.
Retour en haut