Ce sujet est fermé
Well, I don't know if any DLC would have temporary companions, but they confirmed that they aren't releasing full fledged party members with a DLC. Like what BW has done with Kasumi, Shale, Sebastian and Javik, as an example.
i am not against to having new full fledged companions and advisors in story dlc, i am against only day one dlc like Javic
I think I thought of a character it would work for.
The character is a Qunari(Male or female, though preferably female because a lot of people want that as an option) who had recently become Vashoth. By that I mean was raised in the Qun but escaped when old enough, but has no intention to really fight the Qun so isn't Tal-Vashoth. Since this character was raised by the Qun, they were taught the whole "no feelings, sex is only for reproduction" stuff and as such has never experienced anything that would qualify as romance in their life. They join the protagonist and start to feel this bound start to form with them that they had never experienced before, as well as the protagonist showing interest. Eventually the protagonist confronts them and something like Phate and Jade posted ensues.
I must be the only one on here who doesn't really mind sexual representation since I have had really nothing to say in this thread for almost 2 days straight lol I guess I just don't see the big deal. Its a video game guys, I could see people mad about something is handled on TV or a Movie but a video game?
Video games have been as much a part of our media and culture since about 1985 or so, when the NES hit. Longer, if you want to go back to the 80s arcade era. We're talking 30 years of being a part of mass media, and it's influence on the way people think and act has already been the source of several psychological studies. It's important that in all aspects of media, yes even in video games, that people see themselves reflected properly. If anything, studies are starting to show that video games can negatively affect our views on minorities and towards the LGBT community.
The excuse of, "It's just a game," really doesn't work anymore. In 1985, when home television hit it's approximate 30 year mark, would it be still a good idea to go, "Oh, I'm not sure why these folks are upset. It's just a TV show after all?" Due to folks speaking up, our TV has overall come a long way since then in how we treat women, minorities, and the LGBT community.
Video games are just as valuable as any part of media. Some are happy or sad, or silly. Some make us think. Some take us to places we couldn't even imagine being. How is a video game any different from a book or a movie? Because you're directly interacting with it? Just like with books and movies, it's important to show all walks of life. Otherwise, we won't learn anything nor grow as people.
I'm not good at explaining things apparently. 
The qunari do experience love and romance, though. They just don't express it sexually.
I meant "Don't have sex for love, only for procreation purposes" in that part.
That doesn't so much come off as demisexual as it does being sexually and romantically ignorant.
I thought I explained with the "forms a bond" part? They can show no interest in others.
Video games have been as much a part of our media and culture since about 1985 or so, when the NES hit. Longer, if you want to go back to the 80s arcade era. We're talking 30 years of being a part of mass media, and it's influence on the way people think and act has already been the source of several psychological studies. It's important that in all aspects of media, yes even in video games, that people see themselves reflected properly. If anything, studies are starting to show that video games can negatively affect our views on minorities and towards the LGBT community.
The excuse of, "It's just a game," really doesn't work anymore. In 1985, when home television hit it's approximate 30 year mark, would it be still a good idea to go, "Oh, I'm not sure why these folks are upset. It's just a TV show after all?" Due to folks speaking up, our TV has overall come a long way since then in how we treat women, minorities, and the LGBT community.
Video games are just as valuable as any part of media. Some are happy or sad, or silly. Some make us think. Some take us to places we couldn't even imagine being. How is a video game any different from a book or a movie? Because you're directly interacting with it?
Video games are the media I consume the most, even compared with TV shows. I would like it if that media did not constantly pretend like I don't exist (well, more accurately that a part of me doesn't exist, but still).
Edit: Obviously Nat this isn't direct at you - this is more just me expressing my feelings on the topic, and it so happens that it was your post that made me want to chime in. 
Wait...people argue about whether a sexually 'ambiguous' character is more straight than gay or bisexual? Who cares? Why bother arguing with people so childish in the first place? If we didn't have message boards to argue whether or not that companion is really mine or the other person's of another sexual orientation (uh, most of us left kindergarten behind us a while ago), nobody would care.
The problem is that people just don't want to have to share. I don't care if the character I romance specifies being straight or not and I don't care if other people of other sexualities are romancing them - in the context of a video game, this should not be a bid deal. I'm finding it hard to commiserate with the notion that characters have to have their sexuality known in order to properly represent everyone. The self-righteous anger that people seem to have against the sexually ambiguous route has me scratching my head a little. We're all technically in the same boat then so....why are we offended?
That's not to say that I don't like characters with set sexuality, on the contrary I think it's cool. But turning sexual ambiguity in a video game into a civil right's argument seems excessive.
Video games are the media I consume the most, even compared with TV shows. I would like it if that media did not constantly pretend like I don't exist (well, more accurately that a part of me doesn't exist, but still).
Edit: Obviously Nat this isn't direct at you - this is more just me expressing my feelings on the topic, and it so happens that it was your post that made me want to chime in.
I didn't figure. And I completely agree with you. <hugs>
I didn't figure.
It's only recently dawned on me how much representation matters. I've probably been more open about things on this internet forum that I have with anyone but my close friends IRL. Just having a topic out there for discussion makes it easier to talk about it.
i am not against to having new full fledged companions and advisors in story dlc, i am against only day one dlc like Javic
The likelihood of getting full fledged companions and advisors as DLC is minimal, as it'd mean we have breadcrumbed content hooks throughout the game to be leveraged. And if we were to do that, the character would be like Javik.
We could decide to not release the content on Day One, but it'd still be sitting on otherwise completed content which is probably not the best idea for us, nor do I think it will do much to placate fans that want us to keep DLCs to having as minimal amount of cut content as possible.
Wait...people argue about whether a sexually 'ambiguous' character is more straight than gay or bisexual? Who cares? Why bother arguing with people so childish in the first place? If we didn't have message boards to argue whether or not that companion is really mine or the other person's of another sexual orientation (uh, most of us left kindergarten behind us a while ago), nobody would care.
The problem is that people just don't want to have to share. I don't care if the character I romance specifies being straight or not and I don't care if other people of other sexualities are romancing them - in the context of a video game, this should not be a bid deal. I'm finding it hard to commiserate with the notion that characters have to have their sexuality known in order to properly represent everyone. The self-righteous anger that people seem to have against the sexually ambiguous route has me scratching my head a little. We're all technically in the same boat then so....why are we offended?
That's not to say that I don't like characters with set sexuality, on the contrary I think it's cool. But turning sexual ambiguity in a video game into a civil right's argument seems excessive.
People argue about whether a sexually ambiguous character is bisexual in all playthroughs or straight in some playthroughs and gay in others.
I thought I explained with the "forms a bond" part? They can show no interest in others.
Wait...people argue about whether a sexually 'ambiguous' character is more straight than gay or bisexual? Who cares?
I just don't take fiction to heart like I would real life things
I just don't take fiction to heart like I would real life things
Fiction is still a place to communicate ideas and attitudes, however.
It's true that it doesn't affect as all people the same way and some just won't care, though that doesn't preclude other people from caring.
I just don't take fiction to heart like I would real life things
Okay, think about it like this: Representation gives the chance for writers to tell the stories of different types characters. Reflecting aspects of real life into a story can make for dynamic stories.
All else aside, aren't you sick of seeing the same things in video games over and over again?
People argue about whether a sexually ambiguous character is bisexual in all playthroughs or straight in some playthroughs and gay in others.
That is what I was alluding to. My point would be that these arguments are childish.
If you take an adult who has gone through puberty in a culture where sex is only for reproduction and romances isn't allowed, and you have them in a story where they're an unsure virgin, you are not portraying demisexuality as an actual sexual orientation. It looks like vanilla sexual cluelessness.
Forming a bond is part of most BioWare romances.
I deleted it.
I deleted it.
I just don't take fiction to heart like I would real life things
In this case, fiction is like real life. It's like someone saying - I don't take ads seriously; they're just ads. But ads push a kind of lifestyle and life view as the normative, correct view.
It's only recently dawned on me how much representation matters. I've probably been more open about things on this internet forum that I have with anyone but my close friends IRL. Just having a topic out there for discussion makes it easier to talk about it.
That's a really wonderful and positive thing to hear. I'm glad. Being able to relate to others, be yourself, and to express all parts of yourself rather than keeping them in that oft-used metaphorical closet, is a very healthy thing. Just as is representation, as it is validation that we exist and we are valued.
That's not to say that I don't like characters with set sexuality, on the contrary I think it's cool. But turning sexual ambiguity in a video game into a civil right's argument seems excessive.
If someone only plays a male character and romance Merril, he could never figure out that she was bisexual, she doesn't say anything about women, never says anything about her sexuality except that she finds qunari easy on eyes. If people can't even know that she is bisexual in the game, I think it's fair to be a bit concerned. I'm really not surprised that so many straight guys think Merril is straight. It was confusing. So yeah, maybe for someone who values representation, it could be a bit annoying.
Well... that's one way to end a conversation.
Well, it wasn't a good example so why keep it?
The discussion of character ideas that would work can still happen.
Last note on the subject of video games in media.
Fun fact: Gamers are spending more time on their video games than they did three years ago. The average decrease of time spent watching TV, movies or going out to the movies is ~47%
http://www.theesa.co...ESA_EF_2014.pdf
Edit: The point I'm trying to make is that is it really so bad for gamers to ask for more of what they want out of video games, especially if it's towards promoting less stereotyping?
That is what I was alluding to. My point would be that these arguments are childish.
Personally I agree, but that's because I think it's blatantly obvious they're bisexual and the idea that they change sexualities based on the gender of the pc is absurd to me.
The likelihood of getting full fledged companions and advisors as DLC is minimal, as it'd mean we have breadcrumbed content hooks throughout the game to be leveraged. And if we were to do that, the character would be like Javik.
We could decide to not release the content on Day One, but it'd still be sitting on otherwise completed content which is probably not the best idea for us, nor do I think it will do much to placate fans that want us to keep DLCs to having as minimal amount of cut content as possible.
i like Javic(and Kasumi(many was like to have her as Li option) with Zaed )so i hope for that
especially many would be pleased if devs also make at least some new Li(companions/advisors or not) options for non-humans Inquisitors who is majority of Inquisitors(6 vs 2) but if not females(who have bull and solas) but male non-humans have a real lack of options in the terms of morality/realism(someone like Cassandra, Vivienne and Josephine maybe can romance with some dwarfs(even if many dwarfs does not considerate humans atractive, we even heard more with elf lovers that with humans) but this is at least strange with kossith and elf, especially with mages)
the only thing that i do not like in day one dlc is that it was on the exclusives and not in common(what have a files and need only activation by some few mb, what can be called as a "patch") versions....
Bioware pls just tell us who the last two options are GAWD!!! 
Retour en haut