19658 réponses à ce sujet

[Sporothrix]

Are you serious with this?  You can't possibly be arguing that one group getting only one option and another group getting two options (i.e. a choice) is the same as every group getting multiple options, but some groups getting more than others.

 

Getting twice as much. Sorry for not seeing much difference between 4vs2 and 2vs1. And especially considering that it's yet again about sexual minority group that was mistreated before. Though, like with Dorian announcement and media calling him "the first gay DA companion", I wouldn't be surprised that no one would notice that lesbians are here too.

 

I agree with you that it would be great to have even options across the board this time around, but it's not going to happen.  If it's even by gender, it will still be uneven by race, so someone's getting less options.  Just call it like it is:  You want more options for you.  That's fine, but your current line of argument that DA: O's options were equivalent to what we're getting this time around is just not going to fly.  It's a false equivalency and we all know it.

 

Like I said, race-gating only adds replay-value. It takes nothing from player when it comes to those matters, you can romance only 1 LI during single playthrough anyway. It would still mean that there's significantly more content for your sexuality. Not to mention that even with that race-gating, you would still have 3 options in single playthrough.

 

And I really don't like accusations that I want more options for myself, especially since I was vocal about providing gay male options in ME. I want to be treated equally, that's all. There were many other lesbian fans that said the same, so if the scenario with 2 remaining LIs all being men happens, instead of helping us out, will you try to undermine us?

[azarhal]

Getting twice as much. Sorry for not seeing much difference between 4vs2 and 2vs1. And especially considering that it's yet again about sexual minority group that was mistreated before. Though, like with Dorian announcement and media calling him "the first gay DA companion", I wouldn't be surprised that no one would notice that lesbians are here too.

 

With race-gating it's probably not going to be 4vs2, but more like 4 (if of race a and orientation x) vs 3 (if of race b and c and orientation y) and 2 (for everyone else).

[daveliam]

Getting twice as much. Sorry for not seeing much difference between 4vs2 and 2vs1. And especially considering that it's yet again about sexual minority group that was mistreated before. Though, like with Dorian announcement and media calling him "the first gay DA companion", I wouldn't be surprised that no one would notice that lesbians are here too.

 

Well, if you don't see how the difference between "a choice in LI" and "no choice in LI" is important, I don't know what to tell you.

 

Also, Dorian is the first gay male companion.  It was pretty clear in the write ups from those articles that they were not referring to lesbians.  Especially given that Juhani was the first lesbian companion way back in 2003.  You know full well that "gay" is a term that refers to both men and women, but when used colloquially, tends to refer to men with "lesbian" referring to women.

 

Like I said, race-gating only adds replay-value. It takes nothing from player when it comes to those matters, you can romance only 1 LI during single playthrough anyway. It would still mean that there's significantly more content for your sexuality. Not to mention that even with that race-gating, you would still have 3 options in single playthrough.

 

I don't see a difference here.  Race-gating and gender-gating are the same to me.  I had, functionally, zero romances in Baldur's Gate 2 because I only played as dwarves, gnomes, and half-orcs.  I also had zero romances in Baldur's Gate 2 because I only play as a gay male.  If there was no race-gating, I'd still have no options.  If there was no gender-gating, I'd still have no options.  Functionally, it works the same.

 

In DA: I, if Sera is race-gated against dwarves, then lesbian players who play dwarves still have no choices.  It works exactly the same as gender-gating.  Someone could argue to you that gender gating adds replay value.  Which is why I'm not in favor of either type of gating.

 

And I really don't like accusations that I want more options for myself, especially since I was vocal about providing gay male options in ME. I want to be treated equally, that's all. There were many other lesbian fans that said the same, so the scenario with 2 remaining LIs all being men happens, instead of helping us out, will you try to undermine us?

 

I'll say this one more time, really clearly:  I want everyone to get the same amount of options.  So why do you think I'm trying to "undermine" you?  However, you are making claims that two very different scenarios are the same and I'm simply pointing out that they are not.  It's not the content of your argument, it's the approach. 

[Nocte ad Mortem]

The gender gating vs race gating issue comes down to opinion. Personally, I think it's much more important to provide equal options for all genders/sexualities. I don't think it's particularly important to provide options for all races. If the options is whether dwarves of a certain gender get a choice, or whether straight women get 4 options across races vs lesbians getting 2 choices, I think real life groups should be prioritized.  

[Iakus]

 

I don't see a difference here.  Race-gating and gender-gating are the same to me.  I had, functionally, zero romances in Baldur's Gate 2 because I only played as dwarves, gnomes, and half-orcs.  I also had zero romances in Baldur's Gate 2 because I only play as a gay male.  If there was no race-gating, I'd still have no options.  If there was no gender-gating, I'd still have no options.  Functionally, it works the same.

 

In DA: I, if Sera is race-gated against dwarves, then lesbian players who play dwarves still have no choices.  It works exactly the same as gender-gating.  Someone could argue to you that gender gating adds replay value.  Which is why I'm not in favor of either type of gating.

 

I do not believe that any race-gated LIs will be gender-gated (though I do not know this for a fact)

 

Since we know that IB and Josephine are available to all races, I think the race-gated ones are yet to be announced.

 

Thus far, everyone (I believe) has two options.  And when the last two are announced, those who play particular races (yet to be announced) will have 1-2 more choices.  I find this more than equitable.  Better than either DAO or DA2 in fact.

[Sporothrix]

Oh yes. People have always and will always complain when it comes to some groups of players getting more options than others, or even when that's not the case will find issues with the perceived quality of those options. Some will go as far as to cast aspersions on the motivations behind who gets what. That's nothing new.

 

From our perspective, every gender and preference of player gets at least two options from which to choose--as many as DA2. That's as far as our obligation takes us. If someone wishes to take issue with that, they are free to do so.

I don't know if that part about finding issues with the perceived quality of romance options is directed at me, considering that I complained about Traynor, the only lesbian-only romance (excluding Juhani, since she was bi due to bug and very underdeveloped) in Bioware games, numerous times, but my concerns were coming from that:

 

 

For comparison, that's romanced female version:

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=hCsQkYjkWcw

 

Pretty much the whole romance looked like that. More content for straight guys who couldn't romance her, and lots of tease for them. So much respect for lesbian sexuality.

[daveliam]

I do not believe that any race-gated LIs will be gender-gated (though I do not know this for a fact)

 

Since we know that IB and Josephine are available to all races, I think the race-gated ones are yet to be announced.

 

Thus far, everyone (I believe) has two options.  And when the last two are announced, those who play particular races (yet to be announced) will have 1-2 more choices.  I find this more than equitable.  Better than either DAO or DA2 in fact.

 

This is exactly what I think and how I feel about it.  I would prefer for everyone, regardless of race/gender/sexuality to have the same amount of options.  That's not going to be the case.  However, there are more options this time around and everyone is getting at least two options.  Some are getting more. 

 

Would I be disappointed if the the last two options are straight, giving straight people more choices again?  Yes, I would be.  Would I say that it is unequal?  Yes, it would be.  Would I say that it's unfair?  No, probably not, because we are not losing anything.  We have the same amount as before.  I would love for either gay men or lesbians to get extra choices this time around.  But I certainly won't be bent out of shape if it doesn't work out.  I'd continue to advocate for it for the future, but I certainly wouldn't accuse this particular development team of treating us unfairly.  I'm thrilled that I have two options that I like and that, even with gender gating, everyone is getting more than one option.

[Rinji the Bearded]

Uh, is the new term for straight/gay/lesbian characters now "gender-gated" characters?

[Amirit]

 

In DA: I, if Sera is race-gated against dwarves, then lesbian players who play dwarves still have no choices.  It works exactly the same as gender-gating.  Someone could argue to you that gender gating adds replay value.  Which is why I'm not in favor of either type of gating.

 

 

And this is the reason why I think there will be not double gating - gender plus race. We already have our 2\2\2 by gender, and we know there will be 2 more. Is not it logic to think they will be the one race gated yet not gender specific?

[daveliam]

Uh, is the new term for straight/gay/lesbian characters now "gender-gated" characters?

 

Ha.  Not necessarily, but since we are drawing comparisons to "race-gating" it's just an easy shorthand.

 

 

 

And this is the reason why I think there will be not double gating - gender plus race. We already have our 2\2\2 by gender, and we know there will be 2 more. Is not it logic to think they will be the one race gated yet not gender specific?

 

Yeah, I tend to agree.  I think that characters will either be race or gender gated.  Not both.  That's also why I think that saying that they are functionally different is not really accurate.  I get that it's a case of "no real player being an elf, so no real life demographic loses out", but I feel almost as strongly about my racial selection in fantasy games as I do my gender and sexuality selections, so on a practical stand point, they don't seem very different to me.

[Rinji the Bearded]

Seems like it's just as easy, and more correct, to say "monosexual."

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Can someone explain to me why 2 vs 3 is fair? I seriously can't get it. This goes against "fair" as I know it as a general concept. How can less be fair? Especially, how can it be fair for the same people to always get less?   

[daveliam]

Seems like it's just as easy, and more correct, to say "monosexual."

 

Meh, po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

 

To me, monosexual describes the character's sexuality; gender-gating describes the game dynamics which is more what I'm talking about.  I wouldn't ever use "gender-gated" to describe a character's sexuality.  It's about how it plays out practically in the game.  But, I guess that's all semantics.

[Rinji the Bearded]

Meh, po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

 

To me, monosexual describes the character's sexuality; gender-gating describes the game dynamics which is more what I'm talking about.  I wouldn't ever use "gender-gated" to describe a character's sexuality.  It's about how it plays out practically in the game.  But, I guess that's all semantics.

 

I don't think "gating" genders from certain romances sounds like what the devs intended at all...

[Sylvianus]

Can someone explain to me why 2 vs 3 is fair? I seriously can't get it. This goes against "fair" as I know it as a general concept. How can less be fair? Especially, how can it be fair for the same people to always get less?   

 

I think we can forget the word fair, because this isn't what it is. I'd say more something like " a demographic properly treated. "

[CrimsonN7]

I dunno, I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about romance orientation quotas. As long as the character is well written and their orientation picked for them fits well I'm content. I'm already fine with what we have so far, Sera being an exclusive f/f only, Jo is bisexual perhaps Viv might be another bi option too. If she's not I would be slightly disappointed but I'll accept it, Bioware's characters, their vision, their story and that's that. I'm not looking for more, but if we get another in Viv I'll won't complain.

[Sporothrix]

I don't see a difference here.  Race-gating and gender-gating are the same to me.  I had, functionally, zero romances in Baldur's Gate 2 because I only played as dwarves, gnomes, and half-orcs.  I also had zero romances in Baldur's Gate 2 because I only play as a gay male.  If there was no race-gating, I'd still have no options.  If there was no gender-gating, I'd still have no options.  Functionally, it works the same.

 

There are no Dwarves, Elves or Qunari on this world, but there are gay men, straight men, lesbians, straight women, and bisexuals. To have those 4 theoretical romance options, you would never have to stop playing as a gay man.

[SofaJockey]

I might also make the point that Dragon Age is a form of art not a demographic platform.

It is also not a democracy: There is no requirement for it to be anything.

 

"a camel is a horse designed by committee"

[daveliam]

Can someone explain to me why 2 vs 3 is fair? I seriously can't get it. This goes against "fair" as I know it as a general concept. How can less be fair? Especially, how can it be fair for the same people to always get less?   

 

Okay, I'll try to explain my thoughts better:

I'm viewing these "race-gated" companions as extras.  We've all already gotten our two options, regardless of gender/sexuality.  If a character is race-gated, they are not going to be available to all of the players of that demographic because some of them will be playing the races that are being gated.  Depending on how it gets gated, there could be over 80% of the players from that demographic who don't have access to that romance.  For example, if people think that Varric might be dwarf only, there could be a very small proportion of players who actually get to see that content.  That's why I tend to look at them as bonus options.  This is just how I'm looking at it though.  If the last two are Vivienne as bisexual, but only for humans and Varric as straight, but only for dwarves, I would still view those as being extra options for just a select few combinations. 

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Okay, I'll try to explain my thoughts better:

I'm viewing these "race-gated" companions as extras.  We've all already gotten our two options, regardless of gender/sexuality.  If a character is race-gated, they are not going to be available to all of the players of that demographic because some of them will be playing the races that are being gated.  Depending on how it gets gated, there could be over 80% of the players from that demographic who don't have access to that romance.  For example, if people think that Varric might be dwarf only, there could be a very small proportion of players who actually get to see that content.  That's why I tend to look at them as bonus options.  This is just how I'm looking at it though.  If the last two are Vivienne as bisexual, but only for humans and Varric as straight, but only for dwarves, I would still view those as being extra options for just a select few combinations. 

This sounds pretty much to me like how Garrus and Kaidan didn't count because they could possibly not be available. If it's written and available to you depending on choices you make, it counts for your real world demographic, in my mind. I don't see them as "extras". 

[daveliam]

There are no Dwarves, Elves or Qunari on this world, but there are gay men, straight men, lesbians, straight women, and bisexuals. To have those 4 theoretical romance options, you would never have to stop playing as a gay man.

 

My point is that, if I can't access that content because of gating purposes, then I don't care why it's gated (race or gender).  I still can't access it.  They work the same to me.  You, as a lesbian player, will have two options at least.  You are not being discriminated against.  You will have, at worst, the same amount of options that you've had before and, at best, the most amount of options that you've ever had in a DA game.  This should be positive news.

[Sylvianus]

I might also make the point that Dragon Age is a form of art not a demographic platform.

It is also not a democracy: There is no requirement for it to be anything.

 

"a camel is a horse designed by committee"

 

True, but given many statements from Bioware about fairness for several years, I'm not surprised people could be mistaken. 

[daveliam]

This sounds pretty much to me like how Garrus and Kaidan didn't count because they could possibly not be available. If it's written and available to you depending on choices you make, it counts for your real world demographic, in my mind. I don't see them as "extras". 

 

Yeah, I could see how you could interpret it this way.  You are within your right to interpret however you do.  I view them as extras because everyone is getting the same baseline option.

 

To make the comparison to ME 3, it would be like if the romances were:  Ashley, Liara, Samantha, Garrus, Kaidan, and Steve.  And then, Vega but only for Paragon straight female Sheps (I would tend view him as an "extra").  I would still count him in the numbers (like I do Sebastian and I will for these race-gated characters in DA: I), but I'm less bent out of shape about it. 

[Sporothrix]

Okay, I'll try to explain my thoughts better:

I'm viewing these "race-gated" companions as extras.  We've all already gotten our two options, regardless of gender/sexuality.  If a character is race-gated, they are not going to be available to all of the players of that demographic because some of them will be playing the races that are being gated.  Depending on how it gets gated, there could be over 80% of the players from that demographic who don't have access to that romance.  For example, if people think that Varric might be dwarf only, there could be a very small proportion of players who actually get to see that content.  That's why I tend to look at them as bonus options.  This is just how I'm looking at it though.  If the last two are Vivienne as bisexual, but only for humans and Varric as straight, but only for dwarves, I would still view those as being extra options for just a select few combinations. 

 

Therefore I had no romance option in DAO, since it was possible to miss Leliana, and even if not, being forced to kill her later. So she was extra, wasn't available to all players of my demographic. And probably the same will be true for Sera, so I'm apparently getting only one valid option, so according to your own reasoning, there's no choice for me at all.

[Moirin]

Okay, I'll try to explain my thoughts better:

I'm viewing these "race-gated" companions as extras.  We've all already gotten our two options, regardless of gender/sexuality.  If a character is race-gated, they are not going to be available to all of the players of that demographic because some of them will be playing the races that are being gated.  Depending on how it gets gated, there could be over 80% of the players from that demographic who don't have access to that romance.  For example, if people think that Varric might be dwarf only, there could be a very small proportion of players who actually get to see that content.  That's why I tend to look at them as bonus options.  This is just how I'm looking at it though.  If the last two are Vivienne as bisexual, but only for humans and Varric as straight, but only for dwarves, I would still view those as being extra options for just a select few combinations. 

 

This is how I figured it would be too.