19658 réponses à ce sujet

[Yinello]

Off-current-topic but Varric's profile got new pictures! I figured some of y'all might wanna see.

 

http://www.dragonage.../varric-tethras

[Neesa]

Forgive me, I hadn't realized there was a point to miss. Speaking of missing points, I did say that she could simply be uninterested in romance.

 

 I never said she had to be a romance so you popping in just to sass me about that was unnecessary. 

[Rinji the Bearded]

Because elves, dwarves, and qunari do not actually exist, race-gating is a little less problematic to me.  Any equivalencies with real life race seems unintentional. 

 

However, equating monosexuality and representation with not getting that romance option you want (ie, "gender-gated") sounds MUCH more problematic to me, because representation should matter and should not be confused with "I get what I want."

[pallascedar]

Deffinately an easy cop out.

If she's not a LI, then someone has to provide a better reason.

 

I don't think there ever needs to be a reason for a character to not be romanceable. Varric and Aveline weren't romanceable because they didn't have romance plots written for them with the character. That's it. Characters are allowed to not be interested in you or to not be interested in romance for whatever reason.

 

To change topics to race-gating: I don't think that it necessarily has to have anything to do with a character being uninterested in one race or another. Remember, all our characters come from different backgrounds. Vivienne could be race-gated to humans, but perhaps that doesn't have anything to do with her not liking elves/dwarves/Qunari, perhaps it's just that in order to start her romance you have to have a conversation with her about your childhood, and maybe she enjoys hearing about you growing up noble.

[daveliam]

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.

 

Nope.  Re-read what I wrote.  It's very clear.  I don't speak about optional recruitment in the game at all.  Don't try to misrepresent my words to say something that I'm not saying.  It's not going to fly with me.  I'm very clear about the conditions that I am using.  And I'm just as clear when I say that it applies to my reasoning only.  Your mileage may vary. 

[daveliam]

 

However, equating monosexuality and representation with not getting that romance option you want (ie, "gender-gated") sounds MUCH more problematic to me, because representation should matter and should not be confused with "I get what I want."

 

Can you explain what you mean by this?  I'm not seeing anyone equating "gender-gating" with "not getting the romance option that you want".  In fact, I'm not seeing anyone in this thread talking about who the available options are for each gender/sexuality/race combination.

[Sylvianus]

As a straight guy, I thought the sex scene and how we come to it - ( ooh I need a shower suddenly ) with Samantha was titillation for male players. I didn't like it because it didn't strike me as lesbian at all. 

[Rinji the Bearded]

"Gender-gated" is just a very callous, problematic term and I would hope people could see why. :|

[Sporothrix]

Nope.  Re-read what I wrote.  It's very clear.  I don't speak about optional recruitment in the game at all.  Don't try to misrepresent my words to say something that I'm not saying.  It's not going to fly with me.  I'm very clear about the conditions that I am using.  And I'm just as clear when I say that it applies to my reasoning only.  Your mileage may vary. 

Your reasoning is that race-gated LIs are somehow less "valid", mere "bonus options". Sorry, but it doesn't make much sense to me. All LIs are getting the same budget. How the fact you would have to play 4 times to get all your gay male romance options, while I would have to play 2 times to get all my lesbian ones, means that you're not treated better in any way because some of those LIs you see as "extras" (even though, once again, they are getting the same development as any other LI)?

[Nocte ad Mortem]

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. 

It wouldn't be like that for the situation you described before. In the above situation, everyone gets 2, but one group gets 3. If Vivienne is bisexual and Varric is straight dwarf only, then everyone gets 3, but gay men get 2. Personally, I view being the only group to get shorted as even worse than one group getting more, although I'm not for either. The situation without Vivienne and with one bi/one straight male is even more stratified, though, since one group would be getting 2 more options than some, not just 1 more. 

[David Gaider]

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

 

In my opinion, "fair" is "I, as a player, am not treated as an afterthought."

 

It is not "I get exactly the same number of choices as everyone else" or "I am being oppressed by not getting choices I personally want."

 

The lack of any choice (other than do the romance or don't) in DAO for gay players wasn't fair. So long as you have some actual choice, and at least some of that is content that was specifically written with you in mind, I don't think you get to claim to be an afterthought. Anything that goes beyond that, insofar as who gets 2 or 3 or 4 or whatever number of choices, isn't really relevant--at least, not to us. That's not something we set out for ourselves as a requirement going in.

[daveliam]

"Gender-gated" is just a very callous, problematic term and I would hope people could see why. :|

 

No, I'm genuinely not seeing the problem with it because I'm talking about a game dynamic.  I think it's just a case of semantics, to be honest.  A player is "gated" from content because of their racial selection and a player is "gated" from content because of their gender selection.  It's only the game dynamic that I'm talking about when I use that term. 

[Rinji the Bearded]

No, I'm genuinely not seeing the problem with it because I'm talking about a game dynamic.  I think it's just a case of semantics, to be honest.  A player is "gated" from content because of their racial selection and a player is "gated" from content because of their gender selection.  It's only the game dynamic that I'm talking about when I use that term. 

 

But sexuality/gender isn't just a game mechanic, that's a very egocentric and self-centered way to look at it

 

"Introducing Sam Traynor and Steve Cortez, two GENDER-GATED romance options!" 

 

Can you not see how awful that reads

[Sporothrix]

I thought they did great with Traynor. :/ She was sexy and not slutty; smart but not conceited; and she had weird little quirks and flaws that made her seem real to me. I personally don't see what they did wrong with it.

 

Did you watch those videos at all? First of all, Sam had significantly less dialogue time during her romance scenes than during regular conversations with a man. Second of all, as the only LI options she was deprived of character building scene on Citadel (I mean core game, not DLC). Third of all, they just had to make the lesbian a tease for a man. Because that's what we do. Go to hot tubs of men who showed sexual interest in us before (manShep could hit on her, of course), show him our attributes, tease a bit ("eyes up here"), and then tease more.

 

So, lesbians are apparently just for teasing straight guys.

[LiaraShepard]

In my opinion, "fair" is "I, as a player, am not treated as an afterthought."

 

It is not "I get exactly the same number of choices as everyone else" or "I am being oppressed by not getting choices I personally want."

 

The lack of any choice (other than do the romance or don't) in DAO for gay players wasn't fair. So long as you have some actual choice, and at least some of that is content that was specifically written with you in mind, I don't think you get to claim to be an afterthought. Anything that goes beyond that, insofar as who gets 2 or 3 or 4 or whatever number of choices, isn't really relevant--at least, not to us. That's not something we set out for ourselves as a requirement going in.

 

but why do it always have to be the straight gamers who get more romances?

[daveliam]

Your reasoning is that race-gated LIs are somehow less "valid", mere "bonus options". Sorry, but it doesn't make much sense to me. All LIs are getting the same budget. How the fact you would have to play 4 times to get all your gay male romance options, while I would have to play 2 times to get all my lesbian ones, means that you're not treated better in any way because some of those LIs you see as "extras" (even though, once again, they are getting the same development as any other LI)?

 

See all of my other arguments for my rationale.  I don't feel the desire to explain it to you yet again.

 

It wouldn't be like that for the situation you described before. In the above situation, everyone gets 2, but one group gets 3. If Vivienne is bisexual and Varric is straight dwarf only, then everyone gets 3, but gay men get 2. Personally, I view being the only group to get shorted as even worse than one group getting more, although I'm not for either. The situation without Vivienne and with one bi/one straight male is even more stratified, though, since one group would be getting 2 more options than some, not just 1 more. 

 

I think the difference for me is the fact that not all of the people in that demographic get access to that content, so it's less problematic to me.  If it were all straight female players who had access to Varric, then, to me, it's different than just some straight female players having access to him.  It makes the focus less about their demographic (based on sexuality and gender) and more about their racial selection.  Again, that's why I don't see it as terrible as given some demographics writ large more options.

[azarhal]

But sexuality/gender isn't just a game mechanic, that's a very egocentric and self-centered way to look at it

 

"Introducing Sam Traynor and Steve Cortez, two GENDER-GATED romance options!" 

 

Can you not see how awful that reads

 

People here are not using gender-gated to present characters. We use it to talk about game mechanic gating type: gender--gated, race-gated, orientation/sexuality-gated.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I think the difference for me is the fact that not all of the people in that demographic get access to that content, so it's less problematic to me.  If it were all straight female players who had access to Varric, then, to me, it's different than just some straight female players having access to him.  It makes the focus less about their demographic (based on sexuality and gender) and more about their racial selection.  Again, that's why I don't see it as terrible as given some demographics writ large more options.

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree at this point.

[David Gaider]

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.

 

I was more referring to how some people imply that the advisor romances must be lesser than party member romances--so, even if the romance lineups were absolutely equal, perceived inequalities would still be used as the reason why not getting what they want is somehow worse than them being disappointed.

 

Why? I'm not sure. I guess they feel "I wanted something else" or "I was disappointed" is not bad enough.

 

DA's a different team then the ME, but I don't doubt that the Sera romance could eventually be drawn through a lens that might make it seem like something else. I really hope you enjoy it, regardless, if you intend on playing through it at all.

[daveliam]

But sexuality/gender isn't just a game mechanic, that's a very egocentric and self-centered way to look at it

 

"Introducing Sam Traynor and Steve Cortez, two GENDER-GATED romance options!" 

 

Can you not see how awful that reads

 

Sam Traynor is a lesbian character who, from a game mechanic, is "gated" from male characters.  Jaheira is a straight character who, from a game mechanic, is "gated" from dwarf characters. 

 

Sam = person, so "gender-gated" or "race-gated" doesn't describe her qualities.  I'm sorry if I offended you by my use of that term.  "Monosexual", to me, doesn't describe the game dynamics that I'm speaking about.  Aveline is "monosexual", but she's not an LI, so it's not an accurate term for my purposes.  I hope that clarifies the distinction in my mind.

[Rinji the Bearded]

There is absolutely NO NEED to use the term "gender-gated."  Why is there a need to invent jargon when there are more efficient, correct ways to express that?

 

Cassandra is a straight romance option.

Cullen is a straight romance option.

Dorian is a gay romance option.

Sera is a lesbian romance option.

 

Instead, you're saying that it's:

 

Cassandra is a gender-gated romance option for male PCs only.

Cullen is a gender-gated romance option for female PCs only.

 

and etc.

 

[daveliam]

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree at this point.

 

Yeah, I think so.  I understand that, from a numbers standpoint, there is an imbalance.  I don't find it as unpalatable because of the context, but I understand why others might.

[daveliam]

There is absolutely NO NEED to use the term "gender-gated."  Why is there a need to invent jargon when there are more efficient, correct ways to express that?

 

I don't find "monosexual" to be efficient or correct in this situation.  But to each his/her own, I guess.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Off-current-topic but Varric's profile got new pictures! I figured some of y'all might wanna see.

 

http://www.dragonage.../varric-tethras

I hope everyone else gets new pictures.