19658 réponses à ce sujet

[Grieving Natashina]

I think you missed the point why some of the posters that were complaining about "realism."  See, several posters have noticed that the word "realism" is only broken out when it comes to excluding minorities, women and the LGBTQ community.  Flying swords, dragons?  Sure.  A bisexual man in an RPG?  Nope, it's suddenly "immersion breaking."   That's more of the issue that was coming in.  

 

Some also liked having a variety of romances,  It wasn't about "banging whomever they wanted," considering that the sex scenes were all FTB in DA2, it was about the actual dialogue and conversations.  They were disappointed, but are largely more looking forward to how the representation is going to be done.  

 

 

They say that LGBT people exist and should get content for them and the game world needn't reflect the bigotry of the real world. That's the important but necessary distinction.

Bingo.

 

However, I'm more curious about how you feel about it.  That was an interesting lead up to your question, so I was wondering what your take was on it?

[Vapaa]

 

In a nutshell I will always put the integrity of the game world above real world concerns. 

 

And how would you describe "integrity" ?

[Deviija]

 

I do love how when it comes to "realistic" argument with regards to gender gating people are so quick to jump down peoples throats and complain that Dragon Age is a fantasy setting and doesn't need to reflect the real world. 

 

But as soon as somebody says that it doesn't need to include LGBT characters at all because it doesn't need to reflect the real world, suddenly reflecting the real world is important. 

 

So which is it? Do the sexualities of the characters in the game need to reflect those of people in the real world or not?

 

When was the "realistic" argument brought up in regard to gender-gating?  The only thing related to the term "realism" in the last few pages is an exchange I had between another poster, and it wasn't in regard to gender-gating whatsoever.  The subject Natashina is discussing has nothing to do with gender-gating, it is a debate about statistics = where content should or should not go.  And no one is "jumping down" anyone's throat about it.  

 

Is this randomly a new subject you are interested in discussing, or are you alluding to any discussion happening at current?  

[godModeAlpha]

 
If I had to choose two romanceable NPCs out of Alistair, Morrigan, Zevran and Leliana I would say keep Alistair and Leliana. Alistairs romance can have so many different outcomes. It's just great. Does he kill the Archdemon or you or neither. Does he stay with the Wardens or does he choose the crown? Does he marry Anora? I could go on and on. Zevran doesn't bring as much to the table.
 

Romancing a desire demon, now that would be a game changer, heck will satisfy all parties too.

[Ianamus]

 

I think you missed the point why some of the posters that were complaining about "realism."  See, several posters have noticed that the word "realism" is only broken out when it comes to excluding minorities, women and the LGBTQ community.  Flying swords, dragons?  Sure.  A bisexual man in an RPG?  Nope, it's suddenly "immersion breaking."   That's more of the issue that was coming in.  

 

Some also liked having a variety of romances,  It wasn't about "banging whomever they wanted," considering that the sex scenes were all FTB in DA2, it was about the actual dialogue and conversations.  They were disappointed, but are largely more looking forward to how the representation is going to be done.  

 

Bingo.

 

However, I'm more curious about how you feel about it.  That was an interesting lead up to your question, so I was wondering what your take was on it?

 

The most frequent place I see the "realism" argument used is with regards to set sexualities, and people saying that having a variety of set sexualities, rather than having all love interests be bisexual, makes the characters feel more realistic. 

 

Far from excluding minorities, I think it's being more inclusive. Having a mixture of gay, straight and bisexual love interests seems far more realistic to me than only having bisexual ones, and I'd use the "realism" argument to argue for the inclusion of characters like Sera.

 

 

Is this randomly a new subject you are interested in discussing, or are you alluding to any discussion happening at current?  

 

Someone on the previous page said that Dragon age is a fantasy game and therefore does not need to include any real-world minorities, and people were arguing that it is important to include them because people in real life are like that. 

 

I was just pointing out that I don't see how people can make that argument while simultaneously saying that all love interests should be bisexual rather than a variety of orientations, and repute the "Having set sexualities is realistic" argument with "But the game is fantasy and does not need to represent the real world". 

[Grieving Natashina]

Romancing a desire demon, now that would be a game changer, heck will satisfy all parties too.

Nope, not this party.  In Thedas, the only good demon is a dead one.   I'm bi, but I do have standards.  

 

There is one sorta-kinda exception to the "kill demons on sight rule."  For those that read Asunder, or don't care about spoilers:

 

Spoiler

I would classify Cole as "other."  I've seen good debates from both sides that can back up him being a spirit or a demon.  I consider him neither until I learn more.

[Neon Rising Winter]

Here's my spin on things. 

 

I'm all for anything that makes the character more like a person and less like a virtual sex doll. That includes set sexualities and NPC choices based on personality and background.

I'm all for the correct representation according to the area of the world the game is set in. 

I'm not a fan of reducing things to 2/2/2 or some other formulaic number with nothing to do with the game world. 

 

 

In a nutshell I will always put the integrity of the game world above real world concerns. 

 

I think that's an argument that is easy to be seduced by until you look at its common application. Consider how much flies straight out of the window to ensure an enjoyable and interesting game experience. Yet concerns about integrity usually focus like a laser on some extremely specific areas - frequently to do with issues of represention - making it hard to believe they aren't themselves driven by real world issues, despite the window dressing.

 

Edit: I write too slow, what they said,

Modifié par Narrow Margin, 16 juin 2014 - 10:31 .

[Grieving Natashina]

 

 

 

The most frequent place I see the "realism" argument used is with regards to set sexualities, and people saying that having a variety set sexualities makes the characters feel more realistic. 

 

far from excluding minorities I think it's being more inclusive. Having a mixture of gay, straight and bisexual love interests seems far more realistic to me than only having straight and bisexual ones, and I'd use the "realism" argument to argue for the inclusion of characters like Sera.

 

 

I...never argued against that?

 

 I do think it's more organic and truer to life to have set sexuality.  It's just the "realism" argument tended to break out the most against inclusion.  

 

The issue wasn't entirely about having set sexualities for our LIs, for most of the posters that were against the "realism" argument.   There was also some backlash from some of the LGBT community, and that was because it seemed the idea, the very notion, of 5 bisexuals adventuring together (including Hawke if you played him/her that way,) in the entirety of Thedas was somehow "unrealistic."  

 

That they could all possibly be attracted to the same person and even want to date the same person as "unrealistic." 

 

Several posters, including myself, can attest that that does indeed happen in the real world, and a lot more often then you might think.  So, for at least many posters that I've read, that was the issue.  I can't speak for everyone that's disappointed with a lack of open LI choices like we had in DA2, but that's what I've been noticing as the general reaction overall.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

My opinion on the "realism" argument is that it's more important to offer equal choices (gated or otherwise) to real world groups that have traditionally been excluded than it is to worry about keeping in-game demographics at a "realistic" level with what we assume them to be in the real world. If you find it that difficult to believe there are more bisexual and gay characters in this imaginary world than in the real world, then I really question why that is so in comparison to the various other differences between it and the real world.   

[Grieving Natashina]

It's not directed at you specifically, rather the people who do make those arguments. 

Well, hopefully Mort and I helped give you some perspective on this.  

 

I agree with Mort, as well.  You brought up an excellent point. 

[Ianamus]

My opinion on the "realism" argument is that it's more important to offer equal choices (gated or otherwise) to real world groups that have traditionally been excluded than it is to worry about keeping in-game demographics at a "realistic" level with what we assume them to be in the real world. If you find it that difficult to believe there are more bisexual and gay characters in this imaginary world than in the real world, then I really question why that is so in comparison to the various other differences between it and the real world.   

 

It was less to do with the fact that there were more bisexual characters than gay characters and more to do with the fact that gay characters were practically non-existent. I'd have no issue with three bisexual companions and one homosexual companion, but having over six bisexual companions, slightly more straight companions and no homosexual companions at all across the games felt very unrealistic and artificial to me.

 

It is why I am so pleased to hear that we will be having at least one homosexual companion in Inquisition, and annoyed that there are people who would want it to be changed so that characters like Sera were bisexual instead. 

[Syledir]

Well it's a tough one, allot of people really hated the all bi way of doing it. I actually didn't mind it but I understand that a more realistic character has their own sexuality and this way we actually get a gay character, who is a companion too 

 

As a proud supporter of the "gay agenda"   I know a specifically lgbt character means allot more than just having all the LI's bi. It's support and acceptance from bioware and I am very happy about it. 

 

(edit) ofc I know that all the bi characters are also LGBT but there is a difference when they are putting a characters sexuality above some of the players who may want to romance that character. 

Don't get me wrong. I am also very happy about Biowares support for the LGBT community. But it is like you said. Bisexual NPCs already represent LGBT community. If a player wants to pursue a same sex romance with his/her favourite romanceable NPC, he/she can do so. But so can the player wants to pursue an opposite sex romance. Both can play the same romance with their own hero/heroine and rejoice in it.

[fiveforchaos]

Actually, I wouldn't mind if Sera stayed the same. I just wish there more female elves. And not a lot of humans. Again.

I'd be pretty happy with female "something other than elf or human" myself. Thus far we've had Shale and Sigrun, and we didn't even know one of them was female for half the game (it's also debatable about whether or not she actually is female, she certainly isn't male, but she doesn't seem particularly inclined to associate herself with a gender). But I'm a little biased, seeing as how much I'd like to romance an older, more mature Dagna. 

[wright1978]

I loved the ambiguous DA2 approach and the accessibility it provided. The view that orientation gating is needed for realism's sake is nonsense imo. It's a fantasy game(full of unrealism) with a artificially limited Li pool which is then artifically split evenly for availability. Bioware have made decision not based on realism from my memory of Allan's posts.

[Deviija]

I am very much for set sexualities.  I am also very much for all bi LIs.  (Say whaaaat?)  

 

I want our companions and advisors and major NPCs within the world to be a diverse banquet of sexual orientations.  However, when it comes to the LIs, I'd just rather them be the bisexual ones, in order to afford as much choice to as many people as possible for their own story-weaving enjoyment, to cast the widest net for everyone.  You can still have straight, gay, lesbian, curious, fluid, asexual, bisexual, pansexual, represented in the cast of non-LI companions and advisors, and major and minor NPCs (just seeing two men holding hands as they browse produce at the open market is enough to tell a visual environmental story) out in the world.  

[Grieving Natashina]

Don't get me wrong. I am also very happy about Biowares support for the LGBT community. But it is like you said. Bisexual NPCs already represent LGBT community. If a player wants to pursue a same sex romance with his/her favourite romanceable NPC, he/she can do so. But so can the player wants to pursue an opposite sex romance. Both can play the same romance with their own hero/heroine and rejoice in it.

Bisexual NPCs do not represent the entirety of the LGBT community.  

 

A lesbian companion is confirmed, whether it's something you're comfortable with or not.  Not a NPC, not a background character.  Not a bisexual.  You know, lesbian.  Like what the first letter of LGBT stands for.  Oh and in case you're wondering?  DG said he's going to try to get the character Mae from the comics into the games.  Who's a transgender woman.  Before you claim BW is "catering to another minority," he wants to do it because she's a wonderful character and those in and out of the trans community largely love her.

 

By the way, staying on the forums and trying to convince this falsehood to BioWare is a waste of time. 

 

I wish you the best of luck.  You'll need it. 

[fiveforchaos]

"Hyena Gentials" 

 

(Did it work? Has the subject been changed? Are we no longer arguing over "playersexual" vs. "set sexualities" again, for the hundredth  time). 

[Grieving Natashina]

"Hyena Gentials" 

 

(Did work? Has the subject been changed? Are we no longer arguing over "playersexual" vs. "set sexualities" again, for the hundredth  time). 

You know, never mind.  It's late and I'm tired.

 

You're fine by me, five.  

 

I'm going to bed.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

It was less to do with the fact that there were more bisexual characters than gay characters and more to do with the fact that gay characters were practically non-existent. I'd have no issue with three bisexual companions and one homosexual companion, but having over six bisexual companions, slightly more straight companions and no homosexual companions at all across the games felt very unrealistic and artificial to me.

 

It is why I am so pleased to hear that we will be having at least one homosexual companion in Inquisition, and annoyed that there are people who would want it to be changed so that characters like Sera were bisexual instead. 

Well, this is a purely preferential point, in my opinion. As long as everyone has equal options, I feel they've met my personal bar for inclusion. The poster that stirred this was arguing for fewer options for demographics other than heterosexual males, as the majority group. I find the argument for or against gating in a scenario where equal capacity for choice is given either way to be more easy to see both sides of. 

 

Personally, I don't like gating because it's more important to me to have all the options than it is to see specific sexualities. That's just not something that's important to me. I feel it represents same sex relationships equally, whether the participants are gay or bi. That being said, I don't think it's unfair to have gating, if the numbers and content are basically equal. It's just not to my personal preference. 

[Ianamus]

I am very much for set sexualities.  I am also very much for all bi LIs.  (Say whaaaat?)  

 

I want our companions and advisors and major NPCs within the world to be a diverse banquet of sexual orientations.  However, when it comes to the LIs, I'd just rather them be the bisexual ones, in order to afford as much choice to as many people as possible for their own story-weaving enjoyment, to cast the widest net for everyone.  You can still have straight, gay, lesbian, curious, fluid, asexual, bisexual, pansexual, represented in the cast of non-LI companions and advisors, and major and minor NPCs (just seeing two men holding hands as they browse produce at the open market is enough to tell a visual environmental story) out in the world.  

 

I understand this, but I don't think in practice it really works. 

 

With inquisition I'd imagine that Sera was conceived as lesbian shortly after her character was created. And the way it ended up with the other characters deemed suitable for companions she was both the only female rogue and only female elf on the team. 

 

So what should they have done? Should they have made Vivienne, Cassandra and Scribbles the female LI's, which would have meant no non-human female LI, or should they have altered Sera so that she was bisexual?

 

The other option would have been to design characters around love interest roles at the beginning, in which case Sera would have started as a sexuality before she even became a character, which is an awful approach to character design, in my opinion.