168 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

and they return races but does not give them enough content-options....most of your companions and especially advisors in DAI are not equal in the terms of races,morality, opinions and sides...most of your companions are humans and pro Orlas/ Orlais Chantry/Templars(i think that many does understand that many players really does not like this factions and never be)...and you have to romance just them..

 

Just so I'm clear here, are you suggesting that it's unfair because the content we created for Dwarves and Qunari isn't specifically tailored to them well enough, meaning you're getting less content than you otherwise would?

[Allan Schumacher]

Part of my problem with the "elves/dwarves/whatever" aren't real argument is that they don't tackle the issue of race with human ethnicities in Dragon Age(or most any fantasy setting with standard fantasy races other than humans). 

 

There's a degree of cultural posturing and tensions, but we don't see anything in the realm of race politics, race relations, or real abject racism. There's no apparent stigma towards interracial relationships between humans of different ethnicities in Thedas. There's no widespread discrimination or prejudice.

 

I'm confused.  Are you saying you don't like the "other races aren't real" because we still don't bother with racism among different humans?  Are you saying, for example, that Vivienne should be scrutinized for the colour of her skin?

[Allan Schumacher]

but Alan there is no content for dwarfs

 

We disagree on the application of the term "no content" then, unfortunately.

[Allan Schumacher]

Different Andrastian perspectives, but as I said before, there are other people who have expressed in interest in non-Andrastian perspectives, and even in non-Andrastian love interests, as the female qunari thread and the Dagna thread can attest to.

 

That's fine, and people can hope for content of a particular type that they enjoy.  I just don't see "I'd like to have more companions of non-Andrastian perspectives" to be all that different than say "I'd like to see a companion from <Place X> in the world" or other types of similar companion requests.

 

 

I don't think that companion diversity requires the types of characters that you describe.  So it may not feel diverse as you would like (which is unfortunate) because you focus on particular criteria that you value for diversity.  Which is fine.  People all have things that they value as being important.  And yes, there are people that want to explore the avenues you describe.  There are all sorts of people that want to explore all sorts of avenues.

[Allan Schumacher]

I don't think anyone denies that there's diversity in Andrastian cultures, but some of us are interested in the myriad of dwarven, qunari, and elven cultures in particular, and would like something of a reprieve from the central human focus that the series typically takes, since the other cultures have a tendency of being marginalized in certain areas that some of us are interested in.

 

"Reprieve" is an awfully strong word.  Is it safe to say that this goes beyond a topic that keenly interests you?

[Allan Schumacher]

It's something I would like to see implemented. The cultures of the elves, the dwarves, and the qunari do interest me as a fan, and I feel that we don't get quite as much insight into them as we do with the Andrastian societies. Even a text like World of Thedas seems to lean heavily towards the human perspectives and cultures, while not quite as much into the others; even the categorization of 'Spirits' and 'Demons' in WoT is mainly from an Andrastian human perspective, while the text about how the Dalish view all spirits as dangerous and how the Qunari view the Fade as the Land of the Dead is relegated to single lines. Last time, our last protagonist was human, so the storyline was limited to a human perspective. Now we have the Inquisition, which is admittedly a human-centric organization (even in the composition of most of our companions, and the only love interests available for a straight male protagonist), and while I understand the reason behind it, I would prefer to see the other cultures given some equal footing in the future.

 

It's just that when I see the word reprieve, I get the impression that the lack of this content is causing you some sort of anguish.  Or at least, a non-trivial amount of frustration.  So I'm curious if that is actually the case.  I understand it's content you're interested in.

[Allan Schumacher]

Deleted a schwack of posts, mostly because this thread/forum isn't really the appropriate place to be debating the breakdown of LGBT people in general population nor the alleged impacts it has on the bottom line.

 

I'd prefer the thread keep more on track, even if that means that slow news means the thread isn't as active.

[Allan Schumacher]

Some frustration would be apt. We get insight into different humans, into different human cultures, and we can see the good or bad among humans because there's a significant focus on the human perspectives in the story; that's not always the case with the non-human groups, because they can get marginalized at times. The Dalish, for example, tend to get lumped together in a bad way due to some of the worst being at the forefront, because of the storyteller Sarel's hostility in Origins, the condescension from one of the guards at the Sabrae Clan when Hawke initially approaches, or the Dalish clan in "The Masked Empire" being inhabited by some of the worst people. Unless you're aware of the lore and realize how dangerous outsiders can be to the Dalish, they simply across as arrogant jerks, and it's why a few people in this community seem to think the worst about them. 

 

In only having limited exposure to them, some players get the impression that the Dalish are all alike, and that being one of the People means being condescending or hostile like Sarel. We don't get the same insight into their culture that we do with the humans. Our exposure is limited, and we only get some minor Dalish insight into their perspective about the fall of the Dales, except from a codex entry and the words from an elven Warden towards a member of the Chantry, or even their view on magic and spirits, which is pieced together through Merrill's religious debates with Anders, and the line from WoT. Weekes' even admitted that a Dalish perspective wasn't provided in "The Masked Empire" to avoid reader confusion, which is also why they use Andrastian terms; they're also not given the same depth and nuance as Celene, Gaspard, Michel, or some of the minor human characters.

 

The human focus is also why some posters have expressed concern about whether the different racial backgrounds will have dialogue that's true to their background and culture, or if it's going to be homogenized to be no different than if one was playing as a human. My opinion is that some more story focus on these groups might change that. There's still a lot to explore with the dwarven, qunari, and elven cultures. Just my opinion, of course.

 

It seems like you have a particular slant with how you'd like the Dalish culture to be explored and whatnot.  I know you're a big fan of the Dalish, but it's important to remember that there's a risk that digging deep may mean having it move in a direction that you don't particularly enjoy.

 

We get it from fans of past games as well that insist that we've ruined characters because the character's story arcs didn't go in directions that some fans felt they should have.  Especially returning characters that have allowed people to imagine how their favourites must have went about after the end of the previous installment.

 

 

Unfortunately I don't know the reasoning nor plans for the plot breakdown, so I can't really say if it is in the cards to incorporate more of the Dalish (or the other races) or not or if the focus is always expected to be somewhat along the lines they have been thus far.  Which isn't really an interesting answer for you, unfortunately.

[Allan Schumacher]

I named my DA:O PC Justina. :/

 

I have a cousin named Michael.  So sometimes people just share the same name with others

[David Gaider]

is there really anything here to complain about?

 

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.

[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.

[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.

[David Gaider]

Speaking of DAI again, if gay men are getting twice as much options as lesbians in this game, then it would be a sign for me that it follows the same route as movies and TV shows when it comes to treatment of lesbians. And it would leave me with very low expectations about Sera's romance.

 

I'm not sure why you would assume that's the case.

 

Either way, I'm not suggesting you should be happy if you don't get the same number of options as someone else-- "be glad for what you get and shut up already" sort of thing. It'd be nice if we received the benefit of the doubt, or at least waited until they knew whether there was actual cause for alarm, but either way I've stated what our priorities are. Ultimately, we've set out first to write stories that we were interested in writing, and to give players of all genders and preferences some choices and content specifically with them in mind. There's no way to please everyone, but I guess we'll see how it plays out.

[David Gaider]

 

 

For some reason I really don't recall even one portrayal of lesbian character done by gay man that didn't turn out to be demeaning (the same is true for lesbian portrayals done by bisexual women), while some of the best lesbian characters I know were made by straight men.

 

Anyway, I was only talking about his own words. If lesbians really get the least number of options, just the minimal number they all decided to give anyone, then according to his own words apparently lesbian stories are not the stories they were interested in telling. So, maybe having lesbian writers among them would change that.

 

Wow.

 

It's good to know that (potentially) having insufficient romance options specifically tailored for one's interests is a form of oppression... and if one can simultaneously imply that that potential must exist because the lead writer either hates lesbians or can't understand them, all the better.

 

I was about to respond to some earlier concerns, but I think this is the point where I need to stop looking at this thread altogether.

[David Gaider]

I do not think this Survey is representative of anything.
Mostly because it is of the BSN, which has a very different stretch of Opinions than the Rest of the World.

 

This. Every single poll that's been done on the forums previously shows a massively different skew than the actual telemetry. Which shouldn't be surprising—the type of person it takes to come to a game's forum, never mind come to the forum well before or after release, is a far different person than your average fan. They bought the game the same number of times, and thus are equally important in the overall scheme of things, with the only real difference being their interest in continuing to talk about it online.

 

So, speaking statistically, any poll here is indicative only of the views of forumites--or, by extrapolation, the likely views of the very hardcore percentage of players. Which is neat, but one cannot extrapolate further than that.

[David Gaider]

To be honest, though, I would expect Dorian to still do better than Iron Bull or Varric once they get in the "real" game statistics. The BSN is way more into non-humans than the general numbers turn in. Whatever they get here, you can knock off at least a few points and tack on a few more to humans. I would bet on that.

 

To a degree, if you're looking purely at "percentage of total players", romanceable female characters will always be the most popular. Their numbers will skew higher, whether they're gay or straight (as in "were they romanced by a PC of the same gender or not"). Numbers for white, blond, and/or "typical" (I don't know a phrase that adequately encompasses concepts like "girl next door" or "handsome jock") romances will also skew higher. Does that indicate racism, or simply an attraction my the majority of players to characters that reflect themselves? I'm not sure you can cite racism when it comes to sexual attraction, as there's absolutely no metric that dictates what someone "should" be attracted to.

 

Regardless, other than the complication of characters who aren't always recruited (like Fenris or Isabela in DA2), the percentage use of content is pretty predictable when it comes to this stuff, when one is looking at numbers of a certain statistical size (which our telemetry would be, numbering in the millions of players).

 

Fortunately, we don't write romances to be popular. One need only look at our lineup for DAI to see that's true. We are perfectly comfortable with the idea that someone may play the game either not desiring any romance (which is, in fact, the majority of players--another factoid that does not align with hardcore fan norms) or finding nobody that's personally appealing. We're not going to go out of our way to make a character a niche interest, but neither are we collecting data to distill the "perfect mass appeal" archetype... as I think we all know what that would look like without needing telemetry data.

 

And, since some people have asked:

 

* Yes, telemetry does take into account players who do multiple playthroughs. We have data on how many people play through the game more than once, how many start the game multiple times, and the behavior of those who do multiple playthroughs versus those who only play the game once. We know how far those play-once people get in the game before they typically begin dropping out, etc.

 

* The use of that data is limited. We do not know why players chose these things, for instance, and we have to be careful when we use the data as justification for something. Also, the existence of a choice has inherent value regardless of the number of people that chose it... if that wasn't true, we wouldn't provide evil choices in games (as 86% of players consistently make the "good" choice every time one's presented). At best, it provides us reasons to look at ways to better present/write under-utilized options, or do more work on the things we know will be more widely seen.

 

* We're not likely to ever provide the data publicly. Maybe we would--but what would be the point, other than to give the impression amongst a lot of ill-informed people as to what we use that data for or what that data actually represents. For every person who assures us this wouldn't cause any issues, we have historical data that says otherwise (see "you can tell us stuff, and say that it's very subject to change and so forth... we'll understand, and not treat it as an ironclad promise").

[David Gaider]

Believe me, I know, but I think part of it was because the devs DID use that term "playersexual" rather than "bisexual" at the time, so instead we've got what is it.. two years (a year and a half?) of creator-endorsed mentality to unlearn. (If they bother to unlearn it.) I'm glad they've finally come out and taken a stance on the issue, but for someone like me, who does identify as bi, it's a little late in coming. When you add in a lot of the unfortunate tropes that are often associated with the bi LIs as well, it just feels a little disheartening to see that sort of language reinforce the idea that bisexuality is some sort of temporary thing on the way to deciding if you're straight or gay.

 

The issue mainly was one of there being two primary uses of the word here on the forums--and, with either use, it having a very different connotation anywhere outside of the forums.

 

When the term was first invoked, people on the forums were primarily using it in the connotation of "you are free to interpret the sexuality of the character however you wish, because not all of them contradict that in a given playthrough", I didn't mind it as much. That also covers viewing the term from a purely gameplay-oriented standpoint--as in "is this a same-sex romance or not?" being dictated by the gender of your player character.

 

It's later, when the term began to be used much more to refer to the sexuality of the character actually changing depending on the player character--so they're not bisexual at all, but rather straight in one playthrough and gay in the other (again, ignoring characters like Isabela or any other evidence when it became inconvenient to their usage)--that the word became distasteful to me. I cannot go back and change history regarding how it was first invoked, and the conversation that occurred at the time...but it's also pretty clear that many people aren't aware there is or was any other meaning for the term at all. Which is why I'd just rather it not be invoked at all, at this point.

[David Gaider]

I'm not sure I see a meaningful distinction between the first point and the second, but thank you for the change in language regardless. (I do get the game-play point you mentioned though.)

 

The meaningful distinction is the first is about the player, and the player's perception, while the second is about the character, and suggests it's their sexuality which is subjective and not the player's perception of it... and thus also implies that bisexuality itself is subjective. Two very different connotations.

[Allan Schumacher]

I think this thread has outlived its relevancy.

 

I vote we reopen it (or rather, create a new one) when the other romances happen to be revealed (and I don't know when that will be).