579 réponses à ce sujet

[SofaJockey]

A trope I'd noticed is:

 

"mature character's don't romance"

 

Health warning: addressing this trope may carry difficult marketing challenges but that does not diminish that the trope is there.

 

There are a small number of characters who are more mature, and because there are less of them, I'll quote from both the Dragon Age and Mass Effect franchises as the concept is consistent.

 

DA characters such as Oghren, Sten, Wynne, Shale, Aveine & Varric are not romanceable.

 

There are clearly some plot/race reasons (Shale being an obvious one) but of the rest, these are largely mature characters and it is easy to assume the trope:

older characters don't romance.

 

Oghren is clearly interested, even if he is mixed up in relationships with Branka and Felsi.

Sten is not the typical romance subject but he is impressed enough to consider the warden a 'basalit-an' a worthy thing and uses the term 'kadan': "where the heart lies." If this is not epic love interest territory I don't know what is.

Wynne is an older mage clearly, but BioWare have not shied away from LGBT so why is age a barrier?

 

In Mass Effect, he is a DLC but Zaeed Massani is a fan favourite but not romanceable. The more disposable Diana Allers is romanceable after a fashion.

 

So in DAI, who looks to be non-romanceable?

 

Leliana - still loves my warden, no problem there.

Cole - has issues I understand why not

[Technically could be either: Vivienne, Blackwall, Solas, & Varric] - my bet is that the two non-romanceable characters will be more mature.

 

Onto the difficulty: Some of these characters do romance (Oghren often - Wynne had, and there's Bianca...)

But they don't romance the PC.

 

The player base is adult, the PCs are adult. But take Blackwall for example. Make him a love interest, put him in bed with a young looking human (character creator doing great stuff no doubt) and you will have youtube of 'pervert sex in dragon age'. It would make Liara's side-boob an idle concern.

 

Neverthless, the trope remains. Romance is only for the young (unless you are an alien).

 

An older female LI might be a way to deal with the trope in future.

 

[berelinde]

On the other hand, invariably providing the (presumably male) protagonist with the ability to kill off male rivals while protecting his female LI from any harm might also be considered a form of misogyny. And unlike their female counterparts, those male rivals will *stay* dead. For more than half of them, their death is the default import state.

[Dabrikishaw]

"Cute" and/or "vulnerable" looking love interests that you want to hug like Tali, Liara, and Merril.

[Kalamah]

THIS!!!  You forgot to mention Tallis!  I was wondering this very thing.  It's pretty blatant.  I'm getting really tired of all the Mary Sue's BioWare has.  Maybe wouldn't mind so much if we could see at least a few Marty Stu's from our male companions. 

Well, what exactly is Alistair, then? He's the illegitimate son of a king, elf-blooded, noble warrior type, charming and bashful, etc. It just seems to me that the complaints about Tallis would be far less of an issue if she were male, because if you analyze the specific objections to her these same traits in male characters are rarely critiqued. Besides, DA2's opening sequence is just as much "bad*** exaggeration" of fighting styles as Tallis', so arguably her intro is an exaggeration, and being a cutscene it's kind of supposed to be breaking the mechanics of what's actually possible to do in-game, just like other cutscenes.

 

I just wonder about the "Mary Sue" designation being used so quickly to dismiss female characters for being competent. I mean, sure, there can be a middle ground, but then why do the women have to be held back by it?

[Magdalena11]

Plot armor only comes in ladies' sizes.

 

I mean, look.

 

Morrigan: absolutely unkillable, returning character with a major part in DAI

Leliana: You *thought* you could kill her. You were wrong. She returns again and again and again, and is reputed to be a major part of DAI.

Alistair: You can execute him. If you do, he is guaranteed never to return.

Zevran: You can execute him before he even joins the party. Canonically dead. He has been confirmed not to be present in DAI.

Anders: You can execute him. Canonically dead. Presence in DAI (for those that spared him) is unconfirmed.

Fenris: You can kill him, but he is completely irrelevant to the plot of DA2, so it's unlikely to matter either way.

Isabela: Unkillable. You can surrender her to the Arishok, but she escapes.

Merrill: You can kill her.

 

In the DA games alone (excluding DLC), all four male LIs can be killed outright and are guaranteed never to return, but three out of four female LIs are immortal, and two are guaranteed to return in major roles.

My deepest fear in the Dragon Age series is that Leliana is the new Andraste.  She's already the Maker's chosen one, does she really need that much extra padding to be special?  Surprisingly enough, Morrigan doesn't offend me, probably because she's not as OP in DAO.  The only thing that kept Leliana alive this current playthrough is that she does eventually confess that it might not be the Maker but it sounds more dramatic that way (in the post-coronation sequence, if you pick the option that it's not a play.)

 

I'm going to be mortally offended if Vivienne and Sera enjoy the same perks and I fully plan at least one playthrough where I don't talk to Leliana at all.  I completely accept that some quests won't work out and I'm OK with that.  The fact is, she's a stain on the face of an otherwise great game and if I have to accept the fact that without her the game is meaningless, the game has to accept the fact that with her its days are numbered.  Who knows, things may change and she might grow a flaw or two.

[Magdalena11]

"Cute" and/or "vulnerable" looking love interests that you want to hug like Tali, Liara, and Merril.

We're talking about things we hate here, right?

[Ser Pounce A Lot_]

"Cute" and/or "vulnerable" looking love interests that you want to hug like Tali, Liara, and Merril.

 

What wrong with that? Those are some of my favorite romances from the Bioware games. Nothing wrong with a little moe 

[Magdalena11]

*realizes what she just typed and wishes she knew how to take it back*

 

Sorry, guys.  I know a lot of people like the companions I hate and the reason I absolutely loathe the companions I do is because they "steal" the glory away from the PC.  It's my ego being crushed that hurts and I really do apologize for being spiteful and snarky.  I've got a lot of practice being second best at things and it shouldn't really get me down, but it still does.  After all, second best is still in the top 3.

[Kalamah]

Thinking about inverting common tropes, or at least genderflipping them which I'd argue is a form of inversion/subversion... I'm not sure I'd actually want to have a "cute and vulnerable" male LI. As it is, I get irritated with the hetero male LI's and their codependency issues. Then again, Anders has basically the same issues except for the fact he doesn't need to be prodded to make decisions for himself and he's bisexual, but his independence is overshadowed by the fact he has so many other issues that he's a walking subscription. And speaking of that, that falls into the "bisexuals and unhealthy relationships" trope.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

*realizes what she just typed and wishes she knew how to take it back*

 

Sorry, guys.  I know a lot of people like the companions I hate and the reason I absolutely loathe the companions I do is because they "steal" the glory away from the PC.  It's my ego being crushed that hurts and I really do apologize for being spiteful and snarky.  I've got a lot of practice being second best at things and it shouldn't really get me down, but it still does.  After all, second best is still in the top 3.

You can hide the post if you want to take it back. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

"Cute" and/or "vulnerable" looking love interests that you want to hug like Tali, Liara, and Merril.

I love those romances. 

[Kalamah]

This is a point that was raised before, but I think it bears repeating: there's an overall trend of bisexual LIs being damaged by their pasts and being codependent as a result. While there's a lot of variance specific to each character based on their personality and backgrounds, it still bugs me, even if one could argue that the hetero LI's also have baggage.

[Magdalena11]

I'm going to leave my thoughts in for the following reason:  I'm a jerk.  I do appreciate knowing that "hide" works for everyone, not just me.  I didn't know that.  I just think the world at large needs to realize that everyone wants to feel special sometimes and that plot armor detracts from that experience significantly.  

[berelinde]

Thinking about inverting common tropes, or at least genderflipping them which I'd argue is a form of inversion/subversion... I'm not sure I'd actually want to have a "cute and vulnerable" male LI. As it is, I get irritated with the hetero male LI's and their codependency issues. Then again, Anders has basically the same issues except for the fact he doesn't need to be prodded to make decisions for himself and he's bisexual, but his independence is overshadowed by the fact he has so many other issues that he's a walking subscription. And speaking of that, that falls into the "bisexuals and unhealthy relationships" trope.

When I write, I make it a point to gender-flip the characters to see if they still sound plausible. Gender or sexual identity is a spectrum and not a pair of binary absolutes, and you will get representation across the whole thing, meaning that some female characters will appear at the "masculine" end and some male characters will appear at the "feminine" end, and that's exactly as it should be. Buuuut... if a female character is gender-swapped and suddenly becomes unacceptably cutesy as a male, the original character concept was probably sexist to begin with. Likewise, if you gender-swap a male character and the female version seems impossibly manly, the male concept probably won't work, either. People aren't caricatures.

 

And that talk about capable female characters being labeled with the Mary Sue tag is depressing, because it pulls the focus away from genuine deficiencies with the character. People fixate on the label and leap to the character's defense while ignoring entirely fixable issues that would have avoided the problem entirely.

[Kalamah]

I'm going to leave my thoughts in for the following reason:  I'm a jerk.  I do appreciate knowing that "hide" works for everyone, not just me.  I didn't know that.  I just think the world at large needs to realize that everyone wants to feel special sometimes and that plot armor detracts from that experience significantly.  

I think I get your perspective, but I'm wondering one thing: does being special necessarily mean no other character is important? Because the Warden, Hawke, and Inquisitor (especially with the unique glowy hand of fade-tear repair) all are absolutely vital to the overall story, and are the stars of their specific games. And they couldn't have done it without some help.

[Magdalena11]

It's looking like all our companions are affected by their pasts in one way or another.  For me, the unfortunate romance trope is that our LI can be "cured" of their character flaw through the PC's intervention.  All that is is an ego-stroking in disguise.

[Dabrikishaw]

We're talking about things we hate here, right?

I'm talking about a pattern Bioware uses in their romances, same as everyone else. That the rest of these patterns happen to be problematic has no bearing on the validity of my pointing out this one.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I'm talking about a pattern Bioware uses in their romances, same as anyone. That the rest of these patterns happen to be problematic has no bearing on the validity of my pointing out this one.

This thread is for addressing unfortunate romance tropes/archtypes, as in things people want to see stopped. 

[Dabrikishaw]

Okay, I'll just leave then. I realized how many people are objecting to my post now and I don't feel like responding to any drama.

[Magdalena11]

I think I get your perspective, but I'm wondering one thing: does being special necessarily mean no other character is important? Because the Warden, Hawke, and Inquisitor (especially with the unique glowy hand of fade-tear repair) all are absolutely vital to the overall story, and are the stars of their specific games. And they couldn't have done it without some help.

I've actually thought a lot about ego and the ability to be unique, primarily because of a completely unrelated table-top game I'm in.  I don't mind if my companions are awesome.  I hope they are.  I just don't find it fun when their awesomeness makes me look like a fool to myself.  It's neither more nor less than a personal failing.  I'll find a way to cope or stop playing.  After all, I might really be a fool.  No one is holding a gun to my head and making me play or else.

 

For all the unfortunate tropes out there, I'll say this:  the games written so far have inspired introspection.  I've learned a lot about myself.

[Ser Pounce A Lot_]

When I write, I make it a point to gender-flip the characters to see if they still sound plausible. Gender or sexual identity is a spectrum and not a pair of binary absolutes, and you will get representation across the whole thing, meaning that some female characters will appear at the "masculine" end and some male characters will appear at the "feminine" end, and that's exactly as it should be. Buuuut... if a female character is gender-swapped and suddenly becomes unacceptably cutesy as a male, the original character concept was probably sexist to begin with. Likewise, if you gender-swap a male character and the female version seems impossibly manly, the male concept probably won't work, either. People aren't caricatures.

 

And that talk about capable female characters being labeled with the Mary Sue tag is depressing, because it pulls the focus away from genuine deficiencies with the character. People fixate on the label and leap to the character's defense while ignoring entirely fixable issues that would have avoided the problem entirely.

 

You know, there are significant differences between males and females, and writers pointing them out doesn't make them necessarily sexist.

[Kalamah]

When I write, I make it a point to gender-flip the characters to see if they still sound plausible. Gender or sexual identity is a spectrum and not a pair of binary absolutes, and you will get representation across the whole thing, meaning that some female characters will appear at the "masculine" end and some male characters will appear at the "feminine" end, and that's exactly as it should be. Buuuut... if a female character is gender-swapped and suddenly becomes unacceptably cutesy as a male, the original character concept was probably sexist to begin with. Likewise, if you gender-swap a male character and the female version seems impossibly manly, the male concept probably won't work, either. People aren't caricatures.

 

And that talk about capable female characters being labeled with the Mary Sue tag is depressing, because it pulls the focus away from genuine deficiencies with the character. People fixate on the label and leap to the character's defense while ignoring entirely fixable issues that would have avoided the problem entirely.

I'm similar with my writing, I suppose. While I do love femme dudes, I go for the middle ground with all my characters, which includes variance all over the scale. For me, avoiding too much of one trait is a given and something I don't need to watch myself to ensure I don't make only the women one way and the men another. My characters are essentially people first, even while being fictional creations, so I shape them according to that model rather than "I need X archetype with Y traits for Z reasons" because people aren't like that. I also take inspiration from friends and people I know in determining personality and background traits, and due to that I hope I end up with realistic characters.

 

But then I'm also not one to hold to any sort of rule about gender determining traits and acceptability thereof. Men and women aren't actually inherently different in the ways people are socialized to believe, because these differences are a socialized construct that's heavily dependent on culture. Therefore, I don't believe there's "unacceptable" levels of cute vs. manly just on the basis of gender. For example, taking Merrill's archetype of naive, innocent, and sweet-hearted, these traits are fine on their own, but they're seen as weird if given to a male character. It doesn't mean these traits are bad, but it does mean there's a bias in assigning them solely to female characters.

 

As for the Mary Sue thing, people defend the characters labeled as such not purely as a knee-jerk reaction, but because the label is arbitrarily assigned to female characters for being just as competent as male characters, and this is seen as unacceptable. We notice female competency and look for flaws to make it lesser or cheaper, and this is socialized misogyny. Besides which, the main complaint of Tallis breaking the Qun centers around not only ignoring her own explanation of how the Ben-Hassrath is different than the Beresaad, which is more an issue with how the games only showed the warrior Qunari up until that point, but in how the "women aren't fighters!" is more about purpose/motivation and fighting style than a hard-line rule of the Qun that cannot be broken ever.

[Felya87]

Well, what exactly is Alistair, then? He's the illegitimate son of a king, elf-blooded, noble warrior type, charming and bashful, etc. It just seems to me that the complaints about Tallis would be far less of an issue if she were male, because if you analyze the specific objections to her these same traits in male characters are rarely critiqued. Besides, DA2's opening sequence is just as much "bad*** exaggeration" of fighting styles as Tallis', so arguably her intro is an exaggeration, and being a cutscene it's kind of supposed to be breaking the mechanics of what's actually possible to do in-game, just like other cutscenes.

 

I just wonder about the "Mary Sue" designation being used so quickly to dismiss female characters for being competent. I mean, sure, there can be a middle ground, but then why do the women have to be held back by it?

 

Alistair can be dead, or a drunk. so he don't fill the "gary stue" thing. I can't remember female LIs ending up as bad as he can...most of them are untouchable with heavy plot armor that male LI don't have.

[Ryzaki]

Well, what exactly is Alistair, then? He's the illegitimate son of a king, elf-blooded, noble warrior type, charming and bashful, etc. It just seems to me that the complaints about Tallis would be far less of an issue if she were male, because if you analyze the specific objections to her these same traits in male characters are rarely critiqued. Besides, DA2's opening sequence is just as much "bad*** exaggeration" of fighting styles as Tallis', so arguably her intro is an exaggeration, and being a cutscene it's kind of supposed to be breaking the mechanics of what's actually possible to do in-game, just like other cutscenes.

 

I just wonder about the "Mary Sue" designation being used so quickly to dismiss female characters for being competent. I mean, sure, there can be a middle ground, but then why do the women have to be held back by it?

 

It's probably because you can kill him, disagree with him and utterly ruin him.

 

That's exactly what stops him from being a sue.

 

I don't agree with any of the female companions being a sue (though I thought Tallis was pushing that envelope pretty damn hard). But the female companions? No. Though you don't really get the chance to utterly screw with them the way you can the main males.

[Kalamah]

I've actually thought a lot about ego and the ability to be unique, primarily because of a completely unrelated table-top game I'm in.  I don't mind if my companions are awesome.  I hope they are.  I just don't find it fun when their awesomeness makes me look like a fool to myself.  It's neither more nor less than a personal failing.  I'll find a way to cope or stop playing.  After all, no one is holding a gun to my head and making me play or else.

I can understand, yeah. For me, DA2 was a bit of an ego-blow to me, actually, because I was looking forward to a plot more like Origins where I could be a hero and save people, and I got a much more realistic and depressing story dumped on me instead. It took me a while to come to terms with the fact that Hawke being largely unable to prevent tragedy on a large scale (the Qunari attack, other more minor incidents where death was unpreventable) wasn't a bad thing. It's still depressing as hell to me, but I don't mind it as much anymore.

 

To get back on topic though, I too am irked at how we're given the opportunity to kill off companions and then smacked with the retcon of those decisions. It's not that I personally ever wanted to kill off any companions, but that it's sloppy storytelling to basically yank a pivotal choice away from us for plot reasons, and then have to deal with the fact the character we were allowed to kill at all is actually vital. It's simply not fair objectively.