Huh? I'm not sure I understand your point.
I think Ray's going on the assumption that bi characters may only be romanced by bi or gay protagonists... which kinda defeats the purpose of them being bi. Stick to your chart, daveliam. It makes much more sense to break things down into "Who is available to males?" and "Who is available to females?".
Huh? I'm not sure I understand your point.
technically there are more LGB character that are romance-able than there are Heterosexual characters this is not about the options for the players of each repersentation just the number of LGB romance-able character in general.
I think Ray's going on the assumption that bi characters may only be romanced by bi or gay protagonists... which kinda defeats the purpose of them being bi. Stick to your chart, daveliam. It makes much more sense to break things down into "Who is available to males?" and "Who is available to females?".
if you read my post I was talking about representation not the option for each type of player aka SM have 2 vs SF have 3.
Well, there's is one problem with all of the LGBT characters being romanceable.
For some characters you could totally miss out on who they are attracted to if you don't try to romance them or play a certain gender. Or of course, you just don't recruit them at all, because they're optional.
Examples are Sky, Leliana, Zevran, Anders, Isabela, Fenris, Merrill, Kaidan. If you play a certain way, you could pretty much completely avoid any indication that they're LGBT. Whereas an NPC who was obviously LGBT may not be avoidable.
if you read my post I was talking about repersentation not the option for each type of player aka SM have 2 vs SF have 3.
All 9 companions could be gay males but that wouldn't be good LGBT representation either because it ignores the other various sexualities encompassed by LGBT. That is a really weird argument to make >.>
Respectful and constructive debate attempt, here we go.....
I totally get where you're coming from, but to me this isn't about exclusion, but inclusion. History is important because it impacts social views towards specific minorities, in this case, LGBT+ communities. We live in a society where these groups are routinely excluded from media of all types - or represented in offensive, stereotypical ways. That's not my opinion, that's a fact, a quick google search will set anyone who disagrees with that straight (no pun intended).
I agree whole-heartedly that history is important. But we must realize that we create history every day. Every time we exclude heterosexuals because homosexuals have been excluded in the past, we run the risk of making them feel the same pain and anger that homosexuals have been dealing with for a long time. In the case of making sure that the homosexuals have options in the first place, this kind of exclusion in unavoidable. No argument on earth could convince me that Sera and Dorian's romances are excluding heterosexuals, given that Cassandra and Cullen exclude homosexuals. The exclusion is equal to both sides. Don't like it, don't play.
But when we decide that for the explicit purpose of previous discrimination, we're going to make Character A gay, or make sure that spare romances lean towards homosexuals, in my opinion, is just as bad as doing it the other way around. I have no problem whatsoever with deciding that Character A fits better as a gay character based on his concept and characterization. That's a balanced and fair way of deciding that, and something I support entirely. But using previous history to decide current history is allowing a past filled with pain and anger to control your actions, rather than inform them. In my opinion.
Like I said, I advocate for equal opportunities across the board for all types of people. But in this particular instance (In Dragon Age Inquisition. Not other games. I'm talking about Dragon Age Inquisition) where we already know for certain that not everyone can have equal options, for me (and I'm speaking as a straight female) the next best case scenario imo is for the 'extra options', I guess you could call them, to be given to the people who have been routinely and systematically left out.
And for me, I don't really care what way those romances fall. Could be gay, could be straight, it makes no difference. As long as the romances fit the characters better, I'm all for them. I was leery at Bioware making romances with actual orientations at first, but now I rather like it. Because they believe, and I do to, that it enhances the characters. It doesn't take anything away from Dorian that he's only attracted to men. It doesn't make Cassandra less of a character because she feels the same way, or that Iron bull will romance anything on two feet. It fleshes them out. It shows that they are not just some electronic waifu that the player has control over.
And trying to confine these characters because discrimination has happened in the past, in my opinion, weakens the characters far more than making them playersexual ever could. As long as Bioware puts the characters before a real-world agenda of making up for the exclusions of the past, then I am all for them,
I don't see not having the extra options as a punishment if it results in what I consider to be a progressional reward for all of society. And I believe only people already in privileged positions (like me) who would act retroactively to having less options, already have their own problems with internal entitlement that overall is irrelevant to the issue. Honestly? Other straight people kicking up a fuss and being upset over having one less option is unimportant to me when I see minority groups celebrating and rejoicing at finally being represented to a standard that they haven't been before.
It's not about whether or not gay players or straight players are excluded from something. It's the reasons behind that exclusion. If Bioware thought that Solas would fits best for male elves only, and would provide "SUPER story reasons" to match, I would have no problem with their decision. If, however, they said, "Well, gay males have never the most romance options before, so we made Solas gay", I would get pretty ticked off. It would show that they made a decision not based on the character they created, or even what makes sense for the story. Rather on a attempt to make up for previous discrimination and exclusion, things that CANNOT be made up for entirely.
I know from experience that when a wrong has been committed, the only force capable of overcoming it is forgiveness and reconciliation. Bioware has made 23 games with more straight options than gay ones. 23 games the other way wouldn't solve the issue. All it would do is upset a different group. At some point, the sins of the past have to be left there. We can and must learn from them, we can and should apologize for them. We can attempt not to commit them in the future. But to actively make things go the other way only leads to more anger and hate, rather than mutual understanding and equality.
But also, like you, I realise this is just my opinion and it may be flawed. You're welcome to disagree with it.
And I do. But I think the two of us can and have managed a disagreement based on mutually respectful articulation of our views.
Respectful and constructive debate attempt achieved?
All 9 companions could be gay males but that wouldn't be good LGBT representation either because it ignores the other various sexualities encompassed by LGBT. That is a really weird argument to make >.>
I said LGB because i knew Transsexuals have no representation at all in the game as far as we know.
technically there are more LGB character that are romance-able than there are Heterosexual characters this is not about the options for the players of each repersentation just the number of LGB romance-able character in general.
But that's using a false dichotomy. Either someone is "LGB" or they are not. Why use this simplified method of categorization when it's more accurate to look at 6 groups of people (straight men, straight women, bisexual men, bisexual women, gay men, and gay women)? Even this is way more simplified that reality, but it's certainly more accurate than just "queer"/"not queer".
technically there are more LGB character that are romance-able than there are Heterosexual characters this is not about the options for the players of each repersentation just the number of LGB romance-able character in general.
Yes there are more LGBT characters romanceables, that's because, as the acronym suggest, LGBT represents VARIOUS demographic, where non-LGBT represents only one demographic, and it just seems normal that the options of various persons put together are more numerous that the options of just one person.
well if we want a even gender ratio it will be viv but blackwall's been teasedAllan said we could open a new one when another love interest was revealed.Is everyone still here, or did heartbreak drive you away?Varric - nomance :(Solas - female elf onlyThat leaves one. It seems like Vivienne will be it.Oh, does anyone remember their predictions from the previous thread? I don't recall many people calling Solas as gender and race gated.Lara Croft asked me for a full list, and DA FAN has offered up this handy chart!
But that's using a false dichotomy. Either someone is "LGB" or they are not. Why use this simplified method of categorization when it's more accurate to look at 6 groups of people (straight men, straight women, bisexual men, bisexual women, gay men, and gay women)? Even this is way more simplified that reality, but it's certainly more accurate than just "queer"/"not queer".
Not trying to affend so sorry there, we should stop using the LGBT terminology in general.
All 9 companions could be gay males but that wouldn't be good LGBT representation either because it ignores the other various sexualities encompassed by LGBT. That is a really weird argument to make >.>
I was in the middle of writing up similar. LGB is not one amorphous blob that is sated if, say, only one of its many sexualities is represented. It's a diverse umbrella of individual groups. Even breaking it down further into Hetero group = straight men/straight women, Bi group = bi men/bi women, and Same-Sex Group = gay men/lesbian women, it's still pretty simplified than taking each group in itself into account.
Okay, we're never going to have a point in time where we treat heterosexuals the same that we have (and are) treating homosexuals badly, so let's not say we're risking doing so. Unless you think video game romances are going to lead to concentration camps and executions for heterosexuals.
why is it too much to make them bi so that homosexuals AND heterosexuals can have them? oO
I think there is a writing issue here.
'Making someone bi' can compromise the writing making one sexuality feel 'tacked on'.
DA2 was disliked by many for the 'everyone is bi' approach, though this this was mostly down to companion numbers.
So if a character is bi, the writer needs to feel they really are bi and not just made bi for convenience.
In other words, Josie and Iron Bull are bi because those characters really are bi, it's not just a numbers fix.
I think there is a writing issue here.
'Making someone bi' can compromise the writing making one sexuality feel 'tacked on'.
DA2 was disliked by many for the 'everyone is bi' approach, though this this was mostly down to companion numbers.
So if a character is bi, the writer needs to feel they really are bi and not just made bi for convenience.
In other words, Josie and Iron Bull are bi because those characters really are bi, it's not just a numbers fix.
I wasn't talking about all companions, I was talking about the last two (Solas isn't bisexual, unfortunately). But I would have been pleased if the last two were bi. 2/4/2
What if your pet dragon turn into a woman/man in the last quarter of the game, and they are the last romance? 
What if your pet dragon turn into a woman/man in the last quarter of the game, and they are the last romance?
we'll have a pet dragon? O.o
But the character can be written as bi from the outset, and they may possess the same character traits as straight or gay people. For example, Cullen is declared to be straight, but I think that's mostly to avoid the backlash Anders suffered: "But he never said anything about boys before!" I could imagine that Cullen might have been bi all along, but was just not attracted to the male mage Warden, for whatever reason. Does it change his character? No. Does it change who he is? No. But it does keep the forums from exploding with endless rants about playersexuality or what have you. That's probably why it's easier to make the new characters bi or gay. Regardless of what personality traits they possess, there is no history to question.
we'll have a pet dragon? O.o
Thought that was what the blue light thing meant in the last second to last trailer.
Thought that was what the blue light thing meant in the last second to last trailer.
Can't remember that trailer. I think I missed it.
Yes, truly king of the higher road.
Seriously, as mentioned before, Cullen has had ten years to work through his issues after the Circle. He even has character progress throughout DA2 to that end. Character progress that, I might point out, has **** all to do with Hawke or the player's influence.
But the character can be written as bi from the outset, and they may possess the same character traits as straight or gay people. For example, Cullen is declared to be straight, but I think that's mostly to avoid the backlash Anders suffered: "But he never said anything about boys before!" I could imagine that Cullen might have been bi all along, but was just not attracted to the male mage Warden, for whatever reason. Does it change his character? No. Does it change who he is? No. But it does keep the forums from exploding with endless rants about playersexuality or what have you. That's probably why it's easier to make the new characters bi or gay. Regardless of what personality traits they possess, there is no history to question.
Out of 
...
The Writer decided they wanted Solas to be in to Lady Elves only when they wrote him who are we to restrict the creative freedom for numbers.
they wanted to do a M/F Elven Romance why is that so hard to under stand?.
Yes he could have been in to male elves but the writer decided he is not.
Back to .
Can't remember that trailer. I think I missed it.
The enemies trailer.
Out of
The Writer decided they wanted Solas to be in to Lady Elves only when they wrote him who are we to restrict the creative freedom for numbers.
they wanted to do a M/F Elven Romance why is that so hard to under stand?.
Yes he could have been in to male elves but the writer decided he is not.
Back to
Actually...I agree. I don't want them to make characters bi just to please queer folk such as my self. Characters should always have a set orientation, makes for stronger characterization.
Retour en haut
