4203 réponses à ce sujet

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Not a niche market game for gays, but a game that gives the impression it is more aimed towards fans of male romance content (whatever gender or orientation they are). I'd buy it happily, but I would feel like it was more aimed at me. 

 

And the second one depends entirely on just how much the romance is part of the game. If it's a genderswapped peach in Mario then yeah that's just the hero going off to rescue a prince instead of a princess, so i wouldn't consider that aimed at an audience who want same gender romance stuff. If the game heavily revolved around said romance and the characters sexuality, despite all events being predetermined, then that is more aimed at people who want the romance content. 

But Bioware's games aren't about romance either. They're primarily about the hero saving the world.. or whatever DA2 was about. They're even less about romance than Mario or Zelda type games, since those games are specifically about saving your love interest (or implied want-to-be love interest). 

[Elder Wan]

Oh this simply exhilirating. Looking foward to the last Li reveal.

 

Same here, though I'm expecting a huge shitstorm regardless of who it will be.

[Ianamus]

Let me change your analogy for you.

 

You're a vegetarian. You want to go out for dinner! But 9 out of 10 restaurants only serve meat dishes. The last 1o percent serve around 6 vegetarian dishes and 4 meat dishes. A couple of meatlovers complains loudly to a restaurant owner that he should be ashamed for favoring vegetarians because this is a meat loving town and restaurants should mostly cater to meatlovers.

 

Meatlovers constantly tell you that you're a minority - and yet you've met many vegetarians who one day hope they will find a restuarant that has them in the first place or even start a restaurant themselves! Despite many articles and blogs that write about how it's time for restaurants to change, how more vegetarians are making themselves public, even meatlovers standing up and demanding more vegetarian meals and scientists/psychologists saying on TV how it's important (and healthy!) for restaurants to have vegetarian meals, there's this buzzing internet crowd who angrily retorts whenever a restaurant adds more vegetarian dishes. And if that wasn't enough, the big popular restaurants just pretend vegetarians don't exist because they don't want to risk cutting profits.

 

The truth is that it wouldn't hurt us in the long run by giving the other side more so now and then when they've always had less or none. Because we will never lose 'straight options'. Straight people will never be ignored.

 

Edited for spelling mistakes.

 

I see your point but I don't think it's quite that bad. Very few games have player-initiated romance content at all, and of those that I've played at least a quarter of them had a same gender option for a male character, and around 50% had same gender options for females. 

 

Representation is something I agree we need a lot more of, but I like to separate that from romance options, because the two are quite different things. 

[Char]

I didn't say straight people should always have more interactive romance content, I said that there shouldn't really be more gay interactive romance content than straight romance content in games that aren't more aimed towards the market of people who want said content.

I don't really see why not. I don't think it would do any harm to have more exposure to other sexualities any more than it would to be exposed to different cultures. Yes sometimes people can react badly to inclusion, but it's usually due to ignorance and we can only counter ignorance by exposure and education. I played Kingdoms of Amalur recently. I always play as a female, and after the game and the DLC ended, I had two girlfriends and two wives. There were no males in that role. I had a brilliant time playing the game, though if I were a gay male I'd probably be a bit miffed.
I don't feel marginalised or annoyed that there were no men for me at all. In fact, I'm starting a new playthrough this week

[Yinello]

I see your point but I don't think it's quite that bad. Very few games have player-initiated romance content at all, and of those that I've played at least a quarter of them had a same gender option for a male character, and around 50% had same gender options for females. 

 

Representation is something I agree we need a lot more of, but I like to separate that from romance options, because the two are quite different things. 

 

I honestly can't think of any popular games featuring outside Mass Effect, Dragon Age and the Sims that have same sex romance options in them (and those 3 definitely do not make a quarter of all romance games). Do you have more examples?

[Ceoldoren]

Oh this simply exhilirating. Looking foward to the last Li reveal.

Thought I have some personal reasons to want Blackwall. This is still rather exciting.

[Ianamus]

But Bioware's games aren't about romance either. They're primarily about the hero saving the world.. or whatever DA2 was about. They're even less about romance than Mario or Zelda type games, since those games are specifically about saving your love interest (or implied want-to-be love interest). 

 

I know. In my edited version of that post I muse about it quite a bit. 

 

I suppose if the majority of romance options were gay the game overall wouldn't really feel aimed at fans of male romance content, but the romance part of the game would. 

 

I'm honestly surprised I got such a strong negative response to my original post. I really like romance content in games, particularly male/male romance content. I just don't feel like I need more of it than straight content in games that aren't specifically designed to be male/male romance games.

[Black Jimmy]

 

 

 

Cassandra is an in your face, ends justify the means (Crestwood demo not saving the village), deep down romantic warrior woman. 

 

Josephine is an adorable, seaside trip loving, wine loving and pen-is-mightier-than-sword diplomatic lady. 

 

Both have accents and both are devoted to the Inquisition. 

 

Both are also romanceable firsts in Dragon Age games.

 

Cassandra is the first romanceable female warrior, Josephine is the first romanceable female diplomat. 

 

Cassandra is a mix of Ashley and Aveline. 

 

Josephine is a mix of Liara and Samantha Traynor. 

 

Both appeal to different types of male Inquisitors. 

 

Depends on who you are and what type of women you like. You can't go wrong with either of them though. 

 

But if I romance one, I can't romance the other one!  

 

While Cass seemed a bit "ends>means" in that demo, I suppect she's the kind of person who will admit you made the right choice if you managed to save Crestwood and the inquisitions Fortress.

[Ianamus]

I honestly can't think of any popular games featuring outside Mass Effect, Dragon Age and the Sims that have same sex romance options in them (and those 3 definitely do not make a quarter of all romance games). Do you have more examples?

 

To be honest the ones you mentioned are pretty much a quarter of the games I've played with romance options. I did say a quarter of the ones I've personally played. 

 

The Fable series (all three) and Skyrim do as well, though. Fallout games let you flirt with people of the same gender, but doesn't really have romance options. And there are ones like Neverwinter Nights 2 that had no male/male option but did have a female/female one. Jade empire is another Bioware one that has same gender romances.

 

I'm not including visual Novels, but they are some of the best romance paths I've played since they are basically the entire game, and you get ones that consist entirely of same-gender romance content. It's the sort of thing I wish we had more of in the west. 

[sandalisthemaker]

 

I'm honestly surprised I got such a strong negative response to my original post. I really like romance content in games, particularly male/male romance content. I just don't feel like I need more of it than straight content in games that aren't specifically designed to be male/male romance games.

 

 

Gay people in this thread haven't been asking for more gay romances than straight romances.  They have been asking for *the same number* of gay romance options as straight romance options.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I know. In my edited version of that post I muse about it quite a bit. 

 

I suppose if the majority of romance options were gay the game overall wouldn't really feel aimed at fans of male romance content, but the romance part of the game would. 

 

I'm honestly surprised I got such a strong negative response to my original post. I really like romance content in games, particularly male/male romance content. I just don't feel like I need more of it than straight content in games that aren't specifically designed to be male/male romance games.

I don't feel that I consistently need more options than straight men. I just feel that a games that are aimed at a "general" audience should try to keep fairly consistent balance as to what parts of the entire population they're representing. That means sometimes it can be more for straight men/women, more for lesbians/gays, more dark skinned characters as LIs, etc. It doesn't always have to specifically mirror the majority. It's not being marketed as a piece of media that is for only the majority, it's a piece of media for all demographics. If you have options, then you're also included, but if you have consistently less options, I start to understand the complaint. If Bioware put out three games with only gay male options, I would definitely understand people getting annoyed. But I've never really wanted anyone to get less, my ideal is equality. When equality is not an option, though, they should try to mix up who out of the "general audience" gets those extras.

[XMissWooX]

I can see why some people are upset at this.

It seemed like DAI was the perfect opportunity for Bioware to give everyone perfectly equal options, but they didn't do this. I'm sure they had very good reasons for not doing this, but regardless it's still going to smart for those who end up getting less options.

[Ianamus]

Gay people in this thread haven't been asking for more gay romances than straight romances.  They have been asking for *the same number* of gay romance options as straight romance options.

 

I know, and I do think same number is fair. But it's often brought up that gay players "only ever have the same as or less", and that's not going to change unless they specifically get more, which I think is going too far for your average broad-appeal game. 

 

I don't think that every game has to have a completely equal number of options either, though it would nice if it did. And if one side did have to get more I do think it would probably be better to give it to as many people as possible, which will always go towards the larger majority. 

[AshesEleven]

Gay people in this thread haven't been asking for more gay romances than straight romances. They have been asking for *the same number* of gay romance options as straight romance options.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't see why having Solas be a straight romance is counted as straights having more. It's a very specific romance for female elves only. Not a large percentage of the player base will see it, I almost see it as exclusive , bonus content for girl elves, which I find cool.

It's like, everyone gets equal options, and then certain character/gender types will get one extra special option because of reasons unclear at the moment.

[NextArishok]

I can see why some people are upset at this.

It seemed like DAI was the perfect opportunity for Bioware to give everyone perfectly equal options, but they didn't do this. I'm sure they had very good reasons for not doing this, but regardless it's still going to smart for those who end up getting less options.

Also there could be a future dlc or dlcs that change things.  It not set it stone per se after the announcement.  

 

This is obviously a huge deal to many.  They just need the last character to be a sex toy for anyone. (people say its race gated though)

[sandalisthemaker]

I know, and I do think same number is fair. But it's often brought up that gay players "only have the same as or less", and that's not going to change unless they specifically get more, which I think is going too far for your average broad-appeal game. 

 

I don't think that every game has to have a completely equal number of options either, though it would nice if it did. And if one side did have to get more I do think it would probably be better to give it to as many people as possible, which will always go towards the larger majority. 

 

Well, (and take note BioWare) I would like to see *the same amount* of gay and lesbian romance options as straight romance options in all future BioWare games that have a romance component. 

 

Not less

 

Not more

 

The same amount

[Raikas]

It seemed like DAI was the perfect opportunity for Bioware to give everyone perfectly equal options, but they didn't do this.

 

This is a solid point.

 

I'm not hugely invested in the romances myself (I play them because I like seeing the extra content, but I'm always a little baffled by the intensity of the love that some people have for them), and despite that I was still very surprised that it didn't turn out to be the 2/4/2 split that's been expected since they revealed the total number.

[Steelcan]

I'd be fine with a 2/4/2 split or a 1/2/1 split or what have you

But I always don't understand why people get so worked up over them, so whatever.

[Ianamus]

I don't feel that I consistently need more options than straight men. I just feel that a games that are aimed at a "general" audience should try to keep fairly consistent balance as to what parts of the entire population they're representing. That means sometimes it can be more for straight men/women, more for lesbians/gays, more dark skinned characters as LIs, etc. It doesn't always have to specifically mirror the majority. It's not being marketed as a piece of media that is for only the majority, it's a piece of media for all demographics. If you have options, then you're also included, but if you have consistently less options, I start to understand the complaint. If Bioware put out three games with only gay male options, I would definitely understand people getting annoyed. But I've never really wanted anyone to get less, my ideal is equality. When equality is not an option, though, they should try to mix up who out of the "general audience" gets those extras.

 

I definitely agree that games aimed at a general audience should have more gay and bisexual and racial minority characters. They should be at least as prevalent in games as they are in real life. 

 

I just don't view optional romance content the same way, as interest in that, particularly same gender ones, is much more niche. Even among gay, bisexual and lesbian players I'd wager the majority don't have any interest in optional romances in games or don't even play games with optional romances in them, but would still appreciate bisexual or gay NPC's. 

 

Which is really why I try to draw as much distance between representation and LI's as possible. In a way it's not even so much "gay players get less" so much as it is "gay players who care about optional romance content with another person of their gender get less", which isn't the same as :All: gay people who play the game, let alone gay gamers as a whole. 

 

For instance: Skyrim had completely equal LI options, since every single marriage candidate was bisexual, yet not a single lesbian or gay character that I can name or even recall outside of mods. I view that as a much larger fail than Inquisition.

[XMissWooX]

They just need the last character to be a sex toy for anyone.

Perhaps I'm being dense, but I fail to see how Vivienne and/or Blackwall being bisexual/pansexual would have equated them to 'sex toys'.

[90s Luke]

"Equal options" implies that the writers even know from the beginning of development how many romanceable characters there will be.

 

They don't. Characters are conceptualized first and then are later on given romanceable status or not (at the particular writer's discretion).

 

If the writers begin each new game with an "equal options for all" approach to romance, then the writing will suffer because of it. A character better suited for a romance might not be given romanceable status because she or he doesn't fit within the "equal options for all" paradigm. Or a character might be forced into romanceable status because she or he does fit within the paradigm. The writers should make characters that they want to make, not what the fans want them to make.

[Wulfram]

I can see why some people are upset at this.

It seemed like DAI was the perfect opportunity for Bioware to give everyone perfectly equal options, but they didn't do this. I'm sure they had very good reasons for not doing this, but regardless it's still going to smart for those who end up getting less options.

 

To me it seems like the opposite.  The abundance of romance options in DAI makes equality less necessary, because even without it everyone still gets a choice.

[SofaJockey]

I can see why some people are upset at this.

It seemed like DAI was the perfect opportunity for Bioware to give everyone perfectly equal options, but they didn't do this. I'm sure they had very good reasons for not doing this, but regardless it's still going to smart for those who end up getting less options.

 

We know that BioWare want to do the right thing, all the evidence is there for that.

They have backed away from the playersexual approach of DA2 because they have the scope to do so.

 

BioWare have also spoken about the care with which they reference a 'Chart' with all the character permutations. (e.g. GaymerX)

I think it was rumoured that one (or more) characters didn't make it through the design process and I wonder whether those editorial decisions

have simply left a close but not exact equal balance of LIs.

 

Of course BioWare aren't going to debate this matter in public because the writing process is a matter for them.

 

I admit my own position on this has shifted slightly during the thread.

Following the arguments I'm no longer as satisfied with my starting point which is that some LGBT choices is fine, it doesn't have to be equal.

I now think that on balance it probably does and as the arguments calmed down after some angry pages, I now get it.

 

But if it doesn't, I think it would be wrong to assume that BioWare have set out to create inequality

even if that is where we have ended up 2vs 3 options.

 

You should start with an all equal target, but the story and the writing may mean you get some fluctuations.

[NextArishok]

"Equal options" implies that the writers even know from the beginning of development how many romanceable characters there will be.

 

They don't. Characters are conceptualized first and then are later on given romanceable status or not (at the particular writer's discretion).

 

If the writers begin each new game with an "equal options for all" approach to romance, then the writing will suffer because of it. A character better suited for a romance might not be given romanceable status because she or he doesn't fit within the "equal options for all" paradigm. Or a character might be forced into romanceable status because she or he does fit within the paradigm. The writers should make characters that they want to make, not what the fans want them to make.

 

very good and very true post here, but the impression I get is that "fairness" is paramount with many.  Or you want your cake and to eat it too.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I definitely agree that games aimed at a general audience should have more gay and bisexual and racial minority characters. They should be at least as prevalent in games as they are in real life. 

 

I just don't view optional romance content the same way, as interest in that, particularly same gender ones, is much more niche. Even among gay, bisexual and lesbian players I'd wager the majority don't have any interest in optional romances in games or don't even play games with optional romances in them, but would still appreciate bisexual or gay NPC's. 

 

Which is really why I try to draw as much distance between representation and LI's as possible. In a way it's not even so much "gay players get less" so much as it is "gay players who care about optional romance content with another person of their gender get less", which isn't the same as :all: gay people who play the game, let along gay gamers as a whole. 

 

For instance: Skyrim had completely equal LI options, since literally every marriage candidate was bisexual, yet not a single lesbian or gay character that I can name. I view that as a much larger fail than Inquisition. 

Different things matter more to different people. Some people care more about major NPCs and non-LIs, some would like access to the romance content in equal measure, many would love to have both things represented with more equality. Both things are important. Not all straight people care about the romances, either, but we're assuming it should primarily cater to them any time extras are given. We don't fall back on the ones who don't care, even though there are many. In fact, many that keep telling us so in this thread. The part of the general population of a demographic that won't care isn't relevant. Multiple facets of equality should be approached with equal respect and measure so that all sections of a given demographic have something for their interests, and that goes for all demographics, not just LGB players.