3344 réponses à ce sujet

[Willowhugger]

Completely understood.  I am quite fine with less options overall in favor of a middle ground that everyone can use.  Meaning, if we had to go back to 4 bi options due to resources and zot constraints, just so we could allow everyone access to as much content as possible, I'd be very fine with that.  After all, DA2 offered me 2 romance options for my Gay Hawke and now Inquisition -- even with its sex sexualities making more LIs spread across more people -- is still offering me the same 2 romance option choice for my Gay Inquisitor.  In terms of the bigger picture, when looking at all the LIs as a whole, it looks like a big increase in stories and possibilities. but to a player, one that may only be concerned about the options they are interested in having access to, it can be seen as getting the same amount as before.  

 

This is purely in regards to Love Interests, however.  The diversity in stories, and sexualities, can easily be spread amongst non-romanceable companions, too.  It's not that one must lose out on being able to tell altered versions of these other new stories -- they could just be told from the perspective of a friendship path that everyone has access to rather than a more gated romance path.  In fact, friendship paths being open to everyone allows for more people accessing it and more new story visibility versus a more "gated" romance path, imo.

 

I think the NPCs shouldn't be underestimated either.

Marjolaine and Leliana could be construed as the kind of lesbians appealing to Heterosexual men, for instance.

HOWEVER, then you have Dorothea/The Divine who is an older woman lesbian.

Which we need more of.

Also, I like the revelation the Smith Duo are gay men living together. A gay blacksmith is....pretty nonstereotypical.

[Willowhugger]

I find it self contradictory. How can a world be both heteronormative and at the same time, homosexuality not be a big deal?

 

That's why I don't think it's not a big deal, but simple refusal of the devs to really touch this subject, unfortunately making the experience superficial. I have no problem with the fact that the world we play in is heteronormative if only it wasn't pretended that it's not the case.

 

I suppose it's the difference between chauvinism and misogyny. Neither is good but they're on different levels of magnitude.

 

Gay people are encouraged to adopt heterosexual lifestyles but not lynched, the act outlawed, or subject to violence/harassment/abuse.

 

Wade and his lover live an apparently open homosexual relationship together. They can't get married, which is bad, but it's a hell of a lot better than many RL couples have had in recent years.

By contrast, Mages cannot do this.

So I'd say this is a society where homophobia exists but it's not violently so.

[metalfenix]

I wanted blackwall so BADLY to be at least Bi, he was my first crush and Li for the game, and now...Sigh, at least it gives me an excuse to roll a female inq (maybe I'll roll a female dwarf who knows).

 

It seems Female players won the romance quantities this time (Sera, Josephine, Cullen, Iron Bull, Solas and now Blackwall)

[daveliam]

Also, I like the revelation the Smith Duo are gay men living together. A gay blacksmith is....pretty nonstereotypical.

 

My favorite "sandbox" character in Skyrim is an orc adventurer who makes his living as a blacksmith.  He's also happily married to another male orc adventurer and they have adopted two adorable little human girls, a dog, and a fox!

[ElitePinecone]

I find it self contradictory. How can a world be both heteronormative and at the same time, homosexuality not be a big deal?

 

That's why I don't think it's not a big deal, but simple refusal of the devs to really touch this subject, unfortunately making the experience superficial. I have no problem with the fact that the world we play in is heteronormative if only it wasn't pretended that it's not the case.
 

 

Perhaps it'll come up in Inquisition. You haven't seen the game yet, and we have no idea what Sera and Dorian will discuss.

 

Wait and see

[Vapaa]

2) Vivienne, as a black woman, not being a LI:

 

I get that some people are disappointed. That's fair--she's pretty awesome, and could have made for an interesting romance if she had been concepted for one. Considering that one could also make an argument about a black woman being present in the game solely to be a fetishized sex object (as if no-one ever made this argument about Isabela?), or that this brings up awkward discussions about skin color vis à vis Josephine, I'm not sure this is a good road to go down. I would hope a character could make for great representation in the game, and do so by being a great character and not solely by whether or not they're available to be romanced, and that this will be evident once someone plays.

 

The whole arm-flailing about Vivienne status as non-LI and accusations of racism has come from ridiculous to downright disgusting. I've seen argument that, brought to the logical end result in Viv HAVING to be bonable because she's black, and THAT is not racist ?

 

Also dismissing Josie's status as a PoC romance because "she' s not black enough", just...just...

 

[SofaJockey]

...it was a generic question of who would you like to romance if you could choose from ALL listed below?

 

It was this.

'Please choose one most preferred love interest for you'

[David Gaider]

Well i didnt see any problem with DA2 story, because all LIs except for DLC one were available to the player... Though who am i to argue,i understand you do know better, still doesnt lessen my dissapoinment that i'll only have 1 playthrough,because only one of 2 available options i actually like

 

Understood. The DA2 approach is valid enough--I always said that, given the option of having more total romances, I would prefer we also include a broader representation of sexualities (as the DA2 approach, while fair and convenient for players, does NOT do that). The thing to remember is, if we did use DA2's approach, we would have the same number of romances... and your number of options would not change. You would have 2, at best, and the chances that any of those available might not be to your personal preference would also be exactly the same.

 

As it always is. There is always a chance you won't find a romance to your personal taste, and that includes the ones you already think might be (as once you meet them, that impression might rapidly change). We do not take a shotgun approach, after all, and try to make all our characters "broadly appealing" ...really, what does that even mean aside from pandering to stereotypes? We make characters, give them interesting stories, and include romance arcs which may or may not appeal to the individual player. We do our best, but, failing that, you thankfully still have the rest of the game.

[ladyofpayne]

 

 

There is always a chance you won't find a romance to your personal taste

I've found Blackwall thank you Bio for his beard.

[Willowhugger]

Basically, I view this situation from my Mass Effect 2 perspective.

 

"I don't like Miranda because of the Uncanny Valley and the fact she's a Bond villainess."

 

"I don't like Jack because therapy is not my idea of romance. Also, I like hair."

"I don't like Tali because she's my kid sister."

 

"Kelly I suspect is on mood stabilizers."

 

"Ashley is also treating me like dirt."

My Shepard decided just to go it solo that time.

Even though it was painful.

 

There's more to romance than sexuality and sometimes, you'll miss out. It happens.

[Sporothrix]

I don't consider it "anti-label" so much as an acknowledgement that even heterosexuality is a social construct, not a default setting, and the way we perceive it now is not how it has always been perceived.  I know that these arguments have been coopted by homophobes, but they will coop anything to strengthen their position, and I think it's just as damaging to deny that sexual fluidity exists as it is to deny that lesbianism exists.  And since we're specifically talking about social attitudes towards LGBT people, it seems relevant to discuss the social constructs that surround it, and how those have changed.  But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on how LGBT people are treated in Thedas.

Like I stated before, saying that it has not always been perceived that way is just ahistoric, since before the concept of sexual orientations existed, "straight" was just "normal", and "sodomites" etc. were persecuted. And where it wasn't persecuted, like in Japan, any non-straight sexuality was just not taken seriously, but as just a phase that we shouldn't think much of.

 

That woman's stance on the biological research about homosexuality and heterosexuality (which was very ignorant as I can say since I've studied most of the research) shows that she doesn't believe in any real, biological reasons that make people straight or gay. It was further emphasized by her notions about 'lesbians who date transmen' (who, in my experience, tend to dump their boyfriends when their previously female appearance fades away because of hormone treatment): "It’s very much about what cultures you participate in.  What cultures you ally yourself with, you know, whose flag you fly".

 

Now that's terribly ignorant statement. Of course some people mislabel themselves for various reasons, for example because of cultural reasons, but in the end, homosexual person is homosexual because they're only attracted to people of the same sex. Culture doesn't make anyone have sexual feelings for the same sex.

 

Honestly, this type of bisexual folks, who can't comprehend that not everyone is like them, that not everyone has the same feelings as them so if only the concepts of hetero and homosexuality didn't exist everyone would be with men and women, I really don't like since they try to negate validity of my sexuality just the same way as homophobes.

[Willowhugger]

Honestly, this type of bisexual folks, who can't comprehend that not everyone is like them, that not everyone has the same feelings as them so if only the concepts of hetero and homosexuality didn't exist everyone would be with men and women, I really don't like since they try to negate validity of my sexuality just the same way as homophobes.

That I understand completely and it's why I appreciate Dorian and Sera as a straight male.

 

It's also why I prefer Celene and Briala as lesbians, not bisexual.

Ironically, I also like that they can break up and move on.

 

Jokes about everyone in Orlais being bi aside, that's not how it works in RL and would hurt what Bioware is trying to accomplish.

[Milana]

Understood. The DA2 approach is valid enough--I always said that, given the option of having more total romances, I would prefer we also include a broader representation of sexualities (as the DA2 approach, while fair and convenient for players, does NOT do that). The thing to remember is, if we did use DA2's approach, we would have the same number of romances... and your number of options would not change. You would have 2, at best, and the chances that any of those available might not be to your personal preference would also be exactly the same.

 

As it always is. There is always a chance you won't find a romance to your personal taste, and that includes the ones you already think might be (as once you meet them, that impression might rapidly change). We do not take a shotgun approach, after all, and try to make all our characters "broadly appealing" ...really, what does that even mean aside from pandering to stereotypes? We make characters, give them interesting stories, and include romance arcs which may or may not appeal to the individual player. We do our best, but, failing that, you thankfully still have the rest of the game.

All you said is true enough,we still have 2 options as in da2...the thing that bothers me though,that some people now have double of those options, and i cant help but envy them

[Sylvianus]

 

Also, anyone arguing that straight characters shouldn't exist because "straight people have gotten enough in the past" is going to be summarily ignored. You can have whatever opinion you wish, but this game is not here to single-handedly make up for all of gaming's issues with representation, and suggesting it should be so is likely only to provide fuel for those who erroneously espouse that it is already so.

 

 

Loved this part. After reading a lot of awful posts against straight, it's nice to read such thing from a dev. 

[Pasquale1234]

Bioware had an excellent opportunity to do something special with Vivienne and a romance, I can't think of a single game at the top of my head during the 20 years that I've been a gamer (in the rare instances) where black women are shown deserving of love. As black man I know how a part of my identity is being portrayed by the world, I can't imagine being a black women seeing a part of your identity through the eyes of other people, in games or to an extent all of media. They are either depicted as prostitutes on the sidewalk and/or throwaway faceless characters to be shot killed and mutilated. With that in mind I had high hopes for the composition of Vivienne in Inquisition, who seems to be an amazing character, and from what we've seen so far really breaking the mold, unless she turns out to be a villain. Suffice to say those hopes have diminished quite a bit. If you are a straight white female, I'm glad for you that despite all the things you have to go through in this world because you are female, you are atleast shown to be deserving of love.

You're not alone in your disappointment RE Vivienne's unavailability as an LI. Allan has alluded to there being a specific reason for that choice that will be revealed in the game.

Josephine, however, is also a classy black female who is apparently well-educated, astute, professional, politically powerful, and good enough at what she does to take a role as an advisor to the inquisition. I would expect that a lot of inquisitors of both genders will be hitting that and showering her with lovin'.
 

What I mean is why someone can not be straight for "lore" resons?

Interesting question. I would presume the answer might lie in the idea that everyone is assumed to be straight until proven otherwise.
 

yes there should, but completely cutting out straight stories is hardly the way to go.

What exactly is a straight story? (or a gay / bi story for that matter?)

"I married the opposite sex partner my parents selected for me, made babies, and thus continued our line." Maybe not, because people who aren't straight find themselves in that situation.

"I refused to marry the opposite sex partner my parents selected for me..." could also be a story told regardless of orientation.

How about: "I dated, fell in love with, and married someone of the opposite sex and am living happily ever after." That sounds like a straight story, and there seem to be quite a few such tales in media.

The only sort of story I can imagine that is unique to non-straights are "coming out" stories - and in a tolerant world such as Thedas, I wouldn't expect it to be a thing.
 

It's just as important to show a lesbian character who isn't there strictly for male titillation. If she is explicitly a lesbian but the narrative treats her respectfully, then that seems extremely important to me.

I'd be beyond thrilled to see a gen-yoo-ine 100% lesbian character in a Bioware game who:

- does not flirt, innuendo, or end up in compromising situations with male characters
- does not suffer from wiggly ass syndrome

Aveline strikes me a character who could have been a great lesbian, and perhaps Cassandra, too. I haven't seen any camera ass pans of either of them, and their shields help hide the wiggly ass syndrome.

[Uirebhiril]

Completely understood.  I am quite fine with less options overall in favor of a middle ground that everyone can use.  Meaning, if we had to go back to 4 bi options due to resources and zot constraints, just so we could allow everyone access to as much content as possible, I'd be very fine with that. 

 

Telling creators to remove content so it can be fair to everyone is really not going to be fair to the creators. They have a story to tell. The characters help them do that. If the character is telling part of a story that someone cannot take part in, it does not diminish the character, the story, or the effort made to have it in the first place. Are all these characters really interesting only if people can boink them? I'm not going to romance most of them, but I don't doubt I will find them interesting, fun, or frustrating at times. That is as it should be. The romances are just a small part of the whole story, and as long as we can form solid friendships with the characters and see fair representation in both our companions and the world's NPCs, then the writers really should do what they darn well please past that point.

[costalren28]

Rather than respond directly, a couple of comments based on a few recent posts:

 

1) Making all (or most, it seems) romances bisexual:

 

That could be done. Of course, since doing so just added on all the extra cinematic work to add the extra genders into the various cinematic conversations (different genders are different heights, requiring extra camera work and a LOT of extra attention in any scene where the two characters interact), that would also mean cutting down on the number of total romances. It is NOT a matter of flipping a switch to add extra options because someone thought that would be more fair... not for genders, not for races. It also means less opportunities to tell new stories, and less variety. So if you're picturing a bonanza where all those romances would now be available to everyone... that was never on the table, and never could be.

 

Cost is definitely a huge factor. This is one practicality I whole-heartedly accept as a reason to sensibly define needed parameters in a game design. But, ironically, this argument is seldom used in the on-going debate on why romances shouldn't be all bisexual. Thus, I'm also of the camp in favor of less romances, but have them open to everyone, as a balanced ground.

 

On the story angle, I do believe good stories can be told as well through such a framework. The way I look at it, is that the player character is non-synonymous. If I chose to play as an Elven inquisitor, the Human, Qunari and Drawven backgrounds do not exsist. They never happened. And if I picked a male gender, for example, a woman is non-exsistent. Vice-versa, when I pick a female, the male is not part of the universe. This provides lots of flexibility to tailor a particular romance or events from a certain lens-view, and have it different each time. Not to mention, a character gender and sexuality do not intersect, as they are paths of their own, which can be shut or open with player choice.

 

Overall, thank you for responding to our queries! 

[LostInReverie19]

Happy to see that female straight players get more options this time.

Blackwall was super unexpected...

 

Gah, me too! I'm super happy right now. I never expected this from BioWare, to be honest, but I'm super glad they did this. *big hugs to everyone else who didn't get who they wanted* 

[David Gaider]

All you said is true enough,we still have 2 options as in da2...the thing that bothers me though,that some people now have double of those options, and i cant help but envy them

 

So we should reduce the amount of overall content and reduce (or outright eliminate) representation solely so people who focus on what they don't have rather than what they do don't feel bad about the existence of exclusive content that isn't aimed specifically at them?

 

I get it, and hopefully the envy is something you can get past once you enjoy the game, but I'm afraid that's not something I'm ever going to be able to sign up for, sorry.

[Lucrece]

The mustache doesn't bother me and I feel like we are focusing on looks to much. 

 

Both Dorian and Iron Bull seem like interesting and entertaining characters to me. Neither of them sound like the depression duo we got for DA2 so I have to say I am very happy about how things turned out. 

 

As for the other romances I guess I will just be playing more females than I thought,  Blackwall will do nicely for my female Qunari and Solas for my female Dalish hunter. 

 

 

Maybe looks don't matter to you, but for much of the population looks do matter.

 

I mean, the first aspect of looks you discriminate by is the gender if you're not bi/pansexual. And to pretend that people don't find certain body types attractive with more frequency than others is silly as well.

 

I don't mean to diss Garrus, because he's a cool character, but the only reason people romance him is for the emotional connection. When you RP a character and insert yourself in, I don't believe for a second there's some sexual attraction to Garrus. And while many Americans like to pretend that sexual attraction isn't some large factor in relationships because apparently that would be shallow (and also completely natural), that it's all about emotional connection (we all have emotional connections to our best friends, but what separates a best friend from a lover or spouse is quite clearly the sex).

 

I also understand that some find the mustache attractive. But that's a fairly niche taste, sorry. Female inquisitors got TWO conventionally attractive males. No aesthetic gimmicks involved. And gay males have to choose between a guy with a mustache and some manbeast with horns.

 

I don't even care if Dorian would be clean shaven. I would just have at least preferred if they had given him facial hair, to be a more universally appealing type of facial hair. A short beard, a circle beard,  a goatee,  But they went and gave Dorian a circus ringmaster handlebar.

[ElitePinecone]

On the story angle, I do believe good stories can be told as well through such a framework. The way I look at it, is that the player character is non-synonymous. If I chose to play as an Elven inquisitor, the Human, Qunari and Drawven backgrounds do not exsist. They never happened. And if I picked a male gender, for example, a woman is non-exsistent. Vice-versa, when I pick a female, the male is not part of the universe. This provides lots of flexibility to tailor a particular romance or events from a certain lens-view, and have it different each time. Not to mention, a character gender and sexuality do not intersect, as they are paths of their own, which can be shut or open with player choice.

 

Not sure I'm entirely understanding this, but I'll give it a go... If the love interest's sexuality is deliberately ambiguous to allow that situation (as in, they react to a male or female Inquisitor as if they're only interested in that gender) I think it makes storylines like Dorian's difficult if not impossible. A character can't plausibly have a narrative about clashing with their homeland over their sexuality if another playthrough they're presented as straight.

 

Metagaming is fairly universal (do you know any players that don't check wikis and guides for games to see other content that they missed?) and a Dorian who was gay in one playthrough and straight in another would be incredibly confusing, if not jarring. As was said before, that story gets harder to do if he's bisexual, or even "bisexual but unstated and open to both genders in different universes".

 

I'm also really uncomfortable with the implicit assumption that the romances should revolve around the player-character, and by extension the player, rather than having their own plots and creative input from the writers.

[Sporothrix]

So we should reduce the amount of overall content and reduce (or outright eliminate) representation solely so people who focus on what they don't have rather than what they do don't feel bad about the existence of exclusive content that isn't aimed specifically at them?

 

White straight men really are so underrepresented that the idea of reducing their representation is so horrible? Also, no one said anything about "outright eliminating" them.

[daveliam]

So we should reduce the amount of overall content and reduce (or outright eliminate) representation solely so people who focus on what they don't have rather than what they do don't feel bad about the existence of exclusive content that isn't aimed specifically at them?

 

I get it, and hopefully the envy is something you can get past once you enjoy the game, but I'm afraid that's not something I'm ever going to be able to sign up for, sorry.

 

I'm personally fine with some groups getting more in one game, provided that it's not the same groups that always get more content.  In general, I'm okay with how it all shook out.  I'm a bit bummed that gay people (regardless of gender) have less options than straight women, but it's not ultimately going to affect my enjoyment of the game.  I just hope that in future games, the ones getting "more" content are gay men or women.  I say this after every game and it's losing its value everytime I say it.  I really thought that it was going to happen in DA: I and that's probably why I'm disappointed.  I allowed myself to get my hopes up that it would happen this time and that's on me for doing that, I guess.

 

ETA:  And just let me clarify that stance in no way represents any diminishing effects of my overall gratitude that Bioware does make an effort to be inclusive in their games.  That will likely never change unless Bioware makes a strange 180 in their stance.

[TheJediSaint]

I'm also really uncomfortable with the implicit assumption that the romances should revolve around the player-character, and by extension the player, rather than having their own plots and creative input from the writers.

I always assumed a Companion's story, romance or no, is about them.  My PC's are just participants. 

[Roxy]

Wow am I glad they had time to make Solas an LI...still shocking that he wasn't going to be one at first. 

 

 

Anyways I can't wait for the game to come out. ^^