494 réponses à ce sujet

[CuriousArtemis]

By actually having characters who have sexual identities before we encounter them, BioWare is able to develop more accurate and believable writing, whether its based on mannerisms, actions, or how that companion will react to particular individuals based on their gender, sexual orientation, and race.

 

This is a matter of creating authentic and believable companions for us to get to know. One of the steps the writing team is taking is by cementing and establishing sexual personalities for the companions early on to allow them to more fully flesh out these characters.

 

Well I hope they don't associate mannerisms with sexuality, good grief.

 

You didn't really prove why Alistair was allegedly more compelling and realistic than Fenris. I don't understand why you consider Fenris unauthentic and unbelievable, but yet you consider Alistair authentic and believable, solely because Alistair is not interested in my PC but Fenris is.

 

Yes, real people (generally) don't change their sexuality to suit a potential partner. But characters can -- they are written. Okay, let's pretend the DA2 LIs are not bisexual. Let's pretend they are "playersexual."

 

So Fenris is gay in my game. In my game, he shows no interest towards women, and I romance him with a male Hawke. So he is gay.

 

How is he unauthentic? How is he not compelling?

 

If your game, you decide to not romance him. You romance Merrill. Meanwhile, Fenris and Isabela begin a relationship. He shows no interest in men in your game, so you assume he is straight. Fenris is straight in your game.

 

Again, how is he unauthentic? How is he not a compelling character?

 

When I play DAO, Alistair never shows an interest in my character. I am given no opportunity to flirt with him. In DA2, the same thing occurs with Varric. He shows no interest in my character, and I can't flirt with him. Wynne is the same way. So is Sten. So is Sebastian. 

 

However, I can flirt with Zevran, Leliana, Morrigan, Fenris, Isabela, and Merrill -- and I can engage in a romance with them. 

 

Alistair, Wynne, Sten, Zevran, Isabela, Fenris, and Varric are all great characters. They are compelling, authentic, and well-written, in my opinion. Whether or not I'm given the opportunity to romance them does not affect how well-written they are. 

 

You can change a character's sexuality. You can change his hair color, his attitude, his past. Some of these things affect the make-up of the character more than others -- obviously, changing a character's core personality is going to affect him more than changing the color of his eyes. I consider sexuality closer to hair and eye color than personality and attitude. 

 

Unless the character's sexuality informs his narrative in some way -- a.k.a. Dorian -- then it's not very important to the overall make-up of the character.

 

Thus a character having a so-called "set sexuality" does not make him more real, more compelling, or more authentic. It just doesn't. And I've yet to see proof that it does.

 

You like to quote devs -- they have stated that the 2/2/2 system (disregarding the 2 straight add-ons) was not implemented because having four bisexual characters was "unrealistic." It was done for reasons of representation. I think we could also add story reasons, as David Giader seems pretty excited to be writing a gay character. That is clearly important to him. 

 

But Dorian being gay does not make him more realistic. It happens to add something to his story, a major something, and I'm sure we can all appreciate that. But if Fenris were canonically gay, frankly, I don't see how that would have made him a better character. I would not have found him any more compelling or amazing than I already do. And frankly, I'm happy that others had the opportunity to romance him with their female Hawke's. 

 

Ultimately, I think the benefits of having all bi love interests far outweigh the benefits of having gay, straight, and bi/pan love interests. The only reason the latter might win out is for reasons of representation. But no character is more or less "real" of well-written simply because they can only be romanced by certain characters.

[The dead fish]

I totally get where this is coming from and I partly agree that it would be nice to be able to romance an LI with anyone you choose. But to me this is purely a gameplay reason and promotes the idea of playersexuality (not necessarily, but sometimes). I too would have liked certain LIs to be available to certain gender/race. But given the choice I'd rather just have equal options with varied sexualities rather than equal options with all bi. I just think the former is a better option from a story perspective.

 

Agreed. 

[Revan Reborn]

Well I hope they don't associate mannerisms with sexuality, good grief.

 

You didn't really prove why Alistair was allegedly more compelling and realistic than Fenris. I don't understand why you consider Fenris unauthentic and unbelievable, but yet you consider Alistair authentic and believable, solely because Alistair is not interested in my PC but Fenris is.

 

Yes, real people (generally) don't change their sexuality to suit a potential partner. But characters can -- they are written. Okay, let's pretend the DA2 LIs are not bisexual. Let's pretend they are "playersexual."

 

So Fenris is gay in my game. In my game, he shows no interest towards women, and I romance him with a male Hawke. So he is gay.

 

How is he unauthentic? How is he not compelling?

 

If your game, you decide to not romance him. You romance Merrill. Meanwhile, Fenris and Isabela begin a relationship. He shows no interest in men in your game, so you assume he is straight. Fenris is straight in your game.

 

Again, how is he unauthentic? How is he not a compelling character?

 

When I play DAO, Alistair never shows an interest in my character. I am given no opportunity to flirt with him. In DA2, the same thing occurs with Varric. He shows no interest in my character, and I can't flirt with him. Wynne is the same way. So is Sten. So is Sebastian. 

 

However, I can flirt with Zevran, Leliana, Morrigan, Fenris, Isabela, and Merrill -- and I can engage in a romance with them. 

 

Alistair, Wynne, Sten, Zevran, Isabela, Fenris, and Varric are all great characters. They are compelling, authentic, and well-written, in my opinion. Whether or not I'm given the opportunity to romance them does not affect how well-written they are. 

 

You can change a character's sexuality. You can change his hair color, his attitude, his past. Some of these things affect the make-up of the character more than others -- obviously, changing a character's core personality is going to affect him more than changing the color of his eyes. I consider sexuality closer to hair and eye color than personality and attitude. 

 

Unless the character's sexuality informs his narrative in some way -- a.k.a. Dorian -- then it's not very important to the overall make-up of the character.

 

Thus a character having a so-called "set sexuality" does not make him more real, more compelling, or more authentic. It just doesn't. And I've yet to see proof that it does.

 

You like to quote devs -- they have stated that the 2/2/2 system (disregarding the 2 straight add-ons) was not implemented because having four bisexual characters was "unrealistic." It was done for reasons of representation. I think we could also add story reasons, as David Giader seems pretty excited to be writing a gay character. That is clearly important to him. 

 

But Dorian being gay does not make him more realistic. It happens to add something to his story, a major something, and I'm sure we can all appreciate that. But if Fenris were canonically gay, frankly, I don't see how that would have made him a better character. I would not have found him any more compelling or amazing than I already do. And frankly, I'm happy that others had the opportunity to romance him with their female Hawke's. 

 

Ultimately, I think the benefits of having all bi love interests far outweigh the benefits of having gay, straight, and bi/pan love interests. The only reason the latter might win out is for reasons of representation. But no character is more or less "real" of well-written simply because they can only be romanced by certain characters.

It's simple really. In the case of your example, Fenris lacks a sexual identity. That makes him less authentic and believable because it's generally easy to determine whether someone is straight, gay, or possibly bisexual. There is no suggestion one way or the other of sexual orientation for most of the characters in Dragon Age 2. The only character who can really pull it off is Isabela, due to her carefree and non-discriminatory outlook on life. Anders would come in second, as the writing for his character could suggest he has the capacity of being bisexual. None of the other characters do whatsoever, as it was clearly determined what they would be based on player choice. At best, they are asexual until the player tells them otherwise, which isn't realistic in the slightest.

 

You have just hit on the real target of the issue. Companions were "player-sexual" as you call them. This was something David Gaider addressed directly at the panel and it's also a phrase he vehemently dislikes. For one, companions that are player-sexual aren't realistic or believable, because their orientation is based on your choices. How can that be authentic in the slightest? Secondly, it more or less suggests companions do not have the self-awareness or appreciation to choose for themselves. You have to tell them what they are. This essentially leaves them being nothing more than computer programs where you are inputting data and telling them what they are based on your choices. If you haven't figured out why that isn't authentic or believable yet, I'm not really sure what will.

 

The issue with you is you are taking a reactionary approach based on sexual orientation. You do not begin to see companion's suggested sexual orientation until after decisions and choices you have made. What is realistic and believable is for companions, like real individuals, to have an approach absent of reaction towards sexual orientation. Much like companions will differ in their view in regards to the world, politics, tastes, their sexual orientations should also play a role in who they are as individuals as well. Does this make sense? You should not have absolute control over what orientation a companion is. That is not realistic.

 

If you cannot recognize the obvious importance of one's sexuality and how it defines you as a person, I'm not really sure there is much convincing that can be done. The fact that you compare someone's orientation to being on par with one's eye color or hair color more or less says it all. In my personal opinion, one's sexual orientation has a MASSIVE impact on how one thinks, acts, looks at others, and perceives their environment and society. It influences and encompasses his/her entire being, and isn't merely a set of options one chooses from. That, I feel, misses the point of sexual identity altogether. This is likely why you don't understand why having a sexual identity is so important. You fail the recognize the significance of it.

 

This isn't a matter of one whose sexual identity being gay makes them a "better" character. Having a sexual orientation, as you said with Dorian, adds to his story, history, and cultural makeup. It's another layer of the complexities that make up being human. BioWare games generally have stayed towards social norms having the typical straight romances and on occasion a gay romance every now and then. They are now taking this more seriously and not just merely writing a personality and some lines for these companions, but rather trying to bring them to life, and having a sexual identity goes a long way to furthering that goal.

 

Again, this has been a long on-going issue that BioWare has tackled and they are against the approach of "player-sexuality," which isn't realistic in the slightest and merely caters to the wants and wishes of the player. What BioWare wants is to create a world that you invest in, that you appreciate, and that you learn to care about. This isn't just merely storytelling, but making a world that you become a part of. In order to help achieve that goal, having believable characters with differing opinions, preferences, and imperfections goes a long way towards filling that world with compelling experiences. You merely see a lack of choice as a downside to you from a player standpoint, but think about how the writing for the character is compromised and made neutral in order to cater orientation to one side or the other?

 

It ultimately comes down to a matter of opinion, but it's irrefutable that the approach the writing team is taking is more realistic, albeit more restrictive. Everybody isn't bisexual. People have strong opinions and feelings about who they are and how they view others. All BioWare is doing is addressing these real factors into their characters now more than ever. Dorian will be homosexual and that will play a role in regards to how he acts and who he is as a person. If he was just "player-sexual," he would essentially be an empty carcass until you tell him what to be. If you still can't distinguish the differences at this point, I believe we'll just have to agree to disagree. BioWare made it clear "player-sexuality" will not be happening again after DA2, so it really isn't much of an issue at this point.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

It's simple really. In the case of your example, Fenris lacks a sexual identity. That makes him less authentic and believable because it's generally easy to determine whether someone is straight, gay, or possibly bisexual. There is no suggestion one way or the other of sexual orientation for most of the characters in Dragon Age 2. The only character who can really pull it off is Isabela, due to her carefree and non-discriminatory outlook on life. Anders would come in second, as the writing for his character could suggest he has the capacity of being bisexual. None of the characters do whatsoever, as it was clearly determined what they would be based on player choice. At best, they are asexual until the player tells them otherwise, which isn't realistic in the slightest.

Really? If you can't determine someone's sexuality, you see them as less authentic and believable as a person? Wow, just wow. 

 

You have just hit on the real target of the issue. Companions were "player-sexual" as you call them. This was something David Gaider addressed directly at the panel and it's also a phrase he vehemently dislikes. For one, companions that are player-sexual aren't realistic or believable, because their orientation is based on your choices. How can that be authentic in the slightest? Secondly, it more or less suggests companions do not have the self-awareness or appreciation to choose for themselves. You have to tell them what they are. This essentially leaves them being nothing more than computer programs where you are inputting data and telling them what they are based on your choices. If you haven't figured out why that isn't authentic or believable yet, I'm not really sure what will.

All romances are based on your choices, even ones that aren't playersexual. You choose which gender to play. You choose to pick the responses that will trigger the romances. Even them having a relationship with someone else if you don't romance is a reaction to your input since you chose not to romance them. 

 

The issue with you is you are taking a reactionary approach based on sexual orientation. You do not begin to see companion's suggested sexual orientation until after decisions and choices you have made. What is realistic and believable is for companions, like real individuals, to have an approach absent of reaction towards sexual orientation. Much like companions will differ in their view in regards to the world, politics, tastes, their sexual orientations should also play a role in who they are as individuals as well. Does this make sense? You should not have absolute control over what orientation a companion is. That is not realistic.

It's not like they fall in love with your character as a person rather than you are the right gender. That'd be just silly and not realistic at all since there is nobody like that in real life...wait a minute, yes there are. 

 

If you cannot recognize the obvious importance of one's sexuality and how it defines you as a person, I'm not really sure there is much convincing that can be done. The fact that you compare someone's orientation to being on par with one's eye color or hair color more or less says it all. In my personal opinion, one's sexual orientation has a MASSIVE impact on how one thinks, acts, looks at others, and perceives their environment and society. It influences and encompasses his/her entire being, and isn't merely a set of options one chooses from. That, I feel, misses the point of sexual identity altogether. This is likely why you don't understand why having a sexual identity is so important. You fail the recognize the significance of it.

An inaccurate opinion. Or at least one that isn't true 100% of the time.

 

This isn't a matter of one whose sexual identity being gay makes them a "better" character. Having a sexual orientation, as you said with Dorian, adds to his story, history, and cultural makeup. It's another layer of the complexities that make up being human. BioWare games generally have stayed towards social norms having the typical straight romances and on occasion a gay romance every now and then. They are now taking this more seriously and not just merely writing a personality and some lines for these companions, but rather trying to bring them to life, and having a sexual identity goes a long way to furthering that goal.

And having an ambiguous sexual identity can do the exact same thing. 

 

Again, this has been a long on-going issue that BioWare has tackled and they are against the approach of "player-sexuality," which isn't realistic in the slightest and merely caters to the wants and wishes of the player. What BioWare wants is to create a world that you invest in, that you appreciate, and that you learn to care about. This isn't just merely storytelling, but making a world that you become a part of. In order to help achieve that goal, having believable characters with differing opinions, preferences, and imperfections goes a long way towards filling that world with compelling experiences. You merely see a lack of choice as a downside to you from a player standpoint, but think about how the writing for the character is compromised and made neutral in order to cater orientation to one side or the other?

Again, this is insulting to anyone who doesn't have one of the main set sexualities since you are saying they are compromised as people. 

 

It ultimately comes down to a matter of opinion, but it's irrefutable that the approach the writing team is taking is more realistic, albeit more restrictive. Everybody isn't bisexual. People have strong opinions and feelings about who they are and how they view others. All BioWare is doing is addressing these real factors into their characters now more than ever. Dorian will be homosexual and that will play a role in regards to how he acts and who he is as a person. If he was just "player-sexual," he would essentially be an empty carcass until you tell him what to be. If you still can't distinguish the differences at this point, I believe we'll just have to agree to disagree. BioWare made it clear "player-sexuality" will not be happening again after DA2, so it really isn't much of an issue at this point.

So people without the main set sexualities are not only less authentic or compromised but akin to a mindless zombie?

[CuriousArtemis]

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree This has been a nice conversation... though you do like to exercise that condescending tone lol 

 

None of the characters do whatsoever, as it was clearly determined what they would be based on player choice. At best, they are asexual until the player tells them otherwise, which isn't realistic in the slightest.

 

Well, they are characters. They don't have identities; they are created, and the player to some degree "creates" them as she plays (since this is an RPG; the player is a sort of player-writer). She also creates the narrative (within a strict set of rules, obviously; her options are not limitless). But no, as soon as Fenris is in a relationship with my Hawke, he is either gay or bisexual. I don't see how that makes him less realistic. If I decided to replay the game and play a female Hawke instead, then tried to hit on him, but the option was no longer there... I guess that would make him gay. But tell me, how would that have made him better? The only difference is that now I can't romance him with a woman. How is that more realistic or compelling? His romance with my male Hawke hasn't changed at all. 

 

You have just hit on the real target of the issue. Companions were "player-sexual" as you call them. This was something David Gaider addressed directly at the panel and it's also a phrase he vehemently dislikes. For one, companions that are player-sexual aren't realistic or believable, because their orientation is based on your choices. How can that be authentic in the slightest? Secondly, it more or less suggests companions do not have the self-awareness or appreciation to choose for themselves. You have to tell them what they are. This essentially leaves them being nothing more than computer programs where you are inputting data and telling them what they are based on your choices. If you haven't figured out why that isn't authentic or believable yet, I'm not really sure what will.

 

 

You keep mentioning David Gaider's panel; are you talking about this one? I've listened to it several times, but I admit I don't have it memorized (lol). When does he say the DA2 characters are not bisexual, and when does he talk about player-sexuality? Or are you referencing a different video?

 

Again, I don't understand how a companion who is "player-sexual" is not believable. He has sexuality. His sexuality is whatever I want it to be. I'm essentially "writing" him. When I sit down to write, the characters I create are plenty believable. I may make them gay, straight, or bi. That's just how the process works. When I turn DA2 on, I am about to "write" my next adventure in Kirkwall. In this particular adventure, I will romance Fenris. In my previous adventure, I romanced Isabela. Both were well-written and emotionally fulfilling romances. And...?

 

Companions don't have self-awareness or choice -- they are characters!! FYI: They are computer programs, lol! Companions in video games are not real people... because we don't have multiple playthroughs in real life, nor can we reload in real life. Characters are characters. A narrative is an illusion... we purposefully trick ourselves and emotions into thinking it is real, but it's not. But so good game developers try to create worlds and characters that make it easier for us to trick ourselves and enjoy ourselves as we romp through Thedas. Not being able to flirt with Cullen doesn't really make the world more real for me. It doesn't make him more believable than Fenris, either. I'm going to assume Cullen will be as well-written as Fenris. I still don't see how one is more real than the other. Both are illusions. One being available to me and one not being available isn't going to help with my immersion any better.

 

Much like companions will differ in their view in regards to the world, politics, tastes, their sexual orientations should also play a role in who they are as individuals as well. Does this make sense? You should not have absolute control over what orientation a companion is. That is not realistic.

 

It would not be realistic in the real world, but a game is not the real world. I am starting to see what you mean by "realistic." I disagree that I shouldn't have control over a love interest's orientation in an RPG. The nature of an RPG, in my opinion, is for me to play in a user-determined universe. I don't see a problem with getting to pick who I romance. The only thing that would frustrate me is if the romance were poorly written. So long as the romance is well-written, and I am moved and excited by the romance, then I think it's a job well done. I got what I payed for.

 

If you cannot recognize the obvious importance of one's sexuality and how it defines you as a person, I'm not really sure there is much convincing that can be done. The fact that you compare someone's orientation to being on par with one's eye color or hair color more or less says it all. In my personal opinion, one's sexual orientation has a MASSIVE impact on how one thinks, acts, looks at others, and perceives their environment and society. It influences and encompasses his/her entire being, and isn't merely a set of options one chooses from. That, I feel, misses the point of sexual identity altogether. This is likely why you don't understand why having a sexual identity is so important. You fail the recognize the significance of it.

 

Oh yes, I think our thinking differs greatly on this matter, though I won't explain it in such a condescending way as you did No, I do not think sexuality defines you as a person. I don't think my sexuality affects how I think, act, or perceive the environment around me. It certainly does not influence and encompass my entire being, goodness gracious!! Sexuality may be part of one's identity, but identity is fluid. No, I'm not saying sexuality is fluid (although for some it may be). But identity is meaningless. There really is no such thing as a core identity. I may fail to recognize the significance of sexual identity to you -- but I do not fail to recognize its significance (or insignificance) to me. 

 

For me, my orientation affects what I find attractive in a person, but that's all. Of course I am also agender/gender fluid so I may be bringing that perspective to the table.

 

So anyway, yes. When I'm writing a character, his or her sexual orientation is way down the list of things I consider important and fundamental to his or her personality and world outlook. In fact, I frequently change my characters' sexualities midway through a piece, or sometimes from story to story. Generally, it's still basically the same character. 

 

Having a sexual orientation, as you said with Dorian, adds to his story, history, and cultural makeup. It's another layer of the complexities that make up being human. BioWare games generally have stayed towards social norms having the typical straight romances and on occasion a gay romance every now and then. They are now taking this more seriously and not just merely writing a personality and some lines for these companions, but rather trying to bring them to life, and having a sexual identity goes a long way to furthering that goal.

 

I agree that Dorian's sexuality is clearly going to add something to his story. By the way, BioWare have only had two gay romances previous to DAI, so I think that's a little less than "every now and then." That is the only reason I approve of the 2/2/2 model: because gaymers sorely need to see gay characters in their games and have romances that have been created EXCLUSIVELY for them. Not because a playersexual Dorian or Sera would be a lesser character -- they wouldn't -- but because it will make gaymers happy and feel as if the industry cares about them (and doesn't relegate them to a gay planet, hint hint, SW:TOR...). 

 

But that's more a problem with the outside world, the real world, than the world within the game. If the real world weren't so homophobic, we wouldn't have such a need for gay and lesbian romances. Playersexuality would be perfectly fine if the real world were 100% inclusive of all relationships.

 

You merely see a lack of choice as a downside to you from a player standpoint, but think about how the writing for the character is compromised and made neutral in order to cater orientation to one side or the other?

 

I don't believe the writing for Fenris, Anders, Merrill, and Isabela was compromised and made neutral, sorry. I think they are marvelous characters, and I found their romance every bit as fulfilling as Zevran's (only DAO romance I played) or Kaidan's (only ME romance I played). People use the word "cater" when they want to shame a certain player base. I certainly wouldn't call playersexuality "catering." I would simply consider it more cognizant and considerate of player choice. But hey, even if the team wants to distance themselves from the concept of playersexuality, on account of bi-erasure, then I'm 100% behind them making all romances bisexual (or pansexual). Have the love interests showing interest in both genders when they are not being romanced, and there you go. No bi-erasure, and 100% player choice. So long as we have well-written characters, we're good to go.

 

It ultimately comes down to a matter of opinion, but it's irrefutable that the approach the writing team is taking is more realistic, albeit more restrictive. Everybody isn't bisexual. People have strong opinions and feelings about who they are and how they view others. All BioWare is doing is addressing these real factors into their characters now more than ever. Dorian will be homosexual and that will play a role in regards to how he acts and who he is as a person. If he was just "player-sexual," he would essentially be an empty carcass until you tell him what to be. If you still can't distinguish the differences at this point, I believe we'll just have to agree to disagree. BioWare made it clear "player-sexuality" will not be happening again after DA2, so it really isn't much of an issue at this point.

 

OMG Your wording is just so... lol Hmm. Yes, we'll agree to disagree. But I'll do so without insulting you Now I'm going to go read some fanfic about my poor empty carcass boyfriend Fenris. Ta~ta!

[veeia]

It's simple really. In the case of your example, Fenris lacks a sexual identity. That makes him less authentic and believable because it's generally easy to determine whether someone is straight, gay, or possibly bisexual. 

 

Things like this really frustrate me. Sexual identity is not always so clear cut, and it is not always obvious, especially bisexuality. I always read Fenris as bisexual, Gaider's comments about "playersexuality" frustrated me, and I'm glad he's turned around on that.

 

The companions in DA2 are not playersexual anyway, which the person you responded to, as well as Gaider, have acknowledged. They are different flavors of bisexual and they may or may not choose to tell your Hawke this in the very limited dialogues they have with them. 

 

And not knowing someone's sexual identity doesn't mean they are an "empty carcass", good god. I mean, sexuality is a part of identity but it's not the core of humanity. 

[veeia]

If I thought people were distancing themselves from playersexuality because of bi-erasure, I'd be down with that. But so rarely does the concept come up--and often, I find the arguments against it include bi-erasure themselves or are biphobic in nature. 

 

I'm not nec for or against either concept. Based purely on DA:O v DA2, I'd go with playersexuality, just because of the types of narratives assigned to gay vs straight in DA:O. But if there are important,  interesting, and diverse stories for gay/lesbian content in DA:I, it might be better, shrug. 

[Grieving Natashina]

If I thought people were distancing themselves from playersexuality because of bi-erasure, I'd be down with that. But so rarely does the concept come up--and often, I find the arguments against it include bi-erasure themselves or are biphobic in nature. 

 

I wanted to point this out, because this isn't entirely true.  For several months, there was a 700+ page Romance thread in which Allan Schumacher and other devs participated.  The subject of bi-erasure comes up often and truthfully, it seems to be one of the biggest reasons that a lot of players disliked the system.  There are some that feel it makes for a more well-rounded character.  Others want to see more of a representation of who and what they are, which includes their sexuality.

 

This is a topic that came up at Gaymer X this year by David Gaider himself.  

 

 

 

If you're interested, you should check out the LGBT thread here in the Feedback section in the forums.

[Revan Reborn]

I'll just post one last time since people seem to love to be adversarial on here and take posts out of context...

 

First and foremost, I'm not going to reply to all of the walls of texts, because it will not result in any resolution and honestly half the responses are arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

What I will say is that one's sexual identity is a core value of who he/she is as a person. You can argue semantics and decide how "obvious" their sexuality may or may not be, but it's still there. If a person happens to be asexual, which is quite possible, that is clearly an option as well. That being said, most people are not asexual, and will have a sexual orientation leaning one way or the other.

 

The point is being heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or even asexual matters. You can make the argument "this is just a game" and "I want to control how the world is made and ends," but really, DAI and BioWare games, in general, are more than just "games." Again, "just a game" is an overused, stereotypical, and predictable assertion when you refuse to address one's points in an argument. Candy Crush is a game. Angry Birds is a game. They are minor amusements that take up your time and distract you from your daily obligations.

 

It's more accurate to describe BioWare games more along the lines of a film. You are the actor, the director, and the audience. You have a supporting cast of characters who fill the plot and provide conflict. Just like film, these stories and characters are inevitably ingrained in real life and human behavior. They love. They hate. They fight. They cry. They betray. They forgive. If anything, BioWare games are more than just entertainment, but more abstractly an observation on our own society and how we perceive ourselves in the world. They, for all intents and purposes, are lessons on who we are and perhaps who we strive to be.

 

I won't bother to continue posting as it will merely relate to beating a dead horse. All that I hope is you at least recognize that "player-sexuality" compromises a character and as a result, compromises the performance. Everyone has an identity. Everyone should be proud to be who they are. For a more compelling and engrossing story, why should companions be any different? I, at the very least, am a proponent of quality over quantity. I also believe a more thoughtful and in-depth approach will lead to be a better experience overall. That's all I have to say on the matter. Continue with your cyclical arguments if you must.

[Revan Reborn]

I wanted to point this out, because this isn't entirely true.  For several months, there was a 700+ page Romance thread in which Allan Schumacher and other devs participated.  The subject of bi-erasure comes up often and truthfully, it seems to be one of the biggest reasons that a lot of players disliked the system.  There are some that feel it makes for a more well-rounded character.  Others want to see more of a representation of who and what they are, which includes their sexuality.

 

This is a topic that came up at Gaymer X this year by David Gaider himself.  

 

 

 

If you're interested, you should check out the LGBT thread here in the Feedback section in the forums.

Thanks for posting this. That video was the particular panel I was referring to in regards to David Gaider, "player-sexuality" and the like. For those who continue to still see what BioWare is doing as wrongful and detrimental to your experience, listen to their reasoning and how others view it.

[veeia]

That's good to hear. I'm newish to the BSN, so I'm pulling from experiences elsewhere, where the anti-playersexual rhetoric has often felt pretty insulting to me as a bisexual woman! 

[Grieving Natashina]

Thanks for posting this. That video was the particular panel I was referring to in regards to David Gaider, "player-sexuality" and the like. For those who continue to still see what BioWare is doing as wrongful and detrimental to your experience, listen to their reasoning and how others view it.

To be fair, some of them have and they don't have to agree with it.  Most of the folks that are talking about the benefits of having such a system are not ranting and raving about it.  Many of them have some well-thought out and good responses to this.  Some of whom I know have been talking about it for months, if not years now, on why they enjoyed the system.  Well, beyond the chance of having 2-4 LIs to choose from, something is extremely rare for the LGBT community.

 

They don't have to agree with this direction, which is why they're in the Feedback section.  I posted the video for any newer posters that might not have heard David Gaider's panel.  I figure as long as folks keep it civil, it's good to talk about it.  I've also gotta say that because of these conversations, I'm really learning more about sexuality as well as RPG play styles in general (regardless of RL orientation.)

 

Finally, there is those that feel that they are sexually ambiguous and are hurt by this.  Being told a character isn't a fleshed out person or realistic because they don't have a defined sexuality that's easily categorized can be painful, especially if you're already on the outside when it comes to what's "acceptable" by both the straight and LGBT communities.  From what I've read over the year, asexuals feel much the same as well. It's not to say that those that identify as sexually ambiguous or asexuals aren't accepted, it's more that they are rather poorly understood and it can be tough to explain succinctly to anyone trying to understand.  

 

That can be a very lonely feeling.  While the posters that have talked about this know that set sexuality for DA:I romances wasn't intended as a slight, to hear more or less, "A set sexuality makes for a more fleshed out character," can hurtful. 

 

 

That's good to hear. I'm newish to the BSN, so I'm pulling from experiences elsewhere, where the anti-playersexual rhetoric has often felt pretty insulting to me as a bisexual woman! 

I figured.  For many LGBT players, the term "safe haven" has come up more than once.  This is the first and only official game forum where I can be out as a bi/pansexual woman and feel comfortable.  

[SamanthaJ]

Bi erasure is the reason I didn't like the previous system. The idea that someone could say a character like Merrill was straight or gay in their playthrough is just icky to me because it feels like it reinforces the idea that bisexual = less desirable then monosexual. The reason I like the new system is because with straight and gay characters there can be no doubt that a character available to both genders is bi or pan. Same with a character that didn't have a specific sexuality, they would be ambiguous because that is what they are and no one could say they were just ambiguous to be a game mechanic.

[Revan Reborn]

 

To be fair, some of them have and they don't have to agree with it.  Most of the folks that are talking about the benefits of having such a system are not ranting and raving about it.  Many of them have some well-thought out and good responses to this.  Some of whom I know have been talking about it for months, if not years now, on why they enjoyed the system.  Well, beyond the chance of having 4 LIs to choose from, something is extremely rare for the LGBT community.

 

They don't have to agree with this direction, which is why they're in the Feedback section.  I posted the video for any newer posters that might not have heard David Gaider's panel.  I figure as long as folks keep it civil, it's good to talk about it.  I've also gotta say that because of these conversations, I'm really learning more about sexuality as well as RPG play styles in general (regardless of RL orientation.)

 

Finally, there is those that feel that they are sexually ambiguous and are hurt by this.  Being told a characeter isn't a fleshed out person or realistic because they don't have a defined sexuality that's easily categorized can be painful, especially if you're already on the outside when it comes to what's "acceptable" by both the straight and LGBT communities.  From what I've read over the year, asexuals feel much the same as well. It's not to say that those that identify as sexually ambiguous or asexuals aren't accepted, it's more that they are rather poorly understood and it can be tough to explain succinctly to anyone trying to understand.  

 

That can be a very lonely feeling.  While the posters that have talked about this know that set sexuality for DA:I romances wasn't intended as a slight, to hear more or less, "A set sexuality makes for a more fleshed out character," can hurtful. 

 

 

I figured.  For many LGBT players, the term "safe haven" has come up more than once.  This is the first and only official game forum where I can be out as a bi/pansexual woman and feel comfortable.  

 

This isn't a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. This is a matter of understanding the rationale of the approach BioWare is taking and why they believe it will lead to a "better romance," as that's what the panel was about.

 

I'd just like to state you misinterpreted the intent of my post then. This was in no way an "attack" on whether someone is sexually ambiguous or not. This was merely pointing out the fact that companions having their sexuality chosen by the player is unrealistic and does not reflect real life. BioWare wants to create more believable relationships and romances, which is why this time around they are giving every companion a strict sexual orientation. This has absolutely nothing to do with attacking asexual individuals or any other sexual minority that feels marginalized.

 

For the purposes of video games and the fact that BioWare has only in more recent times addressed the social issues surrounding sexuality, yeah I'd say they are taking a more pronounced stance on it and trying to do a better job of representing all groups. That hasn't been the case in previous BioWare games.

[Revan Reborn]

Bi erasure is the reason I didn't like the previous system. The idea that someone could say a character like Merrill was straight or gay in their playthrough is just icky to me because it feels like it reinforces the idea that bisexual = less desirable then monosexual. The reason I like the new system is because with straight and gay characters there can be no doubt that a character available to both genders is bi or pan. Same with a character that didn't have a specific sexuality, they would be ambiguous because that is what they are and no one could say they were just ambiguous to be a game mechanic.

Exactly. Very well-written. BioWare is attempting to rectify the unintended consequences that plagued DA2, regardless of whether the majority were fine with it or not. This isn't a game issue. This is a social one, and BioWare has taken it upon themselves to try and be as inclusive and open-minded as they can be.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

Before I begin, I should state that I am a straight male. 

 

Straight males of all races in Dragon Age games have always had 2 romances, Elfyoth. They did not increase or decrease the number of straight male romances. 

 

Additionally, the one with the most romance options are bisexual female elves. She gets 6 options. Elves are fictitious people and they are not a representation of any group of people in the real world so that's fine. 

 

There is also the simple but obvious reality that women get more love interests because there are more men on the Inquisition team. We have 7 males and 5 females on the Inquisition team. I don't know about you but as a straight male I would rather hang around other men because its much less drama, because bros > hoes and male camaraderie is an awesome thing. 

 

Is it a good idea for straight males to have more romance options ? Yes, you could raise the suggestion for the next game. 

 

Is your post and the posts of straight males regarding romances make us whiners ? Nope. You are potential product consumers expressing your wishes. People should learn to read between the lines, tis' a skill that has apparently been lost for some reason.

 

What does that make the posters who employ shaming tactics, dismissal tactics and strawman justfications ? Hypocrites who are not interested in true equality but in equality at someone's expense. 

 

What about playersexuality ? I am firmly against it. Characters should have their own sexualities regardless of the player. Additionally, different people have different sexualities which means making everyone bisexual makes no sense. 

 

These are my opinions on this matter. 

 

Cheers. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Finally, there is those that feel that they are sexually ambiguous and are hurt by this.  Being told a characeter isn't a fleshed out person or realistic because they don't have a defined sexuality that's easily categorized can be painful, especially if you're already on the outside when it comes to what's "acceptable" by both the straight and LGBT communities.  From what I've read over the year, asexuals feel much the same as well. It's not to say that those that identify as sexually ambiguous or asexuals aren't accepted, it's more that they are rather poorly understood and it can be tough to explain succinctly to anyone trying to understand.  

 

That can be a very lonely feeling.  While the posters that have talked about this know that set sexuality for DA:I romances wasn't intended as a slight, to hear more or less, "A set sexuality makes for a more fleshed out character," can hurtful. 

Exactly. Thank you Natashina. 

 

Bi erasure is the reason I didn't like the previous system. The idea that someone could say a character like Merrill was straight or gay in their playthrough is just icky to me because it feels like it reinforces the idea that bisexual = less desirable then monosexual. The reason I like the new system is because with straight and gay characters there can be no doubt that a character available to both genders is bi or pan. Same with a character that didn't have a specific sexuality, they would be ambiguous because that is what they are and no one could say they were just ambiguous to be a game mechanic.

The problem is that Gaider at least never wants to go back to having ambiguity in romances, so it is pretty much only the set sexualities that get content in this new system. For example say they made one and they are available gameplay-wise to male and female protagonists. People will just say they are bisexual. Or if they are only available to the opposite gender, they would be marked as heterosexual. Or if only available to same gender, marked as homosexual. 

 

This isn't a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. This is a matter of understanding the rationale of the approach BioWare is taking and why they believe it will lead to a "better romance," as that's what the panel was about.

 

I'd just like to state you misinterpreted the intent of my post then. This was in no way an "attack" on whether someone is sexually ambiguous or not. This was merely pointing out the fact that companions having their sexuality chosen by the player is unrealistic and does not reflect real life. BioWare wants to create more believable relationships and romances, which is why this time around they are giving every companion a strict sexual orientation. This has absolutely nothing to do with attacking asexual individuals or any other sexual minority that feels marginalized.

 

For the purposes of video games and the fact that BioWare has only in more recent times addressed the social issues surrounding sexuality, yeah I'd say they are taking a more pronounced stance on it and trying to do a better job of representing all groups. That hasn't been the case in previous BioWare games.

>Says they are not attacking SA people

>Says characters like them are less authentic or believable than if they have strict sexual orientations 

[Grieving Natashina]

This isn't a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. This is a matter of understanding the rationale of the approach BioWare is taking and why they believe it will lead to a "better romance," as that's what the panel was about.

 

I'd just like to state you misinterpreted the intent of my post then. This was in no way an "attack" on whether someone is sexually ambiguous or not. 

They can understand the approach and still disagree with it.  That was my point.   They are allowed to disagree with BioWare stances on set sexuality, and express concerns about feeling dismissed.  

 

Much like with bi-erasure, some feel like their sexual identity as presented in DA2 was erased by DG's comments from earlier this year.  He also did go back and forth about the sexual ambiguity thing until very recently, if you check out a previous poster's links.  That didn't help matters. 

 

Did I use the word attack?  Because I didn't.  I don't mince words nor drop cute hints.  If I felt you or BioWare were trying to attack anyone, I would have made it quite clear with my post.  So please, don't read tone into my text that wasn't there. I was more defending a point of view, which is a valid one.  I don't agree with that POV, but I can still see where some folks are coming from.

 

 

This was merely pointing out the fact that companions having their sexuality chosen by the player is unrealistic and does not reflect real life. BioWare wants to create more believable relationships and romances, which is why this time around they are giving every companion a strict sexual orientation. This has absolutely nothing to do with attacking asexual individuals or any other sexual minority that feels marginalized.

 

 

It's just lonely to be constantly misunderstood, and feeling like you don't matter.  Oh and as far as asexuals goes, DG talked about doing an asexual romance, which is a strict sexual orientation.

 

 

For the purposes of video games and the fact that BioWare has only in more recent times addressed the social issues surrounding sexuality, yeah I'd say they are taking a more pronounced stance on it and trying to do a better job of representing all groups. That hasn't been the case in previous BioWare games.

 

 

Again, they know this, which is why some posters feel comfortable addressing it in the first place.   They are allowed to voice their concerns to BioWare.  They are allowed to look at the facts and disagree with them.  They also know that the company isn't deliberately attacking them as a group.  They know that BioWare is the most open when it comes to sexuality.  Which, again, is why they feel comfortable addressing this at all.

 

You don't have to agree with them anymore than they have to agree with BioWare.  However, trying to bludgeon folks with your point isn't going to help matters, nor change anyone's mind.  All I tend to do is present the Word of God where I can and let others decide for themselves.  That's all anyone can do.

[Revan Reborn]

They can understand the approach and still disagree with it.  That was my point.   They are allowed to disagree with BioWare stances on set sexuality, and express concerns about feeling dismissed.  

 

Much like with bi-erasure, some feel like their sexual identity as presented in DA2 was erased by DG's comments from earlier this year.  He also did go back and forth about the sexual ambiguity thing until very recently, if you check out a previous poster's links.  That didn't help matters. 

 

Did I use the word attack?  Because I didn't.  I don't mince words nor drop cute hints.  If I felt you or BioWare were trying to attack anyone, I would have made it quite clear with my post.  So please, don't read tone into my text that wasn't there. I was more defending a point of view, which is a valid one.  I don't agree with that POV, but I can still see where some folks are coming from.

 

 

 

It's just lonely to be constantly misunderstood, and feeling like you don't matter.  Oh and as far as asexuals goes, DG talked about doing an asexual romance, which is a strict sexual orientation.

 

 

Again, they know this, which is why some posters feel comfortable addressing it in the first place.   They are allowed to voice their concerns to BioWare.  They are allowed to look at the facts and disagree with them.  They also know that the company isn't deliberately attacking them as a group.  They know that BioWare is the most open when it comes to sexuality.  Which, again, is why they feel comfortable addressing this at all.

 

You don't have to agree with them anymore than they have to agree with BioWare.  However, trying to bludgeon folks with your point isn't going to help matters, nor change anyone's mind.  All I tend to do is present the Word of God where I can and let others decide for themselves.  That's all anyone can do.

Well unfortunately BioWare can't please everyone. They are doing the best they can, with the limited resources and time they have to develop these games. Ultimately, video games are still a business, and while they will try and be as inclusive as possible, that also means making decisions that not everybody will agree with. People are free to disagree with BioWare. They certainly have been and will continue to over the ending of Mass Effect 3.

 

No need to get defensive. I'm not accusing you of anything. I only think it's fair that all sides of an issue are thoroughly addressed in a discussion. In regards to the last couple of pages, it has been rather one-sided, which is why I felt compelled to post at all.

 

It's really a cooperative issue, and that's why these boards are important. If you feel you are being marginalized in terms of sexual identity in BioWare games, you need to speak up and voice your opinion on the forums. BioWare clearly has their own preconceived biases as unfortunately most video game developers and studios are overwhelmingly straight males. It's unlikely BioWare will ever get the perfect balance, but what's important is they continue to strive towards it and receive quality feedback that helps them get there. Romances were clearly an issue for many in DA2, which is why the writing team is taking a different approach with DAI.

 

Fair enough. I'd say being passionate about something and willing to defend it is not quite the same as bludgeoning others with a particular stance, but clearly it's a difference of perspective. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. With that being said, it's vital for everybody to hear the extent and legitimacy of all sides, so that they can then build the facts together and determine for themselves what they believe BioWare should do going forward.

[daveliam]

There is also the simple but obvious reality that women get more love interests because there are more men on the Inquisition team. We have 7 males and 5 females on the Inquisition team. I don't know about you but as a straight male I would rather hang around other men because its much less drama, because bros > hoes and male camaraderie is an awesome thing. 

 

 

Ugh.  "Bros > hoes"?  Really?  I just can't with BSN sometimes.......

 

 

What does that make the posters who employ shaming tactics, dismissal tactics and strawman justfications ? Hypocrites who are not interested in true equality but in equality at someone's expense. 

 

 

I haven't seen anyone using strawman justifications. 

[Grieving Natashina]

Ugh.  "Bros > hoes"?  Really?  I just can't with BSN sometimes.......

 

Yeah...I wasn't up for touching that one.  

[Zazzerka]

Bros before hos is definitely not a BSN invention.

[Grieving Natashina]

Bros before hos is definitely not a BSN invention.

It was Dave more lamenting the use of the expression here on the BSN, not a comment on the origin of the expression.  

[veeia]

I figured. For many LGBT players, the term "safe haven" has come up more than once. This is the first and only official game forum where I can be out as a bi/pansexual woman and feel comfortable.

Yes, it's been a much more pleasant experience than I expected! I didn't really understand why some people bashed the BSN on that front until I left the Dragon Age forums, haha.

[Grieving Natashina]

Yes, it's been a much more pleasant experience than I expected! I didn't really understand why some people bashed the BSN on that front until I left the Dragon Age forums, haha.

You didn't see the BSN a few years ago.  I wasn't around myself, just read some of the archived threads, but it had sadly earned a bad reputation for being a rather toxic community.  I'm very happy to see how much it's changed.