323 réponses à ce sujet

[PhroXenGold]

I think they've only done it because of animation issues. It's cheaper to just restrict someone like Iron Bull to being Qunari only rather than trying to animate him bending down to kiss a dwarf. I can understand that. I understand that game development has limitations, and they've got to budget time and money and not everything can be in the game. However, I think it is absolutely disgusting. It's racism of the highest order, and it's shocking that such a progressive company like BioWare is okay with having it in their games. Yeah, yeah, they're fantasy races; but the message it's sending is that it's them verse us and you shouldn't co-mingle. I'm really hoping it's not a trend that continues into future games, be they Dragon Age, Mass Effect or other.

 

Wow...are you actually serious? Please tell me this is a joke.

 

First off, not finding someone of a particular race sexually attractive doesn't have anything to do with racism, it just means that they don't appeal to your aesthetic tastes. It doesn't mean you think less of them as a person. It doesn't mean you think they should be treated worse. It's no different from preferring particular hair colours. It's no different from prefering particular facial shapes. It's no different from preferring particular body shapes. Hell, it's no different from prefering the appearance of any one thing over another in a non-sexual way.

 

Secondly, even if it did display a level of racism, why should that be avoided? Certianly, it shouldn't promoted, but, given that this kind of thing is completely realistic, surely in a deep, detailed, immersive world, it'd be expected for some people to be like that. Glossing over it, pretending it doesn't happen is far worse.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

I guess it depends on the character Cullen for instance is gated for humans and elves, which if you think about it makes sense for his character, As a templar he's been surrounded by humans and elves in the both Circles where he lived and worked, He's had very little exposure to dwarves (outside of Dagna, Sandal, Varric, and the dwarven Warden) so I can I understand why he's not sexually attached to dwarves. As for the Qunari he was a templar in Kirkwall when the Qunari attacked the city and he wasn't very fond of them to begin with. IIRC he called them "heathens" at one point, so it will be interesting to see how he handles taking orders from one in DA:I. . 

[Degs29]

I thought it was quite interesting that for the first time we are getting not only gender-gated romance-options, but race-gated romance options.

 

Personally, I have no problem with this (anything that adds more texture to the game is something that adds more texture to the game), but how far would people be comfortable with this type of thing in future entries in the series?

 

I think it does add depth and realism to the game, but at the expense of options.  After all, devs only have so much time to formulate these LI arcs. 

 

So yes, I'm perfectly fine with it, even like it.  But we'd need more options to make up for it.

[daveliam]

I think that people get uncomfortable with race gating because it seems a very prejudiced world view. To say, I don't find full lips and wide noses attractive, is one thing. To say, I don't find black women attractive seems another. Not all people of a race have the same features, so it just seems that there's something more to a statement like that beyond physical looks.

Now, that being said, is it the same thing when talking about fantasy races? Not really since there aren't actually elves and qunari running around. But I can understand why people find it distasteful.

[Eudaemonium]

I think they've only done it because of animation issues. It's cheaper to just restrict someone like Iron Bull to being Qunari only rather than trying to animate him bending down to kiss a dwarf. I can understand that. I understand that game development has limitations, and they've got to budget time and money and not everything can be in the game. However, I think it is absolutely disgusting. It's racism of the highest order, and it's shocking that such a progressive company like BioWare is okay with having it in their games. Yeah, yeah, they're fantasy races; but the message it's sending is that it's them verse us and you shouldn't co-mingle. I'm really hoping it's not a trend that continues into future games, be they Dragon Age, Mass Effect or other.

 

But Iron Bull isn't gated at all. He was going to be until John Epler put in extra hours to make scenes for the other races (all hail Epler!) They've explicitly stated that the gating in DAI are explicitly for plot reasons, though obviously resources did play a part in that since they were both added with the delay.

 

The connection between fantasy 'races' and real-world 'races' in contemporary fantasy is murky at best, though I think it's fairly clear that the origins of the term are pretty racist in themselves. The term itself has broadly become convention and separate from its history, but it has origins in an ideology of innate racial characteristics that, I will agree, make its use as a gating mechanic ethically problematic, especially if one factors in connotation instead of pure denotation. (In terms of broader discussions, one also has to factor in the fact that what an individual finds aesthetically attractive has a lot more to do with socialisation and societal constructions of beauty than it does with some innate propensity for attraction, and societal constructions of beauty are very frequently racially coded in both overt and covert ways).

[Jagrevi]

I can't disagree with Direwolf0294 more.

 

First off, I hardly think Bioware's games are giving out the message "that races shouldn't co-mingle". The vast majority of romance options don't look at race what-so-ever. That being said, I don't think the ones that do are strictly for animation issues. Cullen is Human/Elf romanceable only, and yet other humans can romance any race. Solas is Elf-only romanceable (not even humans), and yet clearly other Elves can romance any race. There are perfectly non-racist reasons why someone might not be physically attracted to people of such disparate body types as some of the races of Thedas.

 

That being said, all the good reasons to have a physically-based racial-attraction/non-attraction aside, what's so bad about the bad ones being in the game? Why is having a racist companion "disgusting"? Not all of our companion characters are moral paragons; heck, Sten was a child-murderer. Race is very much an issue in the world of Dragon Age, and I think having every companion be progressive on the matter in a world so steeped in racial prejudices is both disingenuous and actually does a disservice to the examination of racism in the first place. (It shouldn't "just exist in the bad-guys", it should exist as an ever-present issue in the world)

 

If you insist on never having a player have the option to bond with a character of unenlightened racial attitudes, I think the one sending the negative message here is you.

[Amirit]

Well, sliders discrimination is not always such a bad idea:

 

[Jagrevi]

"Not all people of a race have the same features"

 

Defined within cultural boundaries, no, but we typically identify ethnicities by the prominence of particular genetic features. The typical shape of the Korean eye (on the face, not the eyeball, and defined as common trait in the respective ethnic gene-pool) is notably distinct from the typical European eye (defined in this same way). If you give people the freedom to say they are attracted to a certain type of look of the eye, you automatically are granting them license to prefer some traditionally ethnic appearance over another.

 

In fact, you hear people say "Oh I do so love Latin Men" and the like all the time, and people don't tend to, for lack of a less rhetorical phrase, bat an eye. However, as soon as you allow this, you have to allow the negative statement.

 

I understand the concern about issues of bigotry here, I really do. Norms of physical attractiveness are very tied up with social politics - look at all the places in the world where fair (lighter) skin tone is considered attractive, and think about what this means not only racially, but with regards to social class (there is a traditional distinction to be made of the skin tone of those who labor in the sun for extended periods and those who do not, even within a race). I mean, even issues of how much / how little fat is considered attractive is very much related to issues of social class and therefore correlates to issues of prejudice (take a moment to notice how the human diet has changed in the last handful of centuries with respect to social class in our culture, and then go back and see what "beautiful women" looked like in the paintings of old). Still, the moment you grant people the right to "choose the physical standards which they find aesthetically appealing on an instinctual level", you grant them the right to even have skin color preference, weight preference, and all of these things - which are inexorably tied to social groups.

 

I'm not saying there are no issues of social politics to be raised here, but I do think it's very disingenuous to draw the line at race and say everything on this side of it is perfectly acceptable, and everything on the other side of it is completely unreasonable. The matter at hand really is more complicated than that. Physical attraction is related to looks, looks are related to genetics, and genetics are related to ethnic heritage - this is unavoidable, you will never fully separate these things. What we can do though is explore it as an issue, and I think if anything, a wariness to portray romance in the world as anything but entirely blind to racial variation (particularly ones as extreme as in Thedas), is the harmful attitude to further understanding and enlightenment.

[sangy]

I think they spoke of how they wanted to make that aspect of the game realistic.  In life, people are usually very picky about who they choose as a partner.  This is a good thing.  Also as a bad thing, people have a type of person in mind that they want before even giving someone a chance.  That could possibly be something to prevent them from really finding something special or generally that just works in the long run.

 

DA:I shouldn't be any different.  It would be odd that every character is interested in a relationship and bisexual. 

[daveliam]

"Not all people of a race have the same features"

 

Defined within cultural boundaries, no, but we typically identify ethnicities by the prominence of particular genetic features. The typical shape of the Korean eye (on the face, not the eyeball, and defined as common trait in the respective ethnic gene-pool) is notably distinct from the typical European eye (defined in this same way). If you give people the freedom to say they are attracted to a certain type of look of the eye, you automatically are granting them license to prefer some traditionally ethnic appearance over another.

 

In fact, you hear people say "Oh I do so love Latin Men" and the like all the time, and people don't tend to, for lack of a less rhetorical phrase, bat an eye. However, as soon as you allow this, you have to allow the negative statement.

 

I understand the concern about issues of bigotry here, I really do. Norms of physical attractiveness are very tied up with social politics - look at all the places in the world where fair (lighter) skin tone is considered attractive, and think about what this means not only racially, but with regards to social class (there is a traditional distinction to be made of the skin tone of those who labor in the sun for extended periods and those who do not, even within a race). I mean, even issues of how much / how little fat is considered attractive is very much related to issues of social class and therefore correlates to issues of prejudice (take a moment to notice how the human diet has changed in the last handful of centuries with respect to social class in our culture, and then go back and see what "beautiful women" looked like in the paintings of old). Still, the moment you grant people the right to "choose the physical standards which they find aesthetically appealing on an instinctual level", you grant them the right to even have skin color preference, weight preference, and all of these things - which are inexorably tied to social groups.

 

I'm not saying there are no issues of social politics to be raised here, but I do think it's very disingenuous to draw the line at race and say everything on this side of it is perfectly acceptable, and everything on the other side of it is completely unreasonable. The matter at hand really is more complicated than that. Physical attraction is related to looks, looks are related to genetics, and genetics are related to ethnic heritage - this is unavoidable, you will never fully separate these things. What we can do though is explore it as an issue, and I think if anything, a wariness to portray romance in the world as anything but entirely blind to racial variation (particularly ones as extreme as in Thedas), is the harmful attitude to further understanding and enlightenment.

 

So my question is this:  Does adding this really add substantive value to the gaming experience? 

 

My gut is "No, it does not".  I don't need this "realism" for my game to be enjoyable and, unfortunately, I think it raises more negatives (or at least enough to be distasteful for many people) than positives.  I don't see this as a value add. 

 

Again, the more gating, the less choice that individual players have in this aspect.  Most of the things that you are talking about:  race, gender, class, are decisions made in the CC.  I don't want those choices to have such a great impact on the romance selection.  I'd rather it be based more on the actions that my character takes.  I'd much rather see a gating because I choose to sell elves into slavery or execute a group of apostates or have chosen to become a templar or blood mage.  I'd rather not see a restriction because I'm a dwarf or because I'm a warrior.

 

Remember that they have limited funding, so there is no way that they can add in race, gender, and class gating and still offer two LI options for everyone.  I have had several games where I've only had a single option and the experience is not as enjoyable if you don't like the one choice that you have.  Having two options, it's different because you always like one more than the other (even if only a little bit).  But having just one choice and not liking them?  That sucks (Looking at you, Zevran).  I'd rather not be put back in that position just so that I can have the "realism" of less options.

[daveliam]

DA:I shouldn't be any different.  It would odd that every character is interested in a relationship and bisexual. 

 

There has never been a Bioware game where every character is interested in a relationship and bisexual.  I don't think that this has ever been on the table.

[Kantr]

Aside from 2?

[daveliam]

Aside from 2?

 

There were only 5 characters that you could romance in DA 2 (not "every character") and not all of them were bisexual.

[TheButterflyEffect]

Gay sex 4eva.

[Super Drone]

"I'm not like a lot of y'all, I don't have 15 playthroughs"

 

As the one to initially raise this topic, I should probably confess that I only ever play through these games once (I only have my 'canon', although I do spend a fair bit then watching others play through). That being said, I don't think talking about other types of gating necessarily means a more-gated outcome, in the same way that new types of food do not necessarily imply over-eating. There seems to be a fair amount of concern in the thread about not wanting an "overly-gated selection", and while I think that's fair, I don't think that's at the heart of the matter, as different types of gating doesn't necessarily imply strictly more gating.

 

If you are talking about gating the "extra" Romances in ways other than race gating, then I agree that that could be interesting. It's more work though, and that's why it's less likely. Gender and race gating actually saves them resources, less animations to make etc. Class or Spec or whatever gating will add costs, as they have to add dialogue trees and still need to make all the animations for all the races and genders. It's not impossible, but it drives home the point that not every decision the devs have to make is based on what is the best story...

[Kantr]

There were only 5 characters that you could romance in DA 2 (not "every character") and not all of them were bisexual.

Ah right, I thought the topic was just about LI's   

 

(I'm sure they were all playersexual though?)

[Xilizhra]

I can't disagree with Direwolf0294 more.

 

First off, I hardly think Bioware's games are giving out the message "that races shouldn't co-mingle". The vast majority of romance options don't look at race what-so-ever. That being said, I don't think the ones that do are strictly for animation issues. Cullen is Human/Elf romanceable only, and yet other humans can romance any race. Solas is Elf-only romanceable (not even humans), and yet clearly other Elves can romance any race. There are perfectly non-racist reasons why someone might not be physically attracted to people of such disparate body types as some of the races of Thedas.

 

That being said, all the good reasons to have a physically-based racial-attraction/non-attraction aside, what's so bad about the bad ones being in the game? Why is having a racist companion "disgusting"? Not all of our companion characters are moral paragons; heck, Sten was a child-murderer. Race is very much an issue in the world of Dragon Age, and I think having every companion be progressive on the matter in a world so steeped in racial prejudices is both disingenuous and actually does a disservice to the examination of racism in the first place. (It shouldn't "just exist in the bad-guys", it should exist as an ever-present issue in the world)

 

If you insist on never having a player have the option to bond with a character of unenlightened racial attitudes, I think the one sending the negative message here is you.

Well, we already have had a few racist companions (hi, Aveline), so it wouldn't be new. However, I'd consider it badly incomplete if you're unable to confront them on it (again, Aveline).

Also, I do not, by and large, like gates, and think they add extra work for relatively little payoff.

[Gtdef]

A bit off-topic, but I can hardly call Dragon Age "the world where you can be perfect". And I'm not just talking about DA being a dark fantasy, with most installments presenting stories with no "perfect happy ending"; even gameplay-wise, your character is hardly "perfect". 

 

(The second paragraph is not specifically aimed at you, Gtdef. Just my opinion connected to the word "realism" and it's usage in the context of this topic)

 

I agree that "realism" is not the word to be associated with a fictional fantasy setting. I prefer "consistent". I think it's consistent to have an elf who will only date elves in a world where elves are second-sort people facing negative discrimination from humans; where elves had lost their civilization, most of their culture, their pride; where elven genes are recessive and the only way to repopulate the elven race is to procreate with other elves. I prefer consistent fantasy world to the "realistic" fantasy world. 

 

I'm guilty of taking shortcuts and not explaining well the concepts I refer to in the appropriate context but that would take a huge post. To clarify some things, when I say perfect, I mean the "be all you can be" mentality. The overachiever. (of course the confines of the game are taken into account).

 

As for the second part, If I were to use a synonym for realism in a fantasy setting, I'd use the term "applicable". While the world itself is different, the people that populate it are directly comparable to ours. Of course there are different social factors that push them in different ways than us, but their needs are the same. 

 

For that particular example you gave, sure the premise is both consistent and applicable, but the limiting factor isn't. For example, that particular elf may fall in love with a member of another race but her/his sense of duty doesn't allow her to do what s/he wants. The conflict and it's resolution is interesting and not addressing it is a bad thing in my book as well as using this premise as an excuse to not include the romance. It's reasonable due to the restrictive nature of video games but no more than that. I'd call it a necessary evil.

 

But in any case, I don't want to go too much into this because just discussing concepts won't cut it. To fully explain my views on this will require me to talk about my perceptions of both the real world and the "gaming experience". It's a pretty big discussion and too much on the personal and subjective side.  

[SolNebula]

No gates at all. IMO I'm for player-sexual character. All these gates, lockls and restriction irritated the hell out of me.

[daveliam]

Ah right, I thought the topic was just about LI's

(I'm sure they were all playersexual though?)

Sebastian was straight and the others were BISEXUAL, not playersexual.

[Super Drone]

No gates at all. IMO I'm for player-sexual character. All these gates, lockls and restriction irritated the hell out of me.

 

I am mostly concerned that more gates and consequently more LIs mean each romance arc is less and less detailed. The more slices, the smaller each slice. I like it better when their were less slices overall, but anyone could have them.

[Jagrevi]

re:DaveLiam

 

As for what I think it adds? Texture. I think varying the types of gating used gives the game more texture.

 

As far what I think it adds that's negative? Nothing. I don't think seeing alluding to the existence of race (or, in this case, actual sub-species) in partner as negative whatsoever, as I've made the argument for above.

 

Remember, we're not talking about the amount of gating used, we're talking about the types of gating used. How much gating is implemented overall is an entirely separate issue.

[Jagrevi]

re:Degs29 - "But we'd need more options to make up for it"

 

Why? Are we assuming there's some fixed number of other-gates that need to be put in place for some reason? Utilizing new types of restrictions doesn't necessarily mean you end up with more restrictions when the entire design is wide open.

[daveliam]

re:DaveLiam

As for what I think it adds? Texture. I think varying the types of gating used gives the game more texture.

As far what I think it adds that's negative? Nothing. I don't think seeing alluding to the existence of race (or, in this case, actual sub-species) in partner as negative whatsoever, as I've made the argument for above.

Remember, we're not talking about the amount of gating used, we're talking about the types of gating used. How much gating is implemented overall is an entirely separate issue.

I just don't see 'You are a dwarf and I am not sexually attracted to dwarves' to be a particularly compelling character trait. I'd rather have a character who responds to my ACTIONS and it creates conflict between the PC and their companions. Again, had Fenris been gated against a Hawke who supports slavery. Or Anders against Templar spec'd warriors. These gating scenarios are more compelling to me compared to 'I'm just not attracted to dwarves'. That? Does nothing for me. In fact, it seems kind of shallow to me on some level. Really? NO dwarf? NONE? There is literally NO WAY that you could ever find a dwarf attractive? Okay then.