7155 réponses à ce sujet

[sandalisthemaker]

He's adorable Nat! Love the name Wilbur! 

 

The more I think about it, the more I feel that Harding is going to be a companion next game. Although, she could be an advisor of sorts if they continue to do the advisor thing. (But if we only have one advisor,  Dorian >>>>>>>>>>>>>Harding any day for me).  

 

I'm actually quite meh about Harding personally, but anyway I'm wondering if they would give us two dwarves? 

 

We've never had more than one member of a non-human race besides elves.  I like human companions, but I'd gladly give up an elf to have 2 dwarves for example. 

 

Also, I've been thinking up scenarios for a human Tevinter KISA.  I really like the idea of a guy who, like Dorian, came from a strong magical lineage. Two extremely powerful mages had an arranged marriage in order to breed the perfect next Archon-to-be.  And yet inexplicably, their first born child never developed any magical ability whatsoever. Shocked and appalled, his parents tried again, and to their great relief, their second born developed powerful magical ability. 

 

The first son now finds himself in a position of extreme inadequacy. He should be an altus like all of his family and relatives, but now he's no better than the commoners.  So he throws himself into training his sword arm in order to make a name for himself and salvage any bit of honor or pride he can. His talent with a blade earns him a position as a bodyguard to a magister and eventually the Archon himself. 

 

He has an incredible sense of duty and honor, and grows disillusioned with the corruption of the magesterium and wants things to change. 

 

There are some parallels with Dorian, true, but I really like the idea of  witnessing how non-mages are disadvantaged in Tevinter instead of the other way around like Southern Thedas. It could be a source of slight angst for the KISA to make things interesting. 

[daveliam]

We had two dwarves in Awakening.  My Warden Aeducan loved running around the Deep Roads with Sigrun and Oghren in an almost completely dwarf group.  It's the closest we've ever been able to get to an all dwarf party, outside of Golem of Amgarrak and the brief part in the dwarf noble origin where you have three dwarves with you.

 

I think they could give us two dwarves if it made sense for them to do so.  But maybe I'm just holding out hope given my dwarf preferences.

[SardaukarElite]

We had two dwarves in Awakening.  My Warden Aeducan loved running around the Deep Roads with Sigrun and Oghren in an almost completely dwarf group.  It's the closest we've ever been able to get to an all dwarf party

 

You mean to say your dwarf party fell short?

[sandalisthemaker]

We had two dwarves in Awakening.  My Warden Aeducan loved running around the Deep Roads with Sigrun and Oghren in an almost completely dwarf group.  It's the closest we've ever been able to get to an all dwarf party, outside of Golem of Amgarrak and the brief part in the dwarf noble origin where you have three dwarves with you.

 

I think they could give us two dwarves if it made sense for them to do so.  But maybe I'm just holding out hope given my dwarf preferences.

 

Oh yeah. I keep forgetting about Awakening's companion roster since I only played it once. 

[Ghost Gal]

To be honest, it baffles me that apparently Blackwall was considered a priority over Cullen in regards to being a romance. Like... I assume that Cullen became an advisor because of fan reaction, and he is very much a traditional BioWare LI. Yet Blackwall was 'primary' romance and Cullen was 'extension'? It truly boggles my mind.

 

As someone who plans to maybe get around to romancing Cullen some time in 2017 and adores Blackwall, I share your bogglement. I mean, it would have worked out fine for me, but I can't believe we almost got a version of the game where the options for straight female PCs were Blackwall and Bull while Cullen was standing right there but not available.

 

Yeah, I was shocked when I learned that he was only a romance because of the extended development time.  He seemed like a no brainer to me.  I can only imagine the reaction we would have had if the two romances for straight females were a giant horned mercenary with a penchant for BDSM and a murderer who was concealing his identity for half of the romance.  Yikes!

 

I know these were posted a while ago, but I had to resurrect them to share my agreement.

 

To be honest, this is part of the reason I'm apprehensive about romances for the next game. DA4 probably won't get a year extension the way DAI did, and knowing that we almost had a game where Blackwall and Iron Bull were thought to be more desirable than Cullen (whom fans have been begging to romance since the first game) makes me worried which companions they think fans will prefer to romance next game. 

[Ghost Gal]

As far as "gay/bi knight in shing armor" type characters, I hope BioWare learned their lesson for this game. Cullen was very popular with fans of both genders, yet they made him available for only female humans and elves. (Good gracious, they could have at least let him be available to male and female humans and elves if they wanted to go the bi route, or at least female Inquisitors of all genders if failing that.) Cassandra had a large female fanbase since DA2, yet they made her the straight female companion (with Sera as the lesbian one and Josephine the bi one) and upset female players who wanted her, male players who wanted Sera (or Harding) over her, and LGBT folk who would have preferred a story-central and unambiguously noble-hearted companion over yet another rogue/social degenerate. 

 

I don't know. What's done is done, I just hope they don't drop the ball next game like they did this game.

 

(Because really, many of the romance choices they made baffle me. Did they really think straight female players would prefer Blackwall and Iron Bull to Cullen? Did they really think straight male players would prefer Cassandra and Josephine to Sera or Scout Harding? Did they really think Bull would be so much more popular than Cullen that they threw all their extra resources into making him romancable for all races and genders while Cullen remained restricted to only female humans and elves? Did they really think that LGBT folks would prefer yet more story-optional and morally questionable rogues and spies and pariahs (like Sera and Bull) while the story-central and unambiguously noble-hearted characters remained 100% straight?)

[Boobasaurus]

As far as "gay/bi knight in shing armor" type characters, I hope BioWare learned their lesson for this game. Cullen was very popular with fans of both genders, yet they made him available for only female humans and elves. (Good gracious, they could have at least let him be available to male and female humans and elves if they wanted to go the bi route, or at least female Inquisitors of all genders if failing that.) Cassandra had a large female fanbase since DA2, yet they made her the straight female companion (with Sera as the lesbian one and Josephine the bi one) and upset female players who wanted her, male players who wanted Sera (or Harding) over her, and LGBT folk who would have preferred a story-central and unambiguously noble-hearted companion over yet another rogue/social degenerate. 

 

I don't know. What's done is done, I just hope they don't drop the ball next game like they did this game.

 

(Because really, many of the romance choices they made baffle me. Did they really think straight female players would prefer Blackwall and Iron Bull to Cullen? Did they really think straight male players would prefer Cassandra and Josephine to Sera or Scout Harding? Did they really think Bull would be so much more popular than Cullen that they threw all their extra resources into making him romancable for all races and genders while Cullen remained restricted to only female humans and elves? Did they really think that LGBT folks would prefer yet more story-optional and morally questionable rogues and spies and pariahs (like Sera and Bull) while the story-central and unambiguously noble-hearted characters remained 100% straight?)

 

Bioware probably doesn't plan the sexualities of their characters based on expected popularity. And to be honest, I truly hope that they don't feel obligated to do so in the future either.

[Andraste_Reborn]

Did they really think Bull would be so much more popular than Cullen that they threw all their extra resources into making him romancable for all races and genders while Cullen remained restricted to only female humans and elves?

 

The only reason the Iron Bull is romanceable by all races is that his cinematic designer - John Epler - devoted his personal free time to making the cut scenes work. He wasn't going to be available dwarves. That means that straight female dwarves would have been stuck wtih Blackwall or nothing, which would have worked perfectly for my Blackwall-loving 'canon' Inquisitor, but probably not for everyone else, and gay male dwarves would have been limited to Dorian.

 

I don't think that the writers/artists/cin designers sit down and say 'OK, which players will want to romance which characters?' I think it's more a matter of individuals saying 'I think this character I'm writing should be a lesbian and a romance option' or 'I don't need sleep, dwarves should be able to ride the Bull too!' and then they sort of shuffle things around until everyone (hopefully) has options.

[dgcatanisiri]

I really can't say what goes on in the decision-making process of who gets the LI treatment and why. None of us can. But I like to think, especially when factoring in that thread I linked to a few pages ago, from Allan Schumacher asking about unfortunate LI tropes, the fans have been clear that what they WANT, they haven't gotten.

 

On a personal note, I'd also say that the backlash has been pretty vocal as well, to the point that I don't think they're going to ever do the 'hey, we got an extension, let's add a few more LIs!' thing again. Because I'm sure that's the big factor in the anger here - had they been left with a 2/2/2 option, if Cassandra, Blackwall, Josephine, Iron Bull, Sera, and Dorian had been the only characters available for romance, I have a feeling that the anger and outrage would have been far less extreme - I know I'm pissed off that I have Dorian or Iron Bull as my options if I want to play as an Inquisitor of my gender and orientation, but I COULD have had at least one more option, one of them being someone far more to my personal tastes, and I would probably be much more accepting of Dorian as a romance choice because of it. The romances may not have been satisfactory to everyone, but everyone would have felt they had a fair share. Assuming they don't go back to the DA2 all-bi approach (which I honestly wouldn't mind), I'd be willing to bet that they aren't going to let the romances be uneven again. If they want to add more romances, they'd probably make sure that they could add an equal amount for everyone or just plain not do it.

[Potato Cat]

Regarding how romances are chosen, I recall David Gaider wrote about this on his blog. You know, when it was still there. I can't remember exactly, but I think what he said about the way characters and LI are written is basically:
1) Writers start off with very general concept. E.g. Josephine started off as simply as 'diplomat' or something
2) Writers who think they would have a good idea for that particular concept will claim that character at some point
3) They begin outlining and writing the character and their regular content, quests, etc
4) MUCH later, they decide the romances. By this point, writers may have a better idea of the character's sexuality and how the romance might work, and whether or not the character would WANT a romance
5) Rewrites and tweaks

[dgcatanisiri]

Re: #4 on that list - I stand by 'it doesn't fit the character' being BS. I only ever hear that as a reason why a character isn't gay/bi, and I think it's deflecting the issue by trying to say 'oh I would have but the stars didn't align with this particular character, what can you do?' In a lot of cases, it's not that it 'doesn't fit' the character but that a writer isn't 'seeing' them in a relationship with someone of the same sex. And usually? That's because the character has the kind of story that hasn't been seen in a queer narrative before - Cassandra wanted traditionally romantic things, Ashley and Sebastian had significant religious beliefs... But there are plenty of people attracted to the same sex who are like that. It only doesn't fit because you haven't seen it before. And that's all the more reason that the character SHOULD be gay/bi.

 

Uh, sorry. I'll vacate the soapbox now...

[carlo angelo]

"Hmm... yes, I can't see this character as heterosexual."

 

Outside of my queer fiction circles, I rarely, if ever at all, hear this sentence.

[vertigomez]

We had two dwarves in Awakening.  My Warden Aeducan loved running around the Deep Roads with Sigrun and Oghren in an almost completely dwarf group.  It's the closest we've ever been able to get to an all dwarf party, outside of Golem of Amgarrak and the brief part in the dwarf noble origin where you have three dwarves with you.
 
I think they could give us two dwarves if it made sense for them to do so.  But maybe I'm just holding out hope given my dwarf preferences.

I think it'd be wonderful if we had two dwarves again, rather than two elves and several humans. DA4 would be the time to do it, considering the number of dwarves there are in Tevinter.

(I still think Renn would've made a decent KISA. That armor, that sense of purpose, that husky voice... )

[sandalisthemaker]

Re: #4 on that list - I stand by 'it doesn't fit the character' being BS. I only ever hear that as a reason why a character isn't gay/bi, and I think it's deflecting the issue by trying to say 'oh I would have but the stars didn't align with this particular character, what can you do?' In a lot of cases, it's not that it 'doesn't fit' the character but that a writer isn't 'seeing' them in a relationship with someone of the same sex. And usually? That's because the character has the kind of story that hasn't been seen in a queer narrative before - Cassandra wanted traditionally romantic things, Ashley and Sebastian had significant religious beliefs... But there are plenty of people attracted to the same sex who are like that. It only doesn't fit because you haven't seen it before. And that's all the more reason that the character SHOULD be gay/bi.

 

Uh, sorry. I'll vacate the soapbox now...

 

 

Yes!!!

 

Don't get me started on the whole "it didn't fit their character" line as the reason why companions were not gay or bisexual.  

 

Urgh, that irks me to no end.   Gay and bisexual people can be just as varied in their character, personality, likes, dislikes, and viewpoints as straight people. 

 

Being gay or bisexual should not require a character to be a certain way or prevent a character from being a certain way.

[Tayah]

I think it'd be wonderful if we had two dwarves again, rather than two elves and several humans. DA4 would be the time to do it, considering the number of dwarves there are in Tevinter.

(I still think Renn would've made a decent KISA. That armor, that sense of purpose, that husky voice... )

Yeah a few less humans for a few more dwarves and Qunari would work for me 

 

Re: #4 on that list - I stand by 'it doesn't fit the character' being BS. I only ever hear that as a reason why a character isn't gay/bi, and I think it's deflecting the issue by trying to say 'oh I would have but the stars didn't align with this particular character, what can you do?' In a lot of cases, it's not that it 'doesn't fit' the character but that a writer isn't 'seeing' them in a relationship with someone of the same sex. And usually? That's because the character has the kind of story that hasn't been seen in a queer narrative before - Cassandra wanted traditionally romantic things, Ashley and Sebastian had significant religious beliefs... But there are plenty of people attracted to the same sex who are like that. It only doesn't fit because you haven't seen it before. And that's all the more reason that the character SHOULD be gay/bi.

 

Uh, sorry. I'll vacate the soapbox now...

Well said, I wish I could like this more than once and also wish I could like Carlo and Sandal's posts on this more than once as well... so consider this a ton of additional "likes". 

[sandalisthemaker]

I think it'd be wonderful if we had two dwarves again, rather than two elves and several humans. DA4 would be the time to do it, considering the number of dwarves there are in Tevinter.

(I still think Renn would've made a decent KISA. That armor, that sense of purpose, that husky voice... )

 

Spoiler

It pissed me off when he died.

And then after when it was revealed what he used to do before joining the Legion and what made him join.... the Sha-Brytol rose to the top of my **** list. Surpassing the Qunari even.   

[Potato Cat]

Here's the thing though. I'm bisexual. My sexuality is part of me, and if I was a character, my writer, at some point, would have to realise that and write that. And while that doesn't stop me from having any personality in particular, the writer could still use that piece of information when writing me to inform them about how I would react in certain situations. Would Dorian find the idea of marrying a woman so objectionable if he wasn't gay? Hell, even we use that information when discussing our KISA and their story. So my question is when you write a character, when is it okay for them to have a sexuality?

Personally, I don't think you should just set out to write a character of a certain sexuality, unless that character's sexuality is going to be a massive part of their story. I mean, when Patrick Weekes first set out to write Traynor, he started by writing a lesbian and ended up with 'an after-school special', so went back and wrote her as a character first and foremost.

But yes, they've given some totally BS excuses in the past. *coughAshleycough*

[sandalisthemaker]

Here's the thing though. I'm bisexual. My sexuality is part of me, and if I was a character, my writer, at some point, would have to realise that and write that. And while that doesn't stop me from having any personality in particular, the writer could still use that piece of information when writing me to inform them about how I would react in certain situations. Would Dorian find the idea of marrying a woman so objectionable if he wasn't gay? Hell, even we use that information when discussing our KISA and their story. So my question is when you write a character, when is it okay for them to have a sexuality?

Personally, I don't think you should just set out to write a character of a certain sexuality, unless that character's sexuality is going to be a massive part of their story. I mean, when Patrick Weekes first set out to write Traynor, he started by writing a lesbian and ended up with 'an after-school special', so went back and wrote her as a character first and foremost.

But yes, they've given some totally BS excuses in the past. *coughAshleycough*

 

I'm no writer, but I personally don't see why a character's sexuality can't be decided upon early in development.  As you said, a person's sexuality is a part of them. But it's separate from personality traits. 

 

My gripe is just that the type of language used, the 'it doesn't fit their character' makes is seem like 'oh, this character is "X" therefore he/she can't be gay or bisexual.  

 

Actually, since the writers have indicated that they create the characters first and then their sexuality much later after their personality has been nailed down, it worries me that they do just that.   I really hope that isn't the case. 

 

Urgh.  I will endeavor to stay positive.  A gay or bisexual KISA can still happen. 

[daveliam]

I'm no writer, but I personally don't see why a character's sexuality can't be decided upon early in development. As you said, a person's sexuality is a part of them. But it's separate from personality traits.

My gripe is just that the type of language used, the 'it doesn't fit their character' makes is seem like 'oh, this character is "X" therefore he/she can't be gay or bisexual.

Actually, since the writers have indicated that they create the characters first and then their sexuality much later after their personality has been nailed down, it worries me that they do just that. I really hope that isn't the case.

Urgh. I will endeavor to stay positive. A gay or bisexual KISA can still happen.

Stay positive. This thread has been noticed and I'm confident that it'll happen in the next two games.

[Kaylis DX]

My heart broke when I realized that, once again, the awesome fighter lady was once again not romanceable by a lesbian. 3 times in a row. Morrigan was hetero, Aveline wasn't even romanceable at all and Cassandra, for SOME reason, was hetero.

 

Meanwhile I've been stuck with 3 rogues with shady pasts and 3 cutesy awkward girls, one of which was the rogue with a shady past.

 

Man bioware sure does love NOT giving us archetype options.

[dgcatanisiri]

I'm no writer, but I personally don't see why a character's sexuality can't be decided upon early in development.  As you said, a person's sexuality is a part of them. But it's separate from personality traits. 

 

My gripe is just that the type of language used, the 'it doesn't fit their character' makes is seem like 'oh, this character is "X" therefore he/she can't be gay or bisexual.  

 

Actually, since the writers have indicated that they create the characters first and then their sexuality much later after their personality has been nailed down, it worries me that they do just that.   I really hope that isn't the case. 

 

Urgh.  I will endeavor to stay positive.  A gay or bisexual KISA can still happen. 

 

Yeah, that's the reason that statement just does not sit well with me. I mean, it's the WAY that it gets presented to us - they say 'we write the character, THEN it's a matter of if it fits the character do we make them a romance and what sexuality they are.' It just feels like they're saying that making a character gay/bi depends on if they 'fit' some abstract list of character concepts, which, based on precedent, tend to slant towards being the rogues, the outcasts, and the shady pasts with male characters, with added 'feminine' in presentation for female characters. NOT the characters who represent what is considered predominantly 'desireable' within universe - the characters who are looked at as being of upstanding moral fiber like Cullen and Cassandra, the former templar and the Right Hand of the Divine (and candidate for her successor). Leliana is as close as we've gotten to that, and we still have both Origins and Inquisition emphasizing her more shady traits, since she's a bard and spymaster.

 

I fully acknowledge that bisexuality will influence a person's life and experiences, but the statement 'it doesn't fit the characters' has been used (from where I'm standing) as a crutch to say 'oh, well, we aren't writing this character as gay/bi because we don't see them that way,' that if a non-heterosexual sexuality is a part of a person's life, it has to make them have this 'socially undesireable' element - Josephine is probably the only character who hasn't been in some fashion against Thedas mainstream society, she's human, not a mage, and the one time she was in a situation where killing someone was required, she felt regret for that action. All the others are non-human in human dominated areas, mages, or have been involved in a career where murder is part of the day job.

[Kaylis DX]

TBH the logic of "i can't see x as x sexuality because x" is pretty homophobic and biphobic. Not only does that logic strip bi/gay/pan people of representation often enough it also strips players of choice. With characters like Dorian and Sera, that's catering to gay representation and thus good! But straight characters do not promote or serve that. Especially in a setting where LGBT characters are apparently welcomed in the public and carry what seems to be no social stigma. There is no need for straight characters as it serves no purpose other than being another missed opportunity to be more inclusive and offer more choice.

[StrangeStrategy]

TBH the logic of "i can't see x as x sexuality because x" is pretty homophobic and biphobic. Not only does that logic strip bi/gay/pan people of representation often enough it also strips players of choice. With characters like Dorian and Sera, that's catering to gay representation and thus good! But straight characters do not promote or serve that. Especially in a setting where LGBT characters are apparently welcomed in the public and carry what seems to be no social stigma. There is no need for straight characters as it serves no purpose other than being another missed opportunity to be more inclusive and offer more choice.

 

...Are you serious? Or am I reading this wrong and drawing the totally wrong conclusion?

 

Are you actually suggesting that there is no need for straight characters because it doesn't cater to gay representation, as if "Hey look, we have gays in our game!" is the only reason they implement romance options?? I don't even know where to begin...
 

[The Ghost]

...Are you serious? Or am I reading this wrong and drawing the totally wrong conclusion?

 

Are you actually suggesting that there is no need for straight characters because it doesn't cater to gay representation, as if "Hey look, we have gays in our game!" is the only reason they implement romance options?? I don't even know where to begin...
 

 

Where exactly does he says that there is no need for straight characters? Why straight people attack right away gay people, just because they've point out a problem or something which they don't like in the romance system? 

 

He simply says that he sees no reason and logic for x character to not be gay, just because the writer or creator of this character doesn't sees him/her like that. I don't see where exactly this says that there is no need for straight romance options? And I agree with the guy completely, this excuses is not normal and it's taken like homophobic... I agree on that point too.... no one says there is no need for straight romance options... 

[SardaukarElite]

Where exactly does he says that there is no need for straight characters?

 

 

The last sentence:

 

TBH the logic of "i can't see x as x sexuality because x" is pretty homophobic and biphobic. Not only does that logic strip bi/gay/pan people of representation often enough it also strips players of choice. With characters like Dorian and Sera, that's catering to gay representation and thus good! But straight characters do not promote or serve that. Especially in a setting where LGBT characters are apparently welcomed in the public and carry what seems to be no social stigma. There is no need for straight characters as it serves no purpose other than being another missed opportunity to be more inclusive and offer more choice.