64 réponses à ce sujet

[Auztin]

I am neutral on this matter.In entertainment people should never go out of their way to include gender a or ethnic group b.They could include a ****** smurf as long as it has depth & character along with making sense it would ok.Representation for representations sake is borderline tyrannical.They should do what they always have done......make the characters they want to make while they're sexuality is decided to fit said character.

[Archerwarden]

This is why BioWare frustrates so many of us. They're a swinging pendulum that can't seem to find the middle; they take negative feedback and run as fast as they can in the other direction.

One reason could be that whomever is reading the forum and reporting back has not played the games and/or is not interpreting and/or reporting discussions accurately?

For example: the discussions about the repetitive environments in DA2. I've read where they have said the massive maps in DA1 is a response to all the complaints. But I thought that if they had just tweaked the house and cave plans just a bit, changed the furniture a bit, removed the corpses in the house Fenris was staying in after the first talk with him it would have been ok and would have answered those criticism.

[Terodil]

I believe representation can be done without sacrificing creativity. Representing a character in a minority group does not mean that the character must have all the "good" qualities. If the character is multi-facet, has strength and flaws, and has their own agency, I would call it a good representation.

I doubt you would get much agreement with this interpretation though (see the example with the female pirate; it was called unsuitable and not inspirational, therefore no good representation). In fact, this passage of your quote seems to slightly contradict that itself:
 

I think Bioware has done quite a decent job at representing LGBTQ, but there is always a room for improvement. One way to improve is, well, more variety in representation. On one hand Bioware has a character like Dorian, how's about next time we have a character like the one in the gay KISA thread?

We both agree that Dorian is a well-rounded, in brief: good character, which, according to you, means that BW has done a good job at representation. However, you talk about 'improving' on representation by introducing different attributes next time, implying that the representation is not actually good (enough).

Which is exactly my gripe with the entire concept of 'representation'. Just *what* exactly are you trying to have represented? "The gay man"? "The asian woman"? "The handicapped person"? This (arbitrary) couple of attributes that you pick out to define your group just results in a group that's as diverse as any other. 'Representation', however, implies, no, requires that the group to be established is a- clearly delineated from another, and b- rather homogenous in itself. But where people are concerned, this is simply not the case. For example, life-affirming, outgoing lesbian black women probably have more in common with similarly life-affirming, outgoing straight asian men than with lesbian black women who happen to be reclusive and depressed.

It strikes me as slightly ironic that in our attempt to break out of traditional boxes, people suggest introducing even more boxes -- and claim that that increases creativity. To me all it seems to do is stifle the artistic process. *shrugs*

Once again, inclusion is a different matter; having said life-affirming, outgoing lesbian black woman is a great addition to any story (just like any other well-rounded character). But she definitely (imo) should not be expected to serve as a 'representative' model of a badly defined (in a logical/statistical sense) group.

[Dreamer]

The f*ck you talking about. It's already divided! Gaming culture mainly represents: white, heterosexual, men. Crying "you're destroying my gaemz with your identity politics!!!" to keep your ridiculously narrow-minded view of what gaming should be is what's absurd. You are a part of the problem because you're actively working to exclude proper representation of entire demographics that could allow more creativity. More imagination. Make the medium grow instead of being the same stagnant male power fantasy it always is.

 

I agree with In Exile. You can't avoid being culturally significant when you're in the public eye for its consumption. On that note, great job Bioware. Keep it up!

 

You mad?

 

As an unemployed homosexual Hispanic living below the poverty level with anxiety and depression disorders, I don't feel particularly represented in games. I'm also probably less privileged than you despite being--gasp!--male. But I don't play games to force obviously-political agendas down the throats of people just trying to enjoy their hobby.

 

You don't like gaming culture? Make your own culture. Make the games you want instead of changing the ones we already have. If games are art, then we must include those oh-so-awful male power fantasies responsible for making gaming a mainstream activity--games, which, despite being so bad and insidiously anti-anyone-not-white-male, still somehow drew you into gaming.

 

Curious, right?

[AlanC9]

I believe the preferred terms for those male power fantasies are more along the lines of "silly" or "embarrassing" rather than "awful."

Anyway, what's the actual problem here? Why can't dopey mainstream games be subject to criticism the same way that dopey Hollywood blockbusters are?

[Dreamer]

I believe the preferred terms for those male power fantasies are more along the lines of "silly" or "embarrassing" rather than "awful."

Anyway, what's the actual problem here? Why can't dopey mainstream games be subject to criticism the same way that dopey Hollywood blockbusters are?

 

Because no one can agree on what constitutes "dopey."

[Il Divo]

Because no one can agree on what constitutes "dopey."

 

Not sure that's a good counter-argument. We don't need universal agreement on what constitutes dopey. It doesn't stop people from ripping apart Michael Bay's Transformer films and everything else. 

[OriginalTibs]

Much of this controversy seems a little bit mad if it isn't simply manufactured for the sake of forum drama.

 

The writer builds the story by evolving the main plot's development through appropriate settings. The writer discovers his or her characters in a dynamic storm of discovery. They are already alive there. Those characters reveal their characteristics naturally, according the the writers' grasp of interpersonal realities, or else inherit their characteristics (Varric, Cassandra, Cullen, Liliana) from previous works where they appeared.

 

The characteristics of Dorian are a natural result of his origin story, and the conflict with his father is completely on point. Dorian isn't a characature, a token gay included just to appeal to a demographic. Dorian lives there, like Sara, like Bull. Construing an artificial sampling of archetypes based only on diversity would be putting the cart before the horse.

 

Story telling is an art form. Whiteboard boxes and decision points and diagrams are not independent of the plot, the subplots, the settings and especially the conflicts. A work of artistry is a whole. Analysis fails where its reconstruction, its synthesis, no longer maps well to the original whole.

[OriginalTibs]

Because no one can agree on what constitutes "dopey."

Thus we should see that 'dopey', like boredom, is a function of the individual player and not in the game at all. It is in the eye of the beholder.

[DeltaAgent26]

The reason why bioware creativity is dying or already dead, is because they gave into greed, and sold out to EA.

Now that they are subsidiaries, they have to conform to the rules, regulations, and policies set forth by EA/Dice.

It was a solemn day when the old bioware which I loved, turned traitor.

[AlanC9]

The reason why bioware creativity is dying or already dead, is because they gave into greed, and sold out to EA.
Now that they are subsidiaries, they have to conform to the rules, regulations, and policies set forth by EA/Dice.
It was a solemn day when the old bioware which I loved, turned traitor.

The great thing about this line of criticism is that it's content-free. Anything you don't like can fit in here.

[In Exile]

The great thing about this line of criticism is that it's content-free. Anything you don't like can fit in here.

 

The real lesson is that it's totally OK to be owned by a hedge fun. That's moral and upright. It's those publicly traded companies that are evil. 

[Dubya75]

Howling for the moon in DA:I or DA2?

 

LOL, in DA2. That was part of the original Hawke concept.

[Erstus]

DAI lacked grey content for me. It seemed everything was permanently frozen in the good vs bad guy aspect which was a major disappointment.

We needed more complex, grey choices that offered certain pros but also each choice would have a heavy consequence. DAI also needed more moral grey characters, including my companions.

It was a shame DAI lacked this where as I found this more prevalent in Origins (Loghain).

[Terodil]

DAI lacked grey content for me. It seemed everything was permanently frozen in the good vs bad guy aspect which was a major disappointment.

We needed more complex, grey choices that offered certain pros but also each choice would have a heavy consequence. DAI also needed more moral grey characters, including my companions.

It was a shame DAI lacked this where as I found this more prevalent in Origins (Loghain).

Been thinking about this a lot lately, because I kept wondering why I couldn't connect to the party companions like I did in previous games.

I think it's not the fact that they're not grey. Most of them are. Cassandra has good ideas, but she sometimes behaves no better than a thug. Blackwall... well is Blackwall. Solas may be likeable, and you may even share his ideas, but that doesn't change the fact that he's lying to you and misleading you whenever it suits his agenda. Etc. etc.

My latest attempt at explaining the problems I have with companions is that they're *too* grey, in the sense of the colours being muddied too much. The negative aspects are too pervasive, too present for every single character (to me at least, YMMV), for example Cassandra's constant bigotry prevents me from appreciating and growing to like her positive traits. I think past companions were more colourful and not muddied as much. Isabela betrayed you, true, but she had so many strong endearing moments that you could grow to like her despite of that. Merrill was an irresponsible child at times, yes, but... sigh, Merrill. Aveline was an authoritarian do-gooder, but she had a heart of gold, etc. etc.. Leliana, ah Leliana. In DA:I she is constantly brooding, and we don't get a single instance where the light-heartedness of previous installations shines through.

Now obviously there is a good reason to keep characters coherent, I'm sure, but personally I think BW overdid it. It's the best reason I have at the moment to explain why I can't grow to like the characters.