1001 réponses à ce sujet

[Panda]

I don't think Dorian existence is only about him being gay. Dorian has lot of different characteristics, he's mage noble from Tevinter that wants to change his country. He has arrogant outside, but cares deeply about people (for example he was only one that stayed with Roderick when he died). His mentor who was supposed to change their country with him betrayed him and sided with enemy. So he is quite intresting character outside of his sexuality and story it plays as well. I don't think Dorian's personal question is all about being gay either, it's partially about that, but also not seeing eye-to-eye with your parent, having different worldviews and values of them and wanting them to understand or even accept your point, but instead of that they want to change you so that you follow their worldviews.

 

I actually think sometimes "propaganda", although that isn't word I'd use for it, can go overboard. Like sometimes I feel like developers are trying too hard for my liking with some things like explaining being transgender in the game in part it doesn't really fit (like Krem's case, I love his character, but those questions about him being trans are so out of place in my opinion) or making feminist stories as well in terms of having someone approach your character or female character with sexist comments and then letting you to kick their ass or female character to kick theirs.. (ME2 & new Thor comic) I guess it's supposed to be satisfactory, escapism of real world where you can't do that to pricks, but it kinda is just meh for me, I'd rather not have that. So I guess my point is that social issues can and should be part of different medias like video games, but developers also can go overboard with them and entertainment shouldn't still include lectures although it can't escape from views of it's creators either.

 

I think this: "it can't escape from views of it's creators either" is why DAI has lot of LGBT+ and other content for minorities as well and why some people complain about it. DAI's devs seem to be quite LGBT+ and minority friendly so that translates to their game.. which in other hand is taken poorly by some of players.

[vertigomez]

Again, im not saying that. Though to be fair, "why not?" is not really a stronger argument to include LGBT than "why should I?" is an argument not to.

People dont usually like it when i say this, but there are valid reasons not to, say, handle LGBT the way DAI did (equally split).

Then please clarify. What on earth is a valid reason for there not to be an equal split, other than deliberately seeking more for straight people, and less for queer people.

What's the logic here? The character pie is big enough for everybody to have a slice, and unless you just want all the pie to yourself, I can't see why sharing is such a dealbreaker for you.

[The Elder King]

Isn't the person that stays with Roderick based ok your choice between mages and templars? I recall Cole was with him When I did the mage arc.

[In Exile]

Isn't the person that stays with Roderick based ok your choice between mages and templars? I recall Cole was with him When I did the mage arc.

 

It's the other person. So if you go mages, it's the templar person. 

[Panda]

Isn't the person that stays with Roderick based ok your choice between mages and templars? I recall Cole was with him When I did the mage arc.

 

Yes, but Cole is helping spirit so he's automatically with those who are hurting. Dorian is human who still stays with Roderick he has known couple hours over anyelse in the camp

[Legion of 1337]

What do you mean "equally split"? That's only sort of true for the romances, and then only if you ignore the female elf/human options (Solas, Cullen).

Lets be fair, the romancable characters are the ones this really matters for. The equal split among them (originally anyway) is obviously designed to keep everyome represented, happy and feeling equal. And honestly the additon of Solas and Cullen isnt a problem, so long as youre not a hypocrite and ****** about it if flipped the other way (more options for male player characters) in another game.

[Geth Supremacy]

 

I'm not saying you're wrong for how you feel - that'd be silly. You perceive things as you do. I just can't wrap my head around the actual facts that lead you to think that DAI is different. If anything, I would have thought DA2 would be the standout for openly pushing sexuality, seeing as how Anders/Fenris will flirt with a male PC and Isabella will be all over a female one. 

 

Honestly, to me sexual diversity is a smaller part of DA:I than DA2, and about as small as in DA:O. Sexuality really only comes up with three NPCs - the iB (because of his banter with Dorian), Dorian's personal quest, and Sera/Dorian shooting down an opposite gender PC.

 

 

 

Ok let me say it like this.  I don't care about whether a character or anyone in real life likes to suck **** or not.  To me that doesn't even factor in.  When I played DA2 aside from 1 time romancing Merrill I never romanced anyone in that game that I can remember.  Not because of anyone's preference, but because I just don't care.

 

When I think about DA2  I cannot remember anyone being sexual aside from Isabella because she was the town bike.  The only thing I remember about DA2 was Anders constant bitching about mages.  I think now that I'm actually trying to that yes Fenris did hit on me one time....maybe idk.  Love the Qunari.  Played the game and moved on.  May not have been the best, but I liked the game.

 

When I played ME2 (its been a while) I think romanced Tali one time to see if you got to see her face.  I also hit on Kelly a little bit just because shes hot, but never romanced her. Other play throughs? Don't think I even romanced anyone.   I don't care to romance anyone. I might have romanced Miranda one time idk.  I want to play the game and enjoy it.  I don't want a checklist of your sexuality.  Romances are a part of the game and thats fine.  Some people really enjoy them and thats great.  I'm happy they have something they like in the game.  I played the game my way and they play the game their way and we're good.  I think the romances are a good thing and I'm glad they are in the game.  They don't make the game or the characters to me though.  The game itself and MOST importantly the GAMEPLAY.

 

It's not like people on this forum like to state.  You hate that they exist.  Blah you're part of the problem!!! etc. etc. etc.  Not that you are saying that.  I understand you are not, but thats how people are.  The real thing is.  I just want to play the game.  It''s not that I have a problem with gay people, or straight people or trans people or whatever people.  It's not something that matters to me and I don't play video games to cure social issues in society or learn about what people want to do in their bedroom.

 

DAI feels like a checklist.

 

"Hi my name is ****" 

"This is my feelings on penis and thats not a big deal" 

"I like wooden bows"

 

 I feel like the gameplay is weak, the characters are weak, and the zones are weak, but we got all of our penis feelings in there so gg!

 

It feels like so much was watered down and left out that is core to the game was neglected, but the social issues were addressed so job well done.

 

If people don't agree thats fine.  I'm just saying that's how it feels to me personally.  ME games do not feel like this and other DA games do not feel like this.  DAI is the epitome of this in my mind. 

[vertigomez]

Why is feeling represented, happy, and equal such a bad thing? I'm baffled by this line of thought.

Let's say my hometown has 15% brunettes. Someone writes a book about a fictional version of my hometown, with 30% brunettes and dragons. This is fine. It literally hurts no one.

[Gwydden]

I know that boat has kind of sailed, but I think it might be interesting to add the Qunari's apparent view on gender might not be so crazy as it seems. As in, humans have done it.

 

In ancient Egypt, Hatsheptsut took on male attributes and was identified as male because a woman couldn't possibly be a pharaoh. Her pretending to be a man (even though everyone knew she wasn't) was thought of as a loophole. This type of 'logic' is completely moronic, but it happened.

 

Reality is indeed crazier than fiction sometimes.

 

Why is feeling represented, happy, and equal such a bad thing? I'm baffled by this line of thought.

Let's say my hometown has 15% brunettes. Someone writes a book about a fictional version of my hometown, with 30% brunettes and dragons. This is fine. It literally hurts no one.

There is a legitimate issue to be raised here. When you turn representation into a numerical issue you risk coming dangerously close to tokenism.

[Legion of 1337]

Then please clarify. What on earth is a valid reason for there not to be an equal split, other than deliberately seeking more for straight people, and less for queer people.
What's the logic here? The character pie is big enough for everybody to have a slice, and unless you just want all the pie to yourself, I can't see why sharing is such a dealbreaker for you.

Well 1: if you story is about gay people, equal split dont make much sense. Make most of the cast gay. So theres that.

My original reason was believability. The chances that half your romancable party members happen to not be straight (as they are now) is very low, because there just arent a lot of non straight people. It becomes obvious when you do it those characters are there for the sake of their sexual orientation (like token blacks or the like).

[Panda]

I think LI's need to be more equal in numbers, so that every character no matter who the player is gets at least some options. It would suck if you want to play gay or lesbian character and only have one option or not even one option, that would restrict what character you can make in the game. And I don't think LI's being equally split is unrealistic since that's LI's and game mechanics, other characters bring more "realism" in the sexualities I guess. Straight characters are still majority of companions for example, or at least those who like opposite sex (since non-LI's sexualities aren't often defined). Not that I'd want that either, I guess it's pretty same to me if companions have more straight or LGBT+ characters as long as LI's are somewhat equal.

[vertigomez]

Well 1: if you story is about gay people, equal split dont make much sense. Make most of the cast gay. So theres that.
My original reason was believability. The chances that half your romancable party members happen to not be straight (as they are now) is very low, because there just arent a lot of non straight people. It becomes obvious when you do it those characters are there for the sake of their sexual orientation (like token blacks or the like).

See above. A slightly higher than average percentage of LGBT people in a fictional universe (that also has dragons, and nugs, and elves...) hurts no one.

[In Exile]

Well 1: if you story is about gay people, equal split dont make much sense. Make most of the cast gay. So theres that.

My original reason was believability. The chances that half your romancable party members happen to not be straight (as they are now) is very low, because there just arent a lot of non straight people. It becomes obvious when you do it those characters are there for the sake of their sexual orientation (like token blacks or the like).

 

How is that less likely than your cast being ethnically diverse as a representation of Thedas (an elf that happens to be a god, a different city elf, a qunari dissenter badass, a tevinter renegade, the former right hand of the divine, who also happens to be Nevarran...) 

 

The representation argument is just a misunderstanding of statistics. Yes, if your party were somehow a simple random sample of the world of Thedas, and if the world of Thedas happened to have the same distribution as IRL, it would be unlikely. But it's not a simple random sample. Sexuality (or gender identity) are no less or more likely than all the other stuff that happens. 

[QueenCrow]

I know that boat has kind of sailed, but I think it might be interesting to add the Qunari's apparent view on gender might not be so crazy as it seems. As in, humans have done it.

 

In ancient Egypt, Hatsheptsut took on male attributes and was identified as male because a woman couldn't possibly be a pharaoh. Her pretending to be a man (even though everyone knew she wasn't) was thought of as a loophole. This type of 'logic' is completely moronic, but it happened.

 

Reality is indeed crazier than fiction sometimes.

 

 

This happened more than one might think.  I just finished one of many really good books that addresses gender and war.  Apparently there were a good number of women who dressed as men and fought in the American Civil War.  Only we mistakenly think they were so rare as to be not worth a mention because they have intentionally been ignored, the knowledge of them repressed, and swept under the rug because people had or have issue with acknowledging an existence that, for whatever reason, makes them uncomfortable.

 

Re:  http://www.brainpick...-the-civil-war/

[Toasted Llama]

Well 1: if you story is about gay people, equal split dont make much sense. Make most of the cast gay. So theres that.

My original reason was believability. The chances that half your romancable party members happen to not be straight (as they are now) is very low, because there just arent a lot of non straight people. It becomes obvious when you do it those characters are there for the sake of their sexual orientation (like token blacks or the like).

Ehrmahg...

Dragons? Pffft, fine!

Zombies-I mean "Darkpsawn"? Yeah, of course!
Elves? See those every day!
Giant horned grey skinned communists? Oh yeah that's normal!
Dwarves? You mean midgets, right? Yeah see those everyday!
Motterflipping MAGIC? Oh yeah, I take that with my breakfast!
Equal amount of gay people to straight people? HOLY MOLY! NONONONO THATS NOT BELIEVABLE! CANT HAPPEN! DOESNT EXIST! NOPE!

[Legion of 1337]

See above. A slightly higher than average percentage of LGBT people in a fictional universe (that also has dragons, and nugs, and elves...) hurts no one.

But it does make it obvious their purpose is in a large, if not necessarily majority, part to be there for their sexuality. Rather than just being a character in the story. And again, with things like sexual representation, the farther from reality it is the more attention it draws to itself and away from other things. It would be like making a sequel to Jade Empire and having most of the characters be black. Theres a disconnect that makes people aware of and alwats thinkong about the worlds artificiality.

[vertigomez]

There is a legitimate issue to be raised here. When you turn representation into a numerical issue you risk coming dangerously close to tokenism.

I'd accept that if DA's LGBT characters weren't fully fleshed out, multifaceted people just like their straight counterparts. It's not like someone looked at Inquisition's line-up and went, "welp, we need a lesbian. Let's put a girl here with two lines and very little personality, and call it progress!" Instead, we got Sera, who's a complicated character with a lot of very real vulnerabilities and a place in the DA universe.

[BabyPuncher]

Doesn't matter. "Let's exclude gay and trans people because REASONS" is a crap thing to do.

Excluded from what, precisely?

Excluded from existence in stories? Okay, fair enough.

Excluded from being recognized as equal to certain other characters? That's dead on. They should absolutely be excluded.

For example, I will never find a MtF transgendered person, in fiction or in real life, 'feminine' in any positive, alluring sense. Those gates will always be closed to them. They are very clearly not equal at all to the femininity or the beauty or whatever of a 'real woman.'

Surely you wouldn't attempt to make the ridiculous claim that I'm obligated to find such people feminine, yes? You wouldn't demand that I find them attractive?

[KaiserShep]

Well 1: if you story is about gay people, equal split dont make much sense. Make most of the cast gay. So theres that.

My original reason was believability. The chances that half your romancable party members happen to not be straight (as they are now) is very low, because there just arent a lot of non straight people. It becomes obvious when you do it those characters are there for the sake of their sexual orientation (like token blacks or the like).

 

I never really put much thought into the distribution among companions, partly because things like statistical data and real life percentages and such are really poor to gauge when the protagonist in the story literally has just a handful of people to be their friend (or more) til the end of time. Like, if half of them are comprised of bisexual and gay people, then whatevs. So long as their friendship content isn't tucked behind a romance barrier, then it's all good.

[Legion of 1337]

Ehrmahg...
Dragons? Pffft, fine!
Zombies-I mean "Darkpsawn"? Yeah, of course!
Elves? See those every day!
Giant horned grey skinned communists? Oh yeah that's normal!
Dwarves? You mean midgets, right? Yeah see those everyday!
Motterflipping MAGIC? Oh yeah, I take that with my breakfast!
Equal amount of gay people to straight people? HOLY MOLY! NONONONO THATS NOT BELIEVABLE! CANT HAPPEN! DOESNT EXIST! NOPE!

Sexuality is different, as this thread should make evident. The very personal nature of sexuality means people really relate to it. If theres a drastic disconnect (like if a large number of your cast isnt straight) it feels weird and not real.

[Geth Supremacy]

Ehrmahg...

Dragons? Pffft, fine!

Zombies-I mean "Darkpsawn"? Yeah, of course!
Elves? See those every day!
Giant horned grey skinned communists? Oh yeah that's normal!
Dwarves? You mean midgets, right? Yeah see those everyday!
Motterflipping MAGIC? Oh yeah, I take that with my breakfast!
Equal amount of gay people to straight people? HOLY MOLY! NONONONO THATS NOT BELIEVABLE! CANT HAPPEN! DOESNT EXIST! NOPE!

 

I seriously love when threads gets  like this.....SO MUCH!

[TevinterSupremacist]

Run out of popcorn, brb, getting more popcorn.

[vertigomez]

But it does make it obvious their purpose is in a large, if not necessarily majority, part to be there for their sexuality. Rather than just being a character in the story. And again, with things like sexual representation, the farther from reality it is the more attention it draws to itself and away from other things. It would be like making a sequel to Jade Empire and having most of the characters be black. Theres a disconnect that makes people aware of and alwats thinkong about the worlds artificiality.

I don't know what to tell you other than Thedas is not our world, it's got different people, different percentages, and I don't understand why that's a problem. Sera and Dorian and Leliana, etc. are NOT "just there for their sexuality". They're nuanced characters with different roles in the story. That you and others are more focused on their sexuality doesn't negate the MANY, MANY other character traits they bring to the table.

And having more LGBT characters makes me feel more connected to the series, not less. I'm sorry if it's not the same for you.

[Shechinah]

I never really put much thought into the distribution among companions, partly because things like statistical data and real life percentages and such are really poor to gauge when the protagonist in the story literally has just a handful of people to be their friend (or more) til the end of time. Like, if half of them are comprised of bisexual and gay people, then whatevs. So long as their friendship content isn't tucked behind a romance barrier, then it's all good.

I believe there was complaints directed towards Mass Effect's Jacob Taylor for this and I think I agreed after seeing some of the romance content. 

[vertigomez]

Excluded from what, precisely?
Excluded from existence in stories? Okay, fair enough.
Excluded from being recognized as equal to certain other characters? That's dead on. They should absolutely be excluded.
For example, I will never find a MtF transgendered person, in fiction or in real life, 'feminine' in any positive, alluring sense. Those gates will always be closed to them. They are very clearly not equal at all to the femininity or the beauty or whatever of a 'real woman.'
Surely you wouldn't attempt to make the ridiculous claim that I'm obligated to find such people feminine, yes? You wouldn't demand that I find them attractive?

LMAO. I don't give a frig what you find attractive. Doesn't change the fact that trans women are real women.