56 réponses à ce sujet

[Uccio]

In Dragon Age games, it was usually the LI's who got into fights through banter like Morrigan and Leliana.

 

That was actually funny.

[Lady Artifice]

Competitiveness between fandoms is so strange. I know it's really common, but it's still strange. These two series seem to be coexisting in the world just fine, and yet I've seen more comparisons between them recently than I've seen discussions focused on them individually. 

[Heathen Oxman]

Competitiveness between fandom's is so strange. I know it's really common, but it's still strange. These two series seem to be coexisting in the world just fine, and yet I've seen more comparisons between them recently than I've seen discussions focused on them individually. 

 

This.

 

I'm playing and enjoying both.

 

Now, I'm afraid that either Geralt or the Inquisitor is going to call me out for cheating......

[Teddie Sage]

There are already plenty of threads to discuss about The Witcher, please use those.

[AWTEW]

 

You could have discussed this in,you know,the other witcher threads.

[carlo angelo]

Competitiveness between fandoms is so strange. I know it's really common, but it's still strange. These two series seem to be coexisting in the world just fine, and yet I've seen more comparisons between them recently than I've seen discussions focused on them individually. 

 

I really don't know. I can understand giving pointers on how gameplay and story could be better, tighter, and more meaningful, and using other games to get a point across. I can understand hoping that there will be improvements in the next Dragon Age game. But some people really just want to fight.

[Han Shot First]

The Witcher 3 does many things better than Dragon Age: inquisition. It is also overall by far the better game, but it isn't more progressive.

[carlo angelo]

The Witcher 3 does many things better than Dragon Age: inquisition. It is also overall by far the better game, but it isn't more progressive.

 

That's the thing, though. The Witcher 3 being objectively better than Inquisition, I can accept. But I can't pass any judgement and say anything about Witcher 3 because I've never played the series. All I know is that it probably won't fulfill what drew me into Dragon Age: Inquisition (or Dragon Age, in general) in the first place and made me want to stay- that being its diversified cast of characters and their stories. But there is room for improvement, yes.

[daveliam]

That's the thing, though. The Witcher 3 being objectively better than Inquisition, I can accept. But I can't pass any judgement and say anything about Witcher 3 because I've never played the series. All I know is that it probably won't fulfill what drew me into Dragon Age: Inquisition (or Dragon Age, in general) in the first place and made me want to stay- that being its diversified cast of characters and their stories. But there is room for improvement, yes.

 

That's exactly how I feel about the series.  I'm sure it's very good.  But it just isn't for me.  I'm at a place where a PC like Geralt is just not interesting to me.  I played TW2 and just couldn't get into it.  I ended up quitting out of boredom about 4-5 hours into the game.  I have no intention to pick up and play TW3.  I'm not saying it's a bad game; but it's just not a game that is interesting to me.  And that's almost entirely because of the Geralt.  He's just so.........typical for a pre-set video game protagonist.  Hell, if he had brown hair, he'd be virtually indistinguishable from the other 100+ straight white male antiheroes with stubble, scars, and a gravely voice. 

 

I understand that he's probably deeper than that (my brother keeps telling me that since he's been trying to convince me to give the series a shot), but I just can't get past the fact that I just don't care about that character.  If I could create my own PC, I can guarrantee that I'd be so much more interested in the series.  It's the same thing with Shadows of Mordor.  It's been sitting, unused, in my XBONE game pile for months now and I just can't bring myself to play it because I'm just not interested in playing that kind of PCs story anymore. 

 

For those that can, more power to you.  I'm sure you will love those games.  But I'm really over the barrage of "Attention Bioware, make your games more like The Witcher because they are so much better" threads lately.  They are two separate series and I'm happy that they both exist.  Let's not try to make either one into the other.

[carlo angelo]

That's exactly how I feel about the series.  I'm sure it's very good.  But it just isn't for me.  I'm at a place where a PC like Geralt is just not interesting to me.  I played TW2 and just couldn't get into it.  I ended up quitting out of boredom about 4-5 hours into the game.  I have no intention to pick up and play TW3.  I'm not saying it's a bad game; but it's just not a game that is interesting to me.  And that's almost entirely because of the Geralt.  He's just so.........typical for a pre-set video game protagonist.  Hell, if he had brown hair, he'd be virtually indistinguishable from the other 100+ straight white male antiheroes with stubble, scars, and a gravely voice. 

 

I understand that he's probably deeper than that (my brother keeps telling me that since he's been trying to convince me to give the series a shot), but I just can't get past the fact that I just don't care about that character.  If I could create my own PC, I can guarrantee that I'd be so much more interested in the series.  It's the same thing with Shadows of Mordor.  It's been sitting, unused, in my XBONE game pile for months now and I just can't bring myself to play it because I'm just not interested in playing that kind of PCs story anymore. 

 

For those that can, more power to you.  I'm sure you will love those games.  But I'm really over the barrage of "Attention Bioware, make your games more like The Witcher because they are so much better" threads lately.  They are two separate series and I'm happy that they both exist.  Let's not try to make either one into the other.

 

Exactly. I'm going to have to paraphrase what a friend of mine said. "After having been able to play as a female character and experiencing that perspective and that which it entails in speculative fiction, I'm not sure if I can go back to an established male protagonist and be able to roleplay as that again. It's like I caught a whiff of that, like how sharks caught a whiff of blood, and I'm hungry for more games like it."

 

Of course, there's exceptions to the rules and it's not like "Oh, it doesn't tick all these boxes, it's banished from my 'to-play' list". But as stylish as Witcher is, the player-protagonist and its cast of characters ain't for me. They appeal to a different group of people.

 

And it's not just the player-protagonist either- it's also the characters in the game and how you interact with them. And there's this possible certain particular kind of perspective the game could only assume for you. And it could get close, but no cigar.

[daveliam]

Exactly. I'm going to have to paraphrase what a friend of mine said. "After having been able to play as a female character and experiencing that perspective and that which it entails in speculative fiction, I'm not sure if I can go back to an established male protagonist and be able to roleplay as that again. It's like I caught a whiff of that, like how sharks caught a whiff of blood, and I'm hungry for more games like it."

 

This is a great way to sum up how I feel about it.  It's interesting because I'm also seeing it play out retrospectively.  For example, KOTOR and KOTOR II have always been two of my absolute favorite games of all time.  But now, when I try to replay them, I always have a huge pang of disappointment that I have to either play straight or skip the romance content.  Back when the games came out, it didn't bother me as much.  Now, it actually gets in the way of my enjoyment of these games.  Don't get me wrong; I still love them.  In fact, I just started another KOTOR II playthrough the other day just to get a chance to experience the pure awesomeness that is Kreia.  But I just don't love them as much as I used to since I've seen how much more I can enjoy games like that when I can play a gay character.  If that makes sense.

[KaiserShep]

I'm horribly spoiled by customizable protagonists. I've spent the last couple of years playing games that offer characters that I can switch up and give me a plethora of options to totally change the appearance to the point where some custom faces are more familiar to me than whatever's on the box (which thankfully is only the case with Mass Effect). Going back to a fully established protagonist is considerably difficult to invest myself in.

[Rawgrim]

I don't know. Both girls are heavily objectified, with camera focused on their thighs and breasts - they're more or less just pretty things wearing panties. So, nope, ain't progressive at all.

 

The latest Game of Thrones sexual scene with the Sand Snakes and the vial of antidote - that, yeah, that had strong women written all over it. Not here.

 

Here, I'm afraid, Geralt would get up, get his bearings, and if he chooses, both girls get what's coming to them. It's still his world, and they're little more than pretty figures to satisfy his desires. Not actual female characters with their hopes and dreams.

 

Never played any of the games, have you?

[carlo angelo]

This is a great way to sum up how I feel about it.  It's interesting because I'm also seeing it play out retrospectively.  For example, KOTOR and KOTOR II have always been two of my absolute favorite games of all time.  But now, when I try to replay them, I always have a huge pang of disappointment that I have to either play straight or skip the romance content.  Back when the games came out, it didn't bother me as much.  Now, it actually gets in the way of my enjoyment of these games.  Don't get me wrong; I still love them.  In fact, I just started another KOTOR II playthrough the other day just to get a chance to experience the pure awesomeness that is Kreia.  But I just don't love them as much as I used to since I've seen how much more I can enjoy games like that when I can play a gay character.  If that makes sense.

 

It's gonna be that much harder for me to get into future Kingdom Hearts games. I mean, I can look forward to them, but I just won't have that same childlike fascination with them. The old games I play on the N64 which have been revamped for the 3DS are games I play mainly for nostalgia.

 

With new games? I'm hoping that the story and characters are able to make me feel something and not repel me by telling me a certain perspective I could see anywhere else. And that'll be all I'll say.

 

I'm horribly spoiled by customizable protagonists. I've spent the last couple of years playing games that offer characters that I can switch up and give me a plethora of options to totally change the appearance to the point where some custom faces are more familiar to me than whatever's on the box (which thankfully is only the case with Mass Effect). Going back to a fully established protagonist is considerably difficult to invest myself in.

 

That is true for me as well. But here's another thing, though- my interest could depend on the kind of established protagonist. I mean, personally, if the protagonist had a name, set appearance, and personality, AND if they so happened to be, say, a black homosexual female, written with agency and not as a stereotype, I'd be very interested.

[In Exile]

I'm horribly spoiled by customizable protagonists. I've spent the last couple of years playing games that offer characters that I can switch up and give me a plethora of options to totally change the appearance to the point where some custom faces are more familiar to me than whatever's on the box (which thankfully is only the case with Mass Effect). Going back to a fully established protagonist is considerably difficult to invest myself in.

 

It takes a really strong game for me to tough it out now with a non-customizable protagonist (with VO). Offer me that, and I'll enjoy a lot of features I probably wouldn't or shouldn't. 

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Man, I remember the banter between Morrigan and Leliana if you choose one over the other. They were plain cruel to each other.

 

Morrigan wins:

Leliana wins:

 

I wonder if Zevran and Alistair have similar interaction.

[Mihura]

 

Come on I like the game and even think it is one best game of this year but more progressive? give me a break.

Also Merrill and Isabela do not fight over Hawke either nor there is fanservice, Morrigan and Leliana have figths just like Fenris and Anders.

[Br3admax]

Exactly. I'm going to have to paraphrase what a friend of mine said. "After having been able to play as a female character and experiencing that perspective and that which it entails in speculative fiction, I'm not sure if I can go back to an established male protagonist and be able to roleplay as that again. It's like I caught a whiff of that, like how sharks caught a whiff of blood, and I'm hungry for more games like it."

 

Of course, there's exceptions to the rules and it's not like "Oh, it doesn't tick all these boxes, it's banished from my 'to-play' list". But as stylish as Witcher is, the player-protagonist and its cast of characters ain't for me. They appeal to a different group of people.

 

And it's not just the player-protagonist either- it's also the characters in the game and how you interact with them. And there's this possible certain particular kind of perspective the game could only assume for you. And it could get close, but no cigar.

The thing is, whenever you switch to playing a female character in any BioWare game ever, the only thing that changes is that you can sleep with other people. And for some people, that's enough, I guess, just not for me. The idea of a "customizable" protagonist is great in theory, but besides look, BioWare still hasn't really got that down right in well over a decade. Odds are every Inquisitor, besides what's between their legs, is probably exactly like every other down the line in most ways regardless. 

 

And the characters? I prefer those of the Witcher, honestly, and that's been pretty standard since I was introduced to the franchise. Geralt is an established character and has been for a very long time. The Warden, the Champion, and the Inquisitor? Not so much. BioWare has managed to find an odd mix of "This is who this character is, but you can change this," to the point that any interaction between them and the rest of the cast is simply the NPC's dancing around any semblance of a true personality,as to not offend the player who may have a different opinion on what their character would act and respond like. Which leads to really awkward conversations a lot more than it doesn't, broken only by one off references to being funny in DA2 only, or the by the situation in the rest of the franchise. 

 

Geralt will always be a deeper, though set, character than anything a DA protagonist could muster. The characters interaction with them will always be deeper. If you came to DA to play a woman, than sure, the Witcher III isn't the game for you, for the most part. If it was to roleplay, and I mean actually roleplay, not just roll with what you want to play, mostly because there actually is one and most of their personality isn't inside your head where the game can completely ignore it, I'd recommend the Witcher III everytime. The fact that the combat is better there, which is really sad honestly as the Witcher's combat is terrible, and that there's a lot less pandering to the fans helps. 

[daveliam]

<snip>

 

I just want to preface that this is not a veiled insult, it's a genuine question:

 

Would you honestly feel as excited about The Witcher if Geralt was gay and Triss and Yennifer were men?  Like, if they were written that way in the original source material and everything else about the games were exactly the same:  the setting; the combat; the characters; the plotlines; the romance between Geralt and Triss/Yennifer; the full frontal nudity from Triss; etc.

 

If not, then perhaps, you can understand why people who don't identify with Geralt for whatever reason (their gender; their sexuality) would prefer to be able to create their own PCs given the lack of other representation in pre-established PCs in the market. 

 

If there were amazingly written gay PCs that offered the same type of stories as The Witcher does, then perhaps, I'd feel differently.  And, again, I'm not saying that I won't ever play pre-established PCs.  It's just that it immediately puts the game behind many others based on that fact alone.  Does that make sense?

[In Exile]

Sometimes a customisable protagonist means nothing more than having a protagonist that looks like you and share a lot of core values (or to some extent personality traits). Some of us just like that feature. There needs to be nothing deeper to a feature than that to make it fun.

To me there's a big difference between appreciation of a plot on an intellectual level and wanting to play it. A movie or book can have the greatest plot in the world but if I don't identify with the point of view character I don't care to take the time.

[Br3admax]

I just want to preface that this is not a veiled insult, it's a genuine question:

 

Would you honestly feel as excited about The Witcher if Geralt was gay and Triss and Yennifer were men?  Like, if they were written that way in the original source material and everything else about the games were exactly the same:  the setting; the combat; the characters; the plotlines; the romance between Geralt and Triss/Yennifer; the full frontal nudity from Triss; etc.

Sure. I don't care about the sexuality of fake people. I also don't give a **** about romance in video games. If the story was good enough, which the Witcher III's is, in case I didn't stress that well enough, I'd play it if Geralt was gay, trans, and/or a few other amazing adjectives like otherkin. I don't need video games to find porn. Google is more than perfectly capable of giving me ****** on demand if that's what I was here for. 

 

If not, then perhaps, you can understand why people who don't identify with Geralt for whatever reason (their gender; their sexuality) would prefer to be able to create their own PCs given the lack of other representation in pre-established PCs in the market. 

Well there goes this post. No I don't understand wanting the ability to bang pixels with your PC. Gender and sexuality aren't important to me concerning the player character, and I don't want them to be just like me so I can get some "representation." What I make my PC like has absolutely no impact on anything, and the Witcher has gay, trans, etc characters who do that much better than any PC I could ever create. As does Dragon Age. It may be important to you, but it's not to me. 

 

If there were amazingly written gay PCs that offered the same type of stories as The Witcher does, then perhaps, I'd feel differently.  And, again, I'm not saying that I won't ever play pre-established PCs.  It's just that it immediately puts the game behind many others based on that fact alone.  Does that make sense?

No. I get what your saying, and I get why. While I understand what you're saying, no that fact alone doesn't really impact anything major. 

[daveliam]

Sure. I don't care about the sexuality of fake people. I also don't give a **** about romance in video games. If the story was good enough, which the Witcher III's is, in case I didn't stress that well enough, I'd play it if Geralt was gay, trans, and/or a few other amazing adjectives like otherkin. I don't need video games to find porn. Google is perfectly capable of giving me ****** on demand if that's what I was here for. 

 

Okay, keep with me on this then.  Now, imagine that all video games that had pre-determined PCs had gay PCs.  And many of those had sexualized men in tiny clothes (or nude) coming onto your PC.  And many of those didn't allow you to reject those men.  And the only way that you could play as a straight character was in games with customizable PCs.  After ten to twenty years of this, don't you think you might come to appreciate those customizable PC games a bit more than you do now?

 

Well there goes this post. No I don't understand wanting the ability to bang pixels with your PC. Gender and sexuality aren't important to me concerning the player character, and I don't want them to be just like me so I can get some "representation." What I make my PC like has absolutely no impact on anything, and the Witcher has gay, trans, etc characters who do that much better than any PC I could ever create. As does Dragon Age. It may be important to you, but it's not to me. 

 

It doesn't have anything to do with 'banging pixels'.  This is why romance conversations with you get tedious.  Because you go back to statements like that.  Go back and read what I wrote.  I don't mention 'banging' any of the characters nor porn at any point in customizable PC games.  (Seriously, why do you equate romance content with porn?  That's so weird to me.)

 

No. I get what your saying, and I get why. While I understand what you're saying, no that fact alone doesn't really impact anything major.

 

Well perhaps it has to do with what you think I want out of this conversation.  I'm not asking you to change your opinion.  I'm only asking if you can understand mine.  You don't have to agree with it, but I want you to at least understand where I'm coming from.  Which it seems like you might?

[Hellion Rex]

Well, I got a good little pity chuckle out of this, OP.

[SnakeCode]

I just want to preface that this is not a veiled insult, it's a genuine question:

 

Would you honestly feel as excited about The Witcher if Geralt was gay and Triss and Yennifer were men?  Like, if they were written that way in the original source material and everything else about the games were exactly the same:  the setting; the combat; the characters; the plotlines; the romance between Geralt and Triss/Yennifer; the full frontal nudity from Triss; etc.

 

If not, then perhaps, you can understand why people who don't identify with Geralt for whatever reason (their gender; their sexuality) would prefer to be able to create their own PCs given the lack of other representation in pre-established PCs in the market. 

 

If there were amazingly written gay PCs that offered the same type of stories as The Witcher does, then perhaps, I'd feel differently.  And, again, I'm not saying that I won't ever play pre-established PCs.  It's just that it immediately puts the game behind many others based on that fact alone.  Does that make sense?

 

I get where you're coming from sort of, but I find it easier to identify with a character (of any gender) with an actual semblance of being a human being than a blank slate "character" that just happens to share my genitalia and sexual orientation. Set characters have distinct personalities, hopes, motivations. All things I can identify with, and it's all already there, no headcanon needed. It's why I find it easier to identify with Lara Croft than with either of my Inquisitors.

 

I can understand why people wouldn't want to play a type of character that's been done to death (which Geralt hasn't I'll have you know, being a straight guy doesn't make him a cliche. He's rather unique as far as videogame protagonists go.) but I don't understand why people can't find some way to identify with them.   I've always found that attitude to be lacking in empathy.

[PsychoBlonde]

On the scale of dramatic impact and significance, I'd put this scene at a level only slightly higher than that of The Jerry Springer Show - you know, when they have a guy's ex(es) and current girlfriend(s) come out on stage and start a catfight with each other and/or gang up on him and then they all fight/scream ad infinitum. A "progressive" relationship would probably involve the characters having an open marriage or polyandry or something like that - not this whole "Geralt gets punked by his GFs!" thing.

 

Yes.  People complaining about "cheating" disturbs me.  Having a single long-term sexual partner is probably not natural and maybe not healthy for the vast majority of the population.  Creating the *expectation* that it's an exclusive relationship and then *lying* about it is the bad part.

 

Also, I don't get this notion that I play (or should play) medieval-esque fantasy in the expectation that it should be "progressive".