550 réponses à ce sujet

[daveliam]

So now a simple question then.

 

Does it make sense to have homosexual characters in every game if the script calls for it?

 

I remember when people complained about Dragon Age II for not having actual sexuality in the game, but instead making everything player centric; but now the problem with that is you need to be inclusive, and it can be dangerously close to tokenism if it's not done properly.

 

Inquisition did well with it, as did Mass Effect 3, but as time goes on that risk, and accusations to it, can increase and it can come off as contrived. That worries me even more. 

 

Does it make sense to have heterosexual characters in every game if the script calls for it?

 

I don't think it's a case of "tokenism".  If they only add in 1 gay guy and 1 lesbian in every game, then it can come off that way.  But there are between 210-700 million LGBT people on the planet (depending on the estimate that you use).  It's not unreasonable to expect to see an LGBT presence in a game where it wouldn't run counter to the story (i.e. a pre-determined straight PC) in a game dynamic that sexuality plays a role.  It's not contrived to have a character who is LGBT "just because" any more than it's contrived to have a character who is straight "just because". 

 

The other issue that I have is with the interpretation that you put forward about DA2.  It did have a variety of sexualities.  It had straight people, bisexual people, and gay people.  The game didn't only feature bisexual characters.  Not even all of the romances were bisexual (20% of the romances were straight). 

 

To me, I just find the notion that a character has to have "a reason" to be LGBT to be insulting on some levels.  No one calls it tokenism or pandering when a character is straight for no good reason.  I don't see why it's different for LGBT characters.  And that's why I don't see any issues with including options for LGBT PCs in games with customizable PCs that aren't pre-determined.  If the script would allow for it, why wouldn't  you include some?

[SardaukarElite]

All I know is, at this point if there are no homosexual romances people will be pissed. It's almost expected of BioWare now.

 

People were pissed when DA2 didn't put its camera zoom on a J-curve.

[Ryzaki]

People were pissed when DA2 didn't put its camera zoom on a J-curve.

 

Or tactics in DAI. Or healing.

 

If there's not tactics in DA4 >

[LinksOcarina]

Does it make sense to have heterosexual characters in every game if the script calls for it?

 

I don't think it's a case of "tokenism".  If they only add in 1 gay guy and 1 lesbian in every game, then it can come off that way.  But there are between 210-700 million LGBT people on the planet (depending on the estimate that you use).  It's not unreasonable to expect to see an LGBT presence in a game where it wouldn't run counter to the story (i.e. a pre-determined straight PC) in a game dynamic that sexuality plays a role.  It's not contrived to have a character who is LGBT "just because" any more than it's contrived to have a character who is straight "just because". 

 

The other issue that I have is with the interpretation that you put forward about DA2.  It did have a variety of sexualities.  It had straight people, bisexual people, and gay people.  The game didn't only feature bisexual characters.  Not even all of the romances were bisexual (20% of the romances were straight). 

 

To me, I just find the notion that a character has to have "a reason" to be LGBT to be insulting on some levels.  No one calls it tokenism or pandering when a character is straight for no good reason.  I don't see why it's different for LGBT characters.  And that's why I don't see any issues with including options for LGBT PCs in games with customizable PCs that aren't pre-determined.  If the script would allow for it, why wouldn't  you include some?

 

Well, yes, it does make sense for heterosexual characters to be in the story, just by virtue of most storytelling and how it is done. The tropes of it, basically. Not to mention because we are dealing with sexual pro-creation and intimacy through that. Some stories it becomes a major plot point, such as Origins with Morrigan and how you handle the Dark Ritual.

 

The truth of the matter is, heterosexuality can never be tokenism because it is considered the norm by a lot of people, by that virtue it is a false argument to make really. The only way that can be reversed if the whole cast is gay, and you have a heterosexual character in the mix; the complete opposite of current scenarios.

 

The interpretation I put forth with on Dragon Age II is how a lot of  people saw it though, you may not have but thats how it is. The variety of sexualities was moot because the players sexuality was the only important thing in the game. Sebastian being straight is not usually included in the conversation of course, but for the others the major complaint was how they were undefined or implied to be one sexuality or the other. 

 

For me I had no problem with it, as someone who is bisexual it made things easier. But I never saw Fenris as bisexual, or Merrill for that matter. Part of this was due to how the game handles dialogue and interaction, you initiate conversation and pursue the romance first for those two. Less so Isabella and Anders I agree on that, but the perception is that these characters have no sexuality. To say they are all bisexual, well, I don't even agree with that; it is really determined by how the player reacts- I romanced Fenris in my main playthrough so I considered him gay vs bisexual for me. And that rubbed people the wrong way because the characters were less defined in the end.

 

Silly argument in the long run I would say.

 

My fear is very reminiscent of affirmative action-style of characterization. You already have gay characters being scrutinized completely, and the big problem is that even with Dorian, people claimed that he was all about his sexuality that made him special (it wasn't at all, can argue that to death) which turned off people for being contrived. It's not true of course, but with that scrutiny on everything, and with a major ideological split going on in the gaming community right now, I feel like caution should be used. When they include a gay character, they need to be really careful in how its included.

 

Like, Ubisoft announced a transgendered character in the next Assassins Creed Syndicate. The thing is, that was the only bit they announced...nothing about the character at all. I hope that it's not a big-deal in game at all, or at the very least, its something that is mentioned a few times because of the time period they are in (19th century) and all of that, but the fact that the character was announced as transgendered and nothing else implies the focus of the character is that fact about them. That, is tokenism that I hope is avoided, for what it's worth. It was what I was worried about with Dorian and Sera when they were first announced, but thankfully there was a lot of talk about them and their characterization first, that was thrown in as an after-thought kind of deal.

 

Just my two cents on this I guess. 

[KaiserShep]

So now a simple question then.

Does it make sense to have homosexual characters in every game if the script calls for it?

I remember when people complained about Dragon Age II for not having actual sexuality in the game, but instead making everything player centric; but now the problem with that is you need to be inclusive, and it can be dangerously close to tokenism if it's not done properly.

Inquisition did well with it, as did Mass Effect 3, but as time goes on that risk, and accusations to it, can increase and it can come off as contrived. That worries me even more.

I guess a relevant question would be: why wouldn't it make sense? But I suppose that's neither here or there, since it's not so much about making sense as it's about making the game more fun for more people.

As for DA2, that's a special case, though the complaint about there being no sexuality would technically be wrong, since Isabela is very clearly presented as bisexual in her dialogue, which goes to show that Isabela makes everything better.

I'm not too worried about tokenism though, because BioWare's characters tend to be strongly written enough that they provide much more than just romance content, at least most of the time. Some folks complained about Cortez, but I think those people are off-base.

[Fredward]

My fear is very reminiscent of affirmative action-style of characterization. You already have gay characters being scrutinized completely, and the big problem is that even with Dorian, people claimed that he was all about his sexuality that made him special (it wasn't at all, can argue that to death) which turned off people for being contrived. It's not true of course, but with that scrutiny on everything, and with a major ideological split going on in the gaming community right now, I feel like caution should be used. When they include a gay character, they need to be really careful in how its included.

 

Careful in what way exactly? I don't see the point in being so scared of how a character is received or how third parties capitalize on it to not have them be present at all, as you note Bioware seems to be on point with Dorian and Sera. ME is another team but yeah. Careful how?

[daveliam]

<snip>

 

The issue is that we're in a time of great social change.  What was "accepted" socially a few decades ago has become "unaccepted" writ large.  We're going to be seeing the trickle down of this for decades to come.  The reality is that we'll never completely get rid of prejudice views on LGBT people, but it will eventually become a social taboo (similar to blatant misogyny and racism) and you'll see it pushed into the realm of private conversations and anonymous postings online.  Until that time comes, though, we'll have to deal with people claiming that everything LGBT related is part of an "agenda" or is "tokenism".  Similar to how, for many years, many people assumed that any minority worker got their position through affirmative action.  You can never change other people's perspectives outright.  You can influence them, but it requires the individual to make that change for themselves.  If a person chooses to interpret Dorian's story as being "all about his sexuality" or Krem's presence as being "only about transgenderism", there's nothing I can do to change their mind outside of pointing out why I disagree.  It's up to them to change their own minds.

 

The more "normal" we treat LGBT people (and that includes including them into any aspects of popular culture as it makes sense), the more people will come to just accept LGBT people as "normal".  Now I recognize that any minority, by definition, is "abnormal", but there's a colloquial use of the term that is more common.  The default should be inclusion, not the other way around.  The question shouldn't be "Why should I include gay characters in my medium?"  It should be "Is there any reason why there shouldn't be gay characters in my medium?" 

 

With regard to the amount of LI's in these games, it's always going to be disproportionate feeling because, to give 2 options to gay men and lesbians, there needs to be 4 LGBT options (2 male/2 female).  It's a product of the medium.  There are really only four options:

• Eliminate romances altogether (a possibility)
• Create less than 2 options for gay men and lesbians (Bioware has stated that they are against this)
• Create 40 LI's in every game so that there are 10 times the amount of straight options compared to LGBT options (unfeasible for many reasons)
• Create a disproportionate amount of LGBT characters among the LI's in order to give at least two options to all players

They've chosen to go with the latter and I understand why. 

[LinksOcarina]

I guess a relevant question would be: why wouldn't it make sense? But I suppose that's neither here or there, since it's not so much about making sense as it's about making the game more fun for more people.

As for DA2, that's a special case, though the complaint about there being no sexuality would technically be wrong, since Isabela is very clearly presented as bisexual in her dialogue, which goes to show that Isabela makes everything better.

I'm not too worried about tokenism though, because BioWare's characters tend to be strongly written enough that they provide much more than just romance content, at least most of the time. Some folks complained about Cortez, but I think those people are off-base.

 

Isabela is a good argument against it, but if you really dive into the forums of Dragon Age II you can see that argument being made. That argument is silly of course, although I admit to adhering to it because the player-centric focus was the draw of it.

 

It makes sense so long as they are characters, and well written ones. Kaiden I found problematic because it felt like an added layer to him that was never there before; I know the intent was to make him bisexual, but it just seemed out of place in 3, but it never really bothered me and I never romanced him anyway, or Ashley for that matter. Cortez and Traynor, however, were pretty much perfect in the end on their portrayals.

 

I am hoping it comes to a point where they don't even mention the labels at all, were almost there. It's just running that risk, it always will, that it will be seen as tokenism. Which is why I think its an appropriate question to ask really.

[daveliam]

Isabela is a good argument against it, but if you really dive into the forums of Dragon Age II you can see that argument being made. That argument is silly of course, although I admit to adhering to it because the player-centric focus was the draw of it.

 

 

 

So here's my issue with this:  The argument about the DA2 LI's is wrong.  Objectively wrong.  The LI's are not playersexual.  To make the blanket statement that the DA2 LI's had no sexualities of their own is factually incorrect.  That's why I don't put stock in it.  It's wrong.

 

Isabela is bisexual.  There's no question about that.  Sebastian is straight.  There's no question about that.  Both are LI's in DA2.  Even if you hand-wave Sebastian away because he's DLC (which is silly because he's in the game), there's no waving Isabela away.  Which means, to make the blanket statement about sexuality in DA2, you have to ignore Isabela who is not DLC and also obviously bisexual. 

 

It gets even murkier when you add in the fact that Anders has shown sexual interest on his own (outside of the PC's gender) and Fenris can hook up with Isabela (outside of the PC's gender).  In fact, the only one that truly shows no sexual interest of her own is Merrill.

 

It's just a weak argument based on half-truths and misunderstandings.  So, again, since I can't force people to accept fact, there's not much I can do to change people's minds about this issue. 

[Shechinah]

Ah. If only SWTOR was a single player RPG.

 

Knights of the Fallen Empire looks interesting. Unfortunately not interesting enough for me to swallow with it the annoying MMO BS.

 

According to TvTropes where it lists the features of "Knights of the Fallen Empire", it lists that it supposedly has a focus on solo content so it may be that it averts what you consider annoying though I always recommend watching a bit of footage.

 

Personally, I'm planning on playing it since it comes free with an October subscription so I'll be seeing for myself whether or not I consider it to be true with a rockin' pink togruta.
 

[LinksOcarina]

The issue is that we're in a time of great social change.  What was "accepted" socially a few decades ago has become "unaccepted" writ large.  We're going to be seeing the trickle down of this for decades to come.  The reality is that we'll never completely get rid of prejudice views on LGBT people, but it will eventually become a social taboo (similar to blatant misogyny and racism) and you'll see it pushed into the realm of private conversations and anonymous postings online.  Until that time comes, though, we'll have to deal with people claiming that everything LGBT related is part of an "agenda" or is "tokenism".  Similar to how, for many years, many people assumed that any minority worker got their position through affirmative action.  You can never change other people's perspectives outright.  You can influence them, but it requires the individual to make that change for themselves.  If a person chooses to interpret Dorian's story as being "all about his sexuality" or Krem's presence as being "only about transgenderism", there's nothing I can do to change their mind outside of pointing out why I disagree.  It's up to them to change their own minds.

 

The more "normal" we treat LGBT people (and that includes including them into any aspects of popular culture as it makes sense), the more people will come to just accept LGBT people as "normal".  Now I recognize that any minority, by definition, is "abnormal", but there's a colloquial use of the term that is more common.  The default should be inclusion, not the other way around.  The question shouldn't be "Why should I include gay characters in my medium?"  It should be "Is there any reason why there shouldn't be gay characters in my medium?" 

 

With regard to the amount of LI's in these games, it's always going to be disproportionate feeling because, to give 2 options to gay men and lesbians, there needs to be 4 LGBT options (2 male/2 female).  It's a product of the medium.  There are really only four options:

• Eliminate romances altogether (a possibility)
• Create less than 2 options for gay men and lesbians (Bioware has stated that they are against this)
• Create 40 LI's in every game so that there are 10 times the amount of straight options compared to LGBT options (unfeasible for many reasons)
• Create a disproportionate amount of LGBT characters among the LI's in order to give at least two options to all players

They've chosen to go with the latter and I understand why. 

 

Most of that social change, however, is artificial in it's push. It is not acceptance by many, but rather socio-political in design. It's "hip" for a lot of people to accept it. BioWare has been ahead of that curve for a while, but a  lot of companies are following suit to varying degrees of success, and it's somewhat troubling on how they present characters at times, because their sexuality or skin color or ideals or even appearance defines them, versus their characterization.

 

the character from Assassins Creed is one example, another I can think of is Kun Jin from Mortal Kombat X. When it was revealed or semi confirmed, that is more or less anyone says about Kun Jin. The character was flat overall without that reveal, which made headlines of course, and makes him stand out more. Compare that to Bill in the last of us, where his sexuality is not even important to the character, and much like Kun Jin was confirmed after the fact. People don't look at Bill and see a "gay character" though, they see a complex character instead where his sexuality was just a part of him.

 

You see the difference that I am trying to convey? I  much of it is again, through agenda in regards to interpretation, but it kind of matters because of widespread perception in the end of growing video games as a medium. I agree with you that it should happen, but it should happen naturally and in a way where no agenda is of course pushed. That will never happen fully either of course, and people will always complain, but If people are interpreting things as pushing that said agenda all the time, that is a major problem overall, and can be detrimental if they are right. You are correct that folks will say it regardless, but the issue is they aren't wrong in some cases, and that is what is worrisome. 

 

It should be no big deal, and will be no big deal soon, but  my fear is if there is an inclusion of gay characters for romance-sake, that is still tokenism in another form anyway, and inclusion for inclusions' sake. It again depends on the characterization, but it is something to think about and how characters are portrayed. 

 

Careful in what way exactly? I don't see the point in being so scared of how a character is received or how third parties capitalize on it to not have them be present at all, as you note Bioware seems to be on point with Dorian and Sera. ME is another team but yeah. Careful how?

 

My explanation above. It matters how people capitalize on this, because of the socio-political implications of their portrayal. If it's artificial or no characterization, it's just tokenism, and that is dangerous in the long run if you ask me as the medium grows. 

[Shechinah]

It makes sense so long as they are characters, and well written ones. Kaiden I found problematic because it felt like an added layer to him that was never there before; I know the intent was to make him bisexual, but it just seemed out of place in 3, but it never really bothered me and I never romanced him anyway, or Ashley for that matter.

 

I personally did not see it as odd when Kaidan turned out to be bisexual since there were enough in my opinion that could be interpreted to fit his bisexuality such as this quote directed at a Shepard of either gender; "Losing you was like losing an arm." 

 

There are also people who never make their sexuality known except to the person whom they are interested in and even then, such as in the case of bisexuality, it may only be as much as they consider relevant or people who know they are bisexual even if they have never had romantic feelings towards a person of the same or opposite gender.

 

I can see why it rubbed some people the wrong way and why they saw it as Bioware altering a character's established sexuality to fill a romance slot but personally, I did not see it as such and thought there were enough to not make me see it as such.
 

[KaiserShep]

 
Isabela is bisexual.  There's no question about that.  Sebastian is straight.  There's no question about that.  Both are LI's in DA2.  Even if you hand-wave Sebastian away because he's DLC (which is silly because he's in the game), there's no waving Isabela away.  Which means, to make the blanket statement about sexuality in DA2, you have to ignore Isabela who is not DLC and also obviously bisexual. 

I always forget that SeaBass exists in the game. Even with that shiny armor...

[Beerfish]

This will never happen at all because of the need to promote the games but I'd be happy if they revealed nothing at all about in game companions.

[daveliam]

Most of that social change, however, is artificial in it's push. It is not acceptance by many, but rather socio-political in design. It's "hip" for a lot of people to accept it. BioWare has been ahead of that curve for a while, but a  lot of companies are following suit to varying degrees of success, and it's somewhat troubling on how they present characters at times, because their sexuality or skin color or ideals or even appearance defines them, versus their characterization.

 

the character from Assassins Creed is one example, another I can think of is Kun Jin from Mortal Kombat X. When it was revealed or semi confirmed, that is more or less anyone says about Kun Jin. The character was flat overall without that reveal, which made headlines of course, and makes him stand out more. Compare that to Bill in the last of us, where his sexuality is not even important to the character, and much like Kun Jin was confirmed after the fact. People don't look at Bill and see a "gay character" though, they see a complex character instead where his sexuality was just a part of him.

 

You see the difference that I am trying to convey? I  much of it is again, through agenda in regards to interpretation, but it kind of matters because of widespread perception in the end of growing video games as a medium. I agree with you that it should happen, but it should happen naturally and in a way where no agenda is of course pushed. That will never happen fully either of course, and people will always complain, but If people are interpreting things as pushing that said agenda all the time, that is a major problem overall, and can be detrimental if they are right. You are correct that folks will say it regardless, but the issue is they aren't wrong in some cases, and that is what is worrisome. 

 

It should be no big deal, and will be no big deal soon, but  my fear is if there is an inclusion of gay characters for romance-sake, that is still tokenism in another form anyway, and inclusion for inclusions' sake. It again depends on the characterization, but it is something to think about and how characters are portrayed. 

 

 

My explanation above. It matters how people capitalize on this, because of the socio-political implications of their portrayal. If it's artificial or no characterization, it's just tokenism, and that is dangerous in the long run if you ask me as the medium grows. 

 

That's how change happens, though.  Of course not everyone accepts it.  There never be a time when everyone accepts it.  There's nothing artificial about the change.  Popular opinion is changing and it's being represented in the media.  And, of course, they influence each other.  Who cares if people pick the characters apart and complain about the representation.  They should if it's done poorly.  So what if Kun Jin is perceived as a token.  Is Jacqui a "token black woman"?  Does she get completely dismissed as being "only in the game because she's a black woman"?  She's not much more well-developed than Kun Jin, frankly.  Maybe they both should be criticized.  Or maybe neither should.  Again, I just fall back on "Who cares?"  Let people complain.  The threat of a 'backlash' against social change has existed in Western culture for decades.  First it was a 'backlash' against racial progress.  Then it was a 'backlash' against women's rights.  Now we're hearing about how there's gonna be a big backlash against "LGBT" rights.  I'm not holding my breath.  The arguments are exactly the same.  Using the bible to argue it.  Using slippery slope arguments about why it shouldn't happen.  Arguing that culture has existed this way for centuries and it's an artificial change that's being forced on people.  The reality is that people will grumble and complain.  And eventually their voices will get drowned out.  People will always complain, but, again, there's nothing you can do about it.  And none of those concerns should stop progress.

[holdenagincourt]

If the academic social scientists of the world already knew as much about society as the BSN does with perfect certitude, I would be out of a career.

[LinksOcarina]

If the academic social scientists of the world already knew as much about society as the BSN does with perfect certitude, I would be out of a career.

 

See, I don't know.

 

I only speculate based on perspective. All of my teachings in sociology are about perspective, as it should be because you cant force it on people.

[Panda]

Personally I think that in order to battle tokenism you need to create more of characters of certain minority, LGBT+ in this discussion, and not erase LGBT+ characters completely in fear of making them token characters. That's right way to do that for me.

 

And sometimes push is needed ^^

[Eternal Phoenix]

How about not discuss or reveal their sexuality at all? Sexuality shouldn't define a character. You should only find out when you're playing maybe because of a subtle remark one of the characters makes or when attempting to romance them. Keep it real.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

In fact, the only one that truly shows no sexual interest of her own is Merrill.

And then Gaider had to ruin it. 

[Panda]

How about not discuss or reveal their sexuality at all? Sexuality shouldn't define a character. You should only find out when you're playing maybe because of a subtle remark one of the characters makes or when attempting to romance them. Keep it real.

 

I think romance is only reason why people myself included wants LI's (not every characters of course) sexualities be known. Because some of us like to plan characters in advance. That would mean for me that I would need to start planning after the game is released.

[Fredward]

If the academic social scientists of the world already knew as much about society as the BSN does with perfect certitude, I would be out of a career.

 

What do  the academic social scientists of the world have to say about this topic?

[RoboticWater]

I think romance is only reason why people myself included wants LI's (not every characters of course) sexualities be known. Because some of us like to plan characters in advance. That would mean for me that I would need to start planning after the game is released.

But at that point, you're planning a story rather than just a character; who you romance is a plot point not a character trait. Everything you plan about your character should only happen before the events of the game, the rest should be discovery roleplaying your character through the story. 

 

It releasing sexuality prior to release in this case would be the same as releasing the Virmire decision before release so players can plan ahead for it. In both instances, you're working through the game with spoilers, and I don't think that's a very fun way to experience a BioWare story for the first time. It might be amusing for someone roleplaying a gay man to get rebuffed by an incredibly effeminate male character who's actually straight. Releasing sexuality beforehand completely eliminates the potential for surprise.

 

By all means, prepare an LGBTQIA character with whatever bakstory and motivations you please, but your interactions with your squadmates should be fresh. The first time you play the game, you shouldn't roleplay a gay person just to have sex with a particular person (a very shallow thing to do, IMO), you should experience the story and the character relationships first hand, and if you feel as if you truly missed out on that sex scene (in which case the game has done a great job of illustrating the plight of strict sexuality), then you can orchestrate that relationship on another playthrough.

[daveliam]

Ultimately, I could live without knowing who they are beforehand provided that I know that I'll have two options.  I don't need to know specifically who the two options are.  But, I don't see the big deal in releasing the information prior.  If people don't want to know, they can just avoid spoilers.  Frankly, if there was even a single piece of information that I didn't want spoiled, I'd go on a total BSN and other gamer site embargo a few months prior to release.  Just to be safe.

[Panda]

But at that point, you're planning a story rather than just a character; who you romance is a plot point not a character trait. Everything you plan about your character should only happen before the events of the game, the rest should be discovery roleplaying your character through the story. 

 

It releasing sexuality prior to release in this case would be the same as releasing the Virmire decision before release so players can plan ahead for it. In both instances, you're working through the game with spoilers, and I don't think that's a very fun way to experience a BioWare story for the first time. It might be amusing for someone roleplaying a gay man to get rebuffed by an incredibly effeminate male character who's actually straight. Releasing sexuality beforehand completely eliminates the potential for surprise.

 

By all means, prepare an LGBTQIA character with whatever bakstory and motivations you please, but your interactions with your squadmates should be fresh. The first time you play the game, you shouldn't roleplay a gay person just to have sex with a particular person (a very shallow thing to do, IMO), you should experience the story and the character relationships first hand, and if you feel as if you truly missed out on that sex scene (in which case the game has done a great job of illustrating the plight of strict sexuality), then you can orchestrate that relationship on another playthrough.

 

It's somewhat about planning story, but I'd say it's also about planning the character since I want my character fit with the person s/he is romancing.

 

I'd rather know sexualities before hand than doing character in the game and then realising how they don't work with anyone or that romance of character I want to romance is failure, because they are not into my character.

 

To twist this around a bit, should I then play first anxiously wondering who I'm going to romance and wondering if anyone is into my character? I think that sounds more of shallow playthrough for me.