550 réponses à ce sujet

[Hellion Rex]

I'm either way, to be honest. It really doesn't matter to me.

[TevinterSupremacist]

Why is there no reason to write stories about their experiences?

Is the PC not allowed to feel or treat them differently based on their history and preferences? That's part of role-playing, yes?

The PC's ability to treat them differently is limited to "I don't swing that way" or "yay!, that's how I swing too!". They're not in a world where different orientation results in different treatment, therefore nothing is added in their characterisation by including different orientations. Them being gay/bi/straight brings nothing to the story, aside from being available/unavailble to the player.

[Pasquale1234]

Why is there no reason to write stories about their experiences?

Is the PC not allowed to feel or treat them differently based on their history and preferences? That's part of role-playing, yes?

Sorry, I don't see how universally writing around accessibility, thus deliberately not defining that aspect of all characters, is good for characterization.

Not really relevant if they're designated bi or pansexual.

[Mihura]

I think it depends on the cost/quality versus inclusion of something for everyone. You simple cannot have the same amount of diversity like in real life.

The problem here is when there is no hetero LIs cofDA2kindacof, people complain about realism but when they are all hetero there is no one complaining cofME2cof and this happens in a lot of games. Both are not realistic but both are treated differently. So for many is not a case of realism but a case of "my reality", so no, I do not want someone reality on my game but an open field for everyone. If this mean true equality, I could care less about set sexualities.

To tell the true after DA:I, I am expecting a lot of hetero, bi, pan women, lesbians and almost no guys. Why? well because DA:I was a party full with male LIs and if people do not desire true equality in game, they have to be prepare to be disappointed in all regards. Bioware cannot do the full spectrum.

[dreamgazer]

The PC's ability to treat them differently is limited to "I don't swing that way" or "yay!, that's how I swing too!".

Why is that how we're limiting the PC's ability to treat them differently?

There's more to it than the simple-minded opening or closing of a door for romance.
 

They're not in a world where different orientation results in different treatment, therefore nothing is added in their characterisation by including different orientations.

Who cares about the "world"? I'm talking about the PC. This isn't a political angle; this is a personal interpretation angle.

This also has more to do with their individual experiences and preferences, and projecting an impression on the player to which they respond.
 

Them being gay/bi/straight brings nothing to the story, aside from being available/unavailble to the player.

That's a very narrow way of looking at an aspect of life that, indeed, does deeply shape a person.

Lots of hoops to jump through just so every single companion can be romanced.
 

Not really relevant if they're designated bi or pansexual.

Quite true, when it's a facet of their characterization.

[TevinterSupremacist]

Why is that how we're limiting the PC's ability to treat them differently?

There's more to it than the simple-minded opening or closing of a door for romance.

Who cares about the "world"? I'm talking about the PC. This isn't a political angle; this is a personal interpretation angle.

That's a very narrow way of looking at an aspect of life that, indeed, does deeply shape a person.
 

 

Because there's nothing more a pc can done depending on different orientation, in a world where having a different orientation isn't treated differently. The pc is still part of this world. The pc isn't you, it's you controlling a Thedas-person, since in Thedas people aren't treated differently based on their orientation, your pc won't treat them differently either.

 

No there isn't, because this is Thedas.

 

The PC is part of Thedas.

It makes no sense for the pc to treat someone differently given that no one in Thedas does that.

 

This is a game, not real life. Characterisation matters because by having deeper characterisation, you can have more compelling characters and thus provide more entertainment. But, in order for more entertainment to come, this "characterisation" shouldn't be a token, it shouldn't be just a side information, it should impact the story. But, there's no reason for it to do so, given that the world of Thedas doesn't really treat you differently if depending on your orientation. It makes no sense for a character's orientation to impact the story, since no one in Thedas cares about your orientation.

[Pasquale1234]

That's a very narrow way of looking at an aspect of life that, indeed, does deeply shape a person.

How deeply orientation shapes a person is a very individual thing. Some people get pretty heavily into identity politics, subculture, and such - while for others, it makes little to no difference in how they view themselves.

Also - those things (identity politics, sub-culture) may be very different or non-existent in the MEU.

It doesn't have to have any more impact than whether someone likes tomatoes on their sandwiches.

[dreamgazer]

Because there's nothing more a pc can done depending on different orientation, in a world where having a different orientation isn't treated differently. The pc is still part of this world. The pc isn't you, it's you controlling a Thedas-person, since in Thedas people aren't treated differently based on their orientation, your pc won't treat them differently either.
 
No there isn't, because this is Thedas.
 
The PC is part of Thedas.
It makes no sense for the pc to treat someone differently given that no one in Thedas does that.
 
This is a game, not real life. Characterisation matters because by having deeper characterisation, you can have more compelling characters and thus provide more entertainment. But, in order for more entertainment to come, this "characterisation" shouldn't be a token, it shouldn't be just a side information, it should impact the story. But, there's no reason for it to do so, given that the world of Thedas doesn't really treat you differently if depending on your orientation. It makes no sense for a character's orientation to impact the story, since no one in Thedas cares about your orientation.

Your counter-argument involves a lot of "Thedas-person" references, which aren't nearly as relevant as you're making them out to be. I'm talking about the PC as an individual; not as a self-insert, but as an individual being role-played. Individuals are still allowed to have personal impressions of other people, right? Also, you continue to avoid the fact that prior experiences and preferences shape an individual, and it has nothing to do with the social landscape. That's a strawman.

Plus, this discussion is covering ground for both Thedas and Andromeda. The logic applies for both: everyone's perception of sexuality and experience isn't the same.

[TevinterSupremacist]

Your counter-argument involves a lot of "Thedas-person" references, which aren't nearly as relevant as you're making them out to be. I'm talking about the PC as an individual; not as a self-insert, but as an individual being role-played. Individuals are still allowed to have personal impressions of other people, right? Also, you continue to avoid the fact that prior experiences and preferences shape an individual, and it has nothing to do with the social landscape. That's a strawman.
 

 

You're misunderstanding me, that's why you think it's a strawman. It's irrelevant how much a character is shaped by their orientation. What matters is how much that "shaping" can bring into the game. A character being straight/bi/gay isn't meaningful characterisation, if it doesn't impact their role in the game. However, if the game is set in a world where your orientation doesn't impact your life differently , it brings nothing in the game. Other than "we f*ck" or "we don't f*ck" by the pc. And given that both "we f*ck" and "we don't f*ck" have the same amount of impact in them, it makes no sense not to go with the one that gives more availability per pc.

[dreamgazer]

You're misunderstanding me, that's why you think it's a strawman. It's irrelevant how much a character is shaped by their orientation. What matters is how much that "shaping" can bring into the game. A character being straight/bi/gay isn't meaningful characterisation, if it doesn't impact their role in the game. However, if the game is set in a world where your orientation doesn't impact your life differently , it brings nothing in the game. Other than "we f*ck" or "we don't f*ck" by the pc. And given that both "we f*ck" and "we don't f*ck" have the same amount of impact in them, it makes no sense not to go with the one that gives more availability per pc.

I'm understanding you perfectly fine. You're saying a character's sexual orientation is meaningless because of the setting and its social climate, but that doesn't prevent the PC from forming their own impressions on people's prior experiences and preferences. There's much more to sexual orientation, history, chemistry, and general relationships than "we f*ck" or "we don't f*ck". You're propping the argument up based on a world being all-accepting and disinterested, but that's irrelevant when role-playing a distinct individual within said world. You're not role-playing an entire world; you're role-playing a person.

[TevinterSupremacist]

I'm understanding you perfectly fine. You're saying a character's sexual orientation is meaningless because of the setting and its social climate, but that doesn't prevent the PC from forming their own impressions on people's prior experiences and preferences. There's much more to sexual orientation, history, chemistry, and general relationships than "we f*ck" or "we don't f*ck". You're propping the argument up based on a world being all-accepting and disinterested, but that's irrelevant when role-playing a distinct individual within said world. You're not role-playing an entire world; you're role-playing a person.

You're confusing headcanoning and roleplaying, then. Roleplaying is what different roles and behaviors you can play in the game, not what you can imagine your character feeling on your own, regardless of what your pc actually does in the game.

And so far, bioware has let us treat our companions differently with regard to their orientation only by letting us choose to f*ck them or not. We haven't been able to actually do something different to the companions because they're straight/gay/bi, apart from choosing whether or not to f*ck them.

[SlottsMachine]

Ah man, are we having a defined orientation vs playersexual debate again? Well there better be a Playersexual Hanar companion! He puts the "player" in playersexual, am I right? I'm right.

 

[dreamgazer]

You're confusing headcanoning and roleplaying, then. Roleplaying is what different roles and behaviors you can play in the game, not what you can imagine your character feeling on your own, regardless of what your pc actually does in the game.

Not really. Your role-playing decisions have to come from somewhere and be informed by something. That isn't headcanon; that's developing and following a character.

And so far, bioware has let us treat our companions differently with regard to their orientation only by letting us choose to f*ck them or not. We haven't been able to actually do something different to the companions because they're straight/gay/bi, apart from choosing whether or not to f*ck them.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with "do something different", but the PC's conversations and responses are constantly informed by your evaluation of the companions, which changes with every bit of new context and changes with different PC mindsets. That goes for everything from religious belief and acceptance of other species to their feelings on murder and collateral damage.

[TevinterSupremacist]

Not really. Your role-playing decisions have to come from somewhere and be informed by something. That isn't headcanon; that's developing and following a character.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with "do something different", but the PC's conversations and responses are constantly informed by your evaluation of the companions, which changes with every bit of new context and changes with different PC mindsets. That goes for everything from religious belief and acceptance of other species to their feelings on murder and collateral damage.

Yes, but in order for them to be DECISIONS they must take place in the game. To give an example, let's say you're rping a bigot. In order to claim you get to "rp" them being a bigot because you kick out a party member whose orientation you don't like it's not enough to be able to kick them out of the party with a "well, I just don't think we'll get along" line and have in your mind that the "not get along part" is you being a bigot , you should be able to kick them out , while having the pc say the reason for kicking them out, in game. See the difference? Having the decisions be informed due to a companion's orientation is meaningless if the reasons for the decision aren't materialised in the game, by your pc. Otherwise, kicking out a straight elf because your pc doesn't like elves and kicking out a straight elf because your pc doesn't like straight people plays out exactly the same and you have to headcanon that the reason for the kicking was the orientation and not them being an elf or something else.

[dreamgazer]

Yes, but in order for them to be DECISIONS they must take place in the game. To give an example, let's say you're rping a bigot. In order to claim you get to "rp" them being a bigot because you kick out a party member whose orientation you don't like it's not enough to be able to kick them out of the party with a "well, I just don't think we'll get along" line and have in your mind that the "not get along part" is you being a bigot , you should be able to kick them out , while having the pc say the reason for kicking them out, in game. See the difference? Having the decisions be informed due to a companion's orientation is meaningless if the reasons for the decision aren't materialised in the game, by your pc. Otherwise, kicking out a straight elf because your pc doesn't like elves and kicking out a straight elf because your pc doesn't like straight people plays out exactly the same and you have to headcanon that the reason for the kicking was the orientation and not them being an elf or something else.

I don't really agree. People make decisions based on their biases without explicitly blurting them out all the time.

[TevinterSupremacist]

I don't really agree. People make decisions based on their biases without explicitly blurting them out all the time.

Obviously, which is why I said from the start , this isn't real life, it's a game. In real life, you're already in your head, there's no need for presentation. This is a game. If we are to say we can make a character having personality x we should be able to see him/her, be x not just see them do something that could be x or could be y or could be z or whatever and imagine it was x.

[dreamgazer]

Obviously, which is why I said from the start , this isn't real life, it's a game. In real life, you're already in your head, there's no need for presentation. This is a game. If we are to say we can make a character having personality x we should be able to see him/her, be x not just see them do something that could be x or could be y or could be z or whatever and imagine it was x.

It being real life isn't a factor. Individuals are individuals, shaped by context and internal analysis, and their viewpoints aren't defined by what they audibly proclaim. Like I said, choosing X or Y has to come from somewhere. That isn't headcanon.

[TevinterSupremacist]

It being real life isn't a factor. Individuals are individuals, shaped by context and internal analysis, and their viewpoints aren't defined by what they audibly proclaim. Like I said, choosing X or Y has to come from somewhere. That isn't headcanon.

Headcanon is anything you assume about the game world that isn't proven to be true by the events shown in the game.

For you to rp x you have to be able to see it manifest in the game world as x and not something else. Otherwise it takes place only in your mind and is headcanon.

[dreamgazer]

Headcanon is anything you assume about the game world that isn't proven to be true by the events shown in the game.
For you to rp x you have to be able to see it manifest in the game world as x and not something else. Otherwise it takes place only in your mind and is headcanon.

That's a lot of very basic deduction and interpretation in both series that you've just reduced to "headcanon". Can't say I agree at all when it comes to a base viewpoint for a character. Headcanon comes into play when you try to explain how they got that way. Individuals are individuals.

[TevinterSupremacist]

That's a lot of very basic deduction and interpretation in both series that you've just reduced to "headcanon". Can't say I agree at all when it comes to a base viewpoint for a character. Headcanon comes into play when you try to explain how they got that way. Individuals are individuals.

Which is what will happen when your character's thoughts are simply there for them to make "informed decisions" as you said and don't get voiced in game.

If it's not in the game and you assume it happened, without facts, it's headcanon, plain and simple.

[Mdizzletr0n]

Leave the romances in Dragon Age! There's no longer a need for such archaic emotions in Mass Effect.

[dreamgazer]

Which is what will happen when your character's thoughts are simply there for them to make "informed decisions" as you said and don't get voiced in game.

Nope. It's as simple as deciding the character is pro-something or anti-something and following that ideology. Their dialogue and actions are guided by that viewpoint. Not headcanon.

If it's not in the game and you assume it happened, without facts, it's headcanon, plain and simple.

Then the character has no thoughts, feelings, anything that aren't explicitly blurted out in the game. Your decisions are based on nothing.

Also, if I'm able to support that viewpoint with a base choice, then it did happen in the game. Relying on the PC to make a proclamation of their motivation with every choice to prove that it's their motivation would make for some very, very silly dialogue.

[TevinterSupremacist]

Then the character has no thoughts, feelings, anything that aren't explicitly blurted out in the game.
Also, if I'm able to support that viewpoint with a base choice, then it did happen in the game.

Relying on the PC to make a proclamation of their motivation with every choice to prove that it's their motivation would make for some very, very silly dialogue.

Nope, the character has thoughts, we just don't always know them.

If it wasn't shown to happen, it didn't happen. Happen is a very binary concept.

Not necessarily, depends on writing. Also, we don't always know.

[ShadyKat]

I honestly hate when Bioware does this. The characters sexual orientation should be the least important characteristics of a team mate. Let us play the game, and discover these things for ourselves.

[dreamgazer]

Nope, the character has thoughts, we just don't always know them.

Those canon thoughts aren't what make the decisions in the game, though. Without a base character attitude, you're stuck at the first dialogue choice on the Normandy in ME1.

If it wasn't shown to happen, it didn't happen. Happen is a very binary concept.

Again, so much rudimentary deduction and interpretation (let alone offscreen actions) you've just proclaimed didn't actually happen. And again, individuals don't go around blurting their viewpoints with every choice they make.