56 réponses à ce sujet

[nightscrawl]

I decided to make a new topic for this because I didn't want to clutter the venting thread with it.
 
This is a Polygon article based on an impromptu round-table discussion that happened at the recent GDC.
 
I think what really got to me is the concept of "tagging," represented as,

So how can games give people a heads-up about the relationships included within as they get more diverse — in order to reach out to fans of these kinks and warn those who are decidedly not interested?
 
Someone proposed a tagging system that could take cues from fan fiction sites like Archive of Our Own. These websites feature writing on a plethora of romantic relationships and characters, including stories based on characters from games.
 
These sites use tagging systems that detail the content readers will discover within. If a story features explicit content depicting two underage female leads in a sexual relationship, that will be noted appropriately. Games could include a similar system to benefit players, the group suggested.
 
Tagging content made sense to these fans of a wide array of sexual material — and, they said, they were likely not alone in thinking this.

 
I really cannot express how intensely I dislike this idea. To me, this is almost as bad as asking for a sexuality toggle and reducing the character to their sexualities, and treats the romances as nothing more than a gateway to virtual porn rather than the building of a relationship between two people. These aren't dating sims, and game developers are not our virtual pimps, but that is what this suggestion says to me. I find it to be disgusting.
 
Tagging for fanfic is one thing, particularly since a lot of it does contain gratuitous sex whose sole reason for existence is to get off its writer and their readers, and that is totally fine for that entertainment medium, but NOT with the actual game story content.

[Donk]

Agreed. The idea is just ridiculous.. Why do people get these ideas in their heads?

If I was a game dev - a BW one at that, I'd be tearing my hair out.

[Steelcan]

well problem number one is getting anything from Polygon...

 

Problems 2-99 are everything in that

[vertigomez]

Alright, am I getting this right? Is the idea to tag the content in such a way that, say, someone who wants to romance Josephine or Solas will know that there's no sex scene ahead of time and not be disappointed? Or so they'll know that there are nekkid butts in some of the romance scenes?

Because it seems like you could just, you know, ask here on the forums (or reddit or twitter...) for that kind of information. It's not like fanfic, where you may or may not be able to contact the writer, or you don't want to have to ask a friend to read it and tell you what happens before you'll give it a go.

[vertigomez]

They used the femme-on-femme example, but that's even more confusing. If you know that a girly female character is gay or bisexual, wouldn't you just make a girly PC and be all set..? Why would you need a specific tag for that when you can just ask someone if there's a romance option like that in the game?

Maybe I'm missing something.

[wright1978]

Not sure i get exactly what the tagging would entail. I can see reasoning behind if Dragon Age is going to carry on down the route of removing relationship sexual element and or expanding further into even more niche relationships that someone might view wanting to make the player aware at an early stage of the romance dialogue in game that this or isn't leading somewhere they want to go.

[Natashina]

First, I have to wonder about the part about "underage teenage girls." That's awfully specific. It makes me think that they used one of the more extreme examples to back up their point. I despise it when people do that.

Here's a great "tag" for them. If it slashfic and involves underage characters, just stop reading. That's all. No need for a tag, when they have this little ability called "Closing the damn tab and moving on with your life."

A toggle/tag/latest excuse for censorship is not going to benefit games in any way, shape or form. This is not only a slippery slope, but I think that group discussion failed to take something in account: The amount of programming, coding and testing that would need to go into something like that. We all know how the BW devs feel about LGB+ content being "turned off."

However, I've also seen devs talk about that adding all those toggles are a nightmare from a programming perspective. There is all sorts of factors to consider, such as changing conversation, and making the new toggled lines work within the rest of the game.

Yet once again, folks turn a blind eye to statements by the devs mention how sodding hard this would all be. For a feature that many players are unlikely to use (at least judging from the small cross sample of the BSN,) and one that has some unpleasant implications, this not worth it.

Stupid. Totally futzing stupid. I almost went into journalism after three years on the school paper. The state of most of gaming "journalism" makes my eyes twitch. I'm betting those idiots don't even know the difference between libel and slander, much less the rules of objectivity outside of editorals. <glare>

Edit: Wow. Bit of a rant there. Sorry 'bout that.

[Jorji Costava]

Yes, that was a very strange article. I agree that there's plenty of debate to be had about whether or not it's a good idea to include certain content in a game (Explicit content featuring underage characters? Really? That's just something I'm not prepared to deal with at all). But once you've decided to include that content, including tags for it seems like a really bad idea.

 

Over the past year or so, there's been a big kerfuffle about 'trigger warnings'; they've been heavily criticized on the grounds that they allow students at a university to avoid uncomfortable ideas, whereas confronting them with such ideas is one of the primary functions of the university. My view is that this criticism is completely valid in the case of any proposal for tags or toggles for homosexual content and whatnot. For surely it's one of the most valuable functions of artistic media to confront you with ideas and attitudes outside of your comfort zone. What many gamers seem to be asking for is "Trigger warning: Gay content." That's not a good way forward for the medium IMO.

[Biotic Apostate]

Honestly I'm not really comfortable with equating LGBT representation with giving characters kinks.

"the group conceded that the spectrum of kinks and sexual preferences doesn't necessarily appeal to everyone"

That quote is especially tone deaf to me. People with different sexualities exist and everyone has contact with them on an everyday basis. Kinks, like BDSM, exist in the bedroom only (aside from stuff like Folsom). If BW wants to flesh out romances, they could add some physical closeness other than sex. Some hugging, random kisses, stuff like that. Things normal couples do. Kaidan in a male romance really suffered from lack of such content. Outside of the sex scene they barely touched. I don't need a romance in Andromeda, where the LI is into chastity devices, I expect a relationship that works outside of the bedroom.

 

I'm also saying this, because I really disliked Bull's romance. I thought BDSM should be based on good communication. But Bull just goes 'I know better what you want and you will do it, unless I'm reading you wrong then oops, bye.' Leaving the sex part ambiguous (especially for a gay couple) makes it more welcoming to players. Also, having a same sex romance option doesn't lock anyone out of anything. Having that option be into a kink might limit options for some, all because of a small thing that doesn't have that much of an influence on the romance.

 

And filters on Archive of Our Own help find content you're looking for, not for filtering out content from a fic. A better example with games would be a database with possible content written out, not a toggle inside the game. Making basically 2 romance paths (one with a kink, one without) is a colossal waste of time.

 

Edit: huh, this got a bit too long

[Panda]

I find tags and warnings very useful when looking for fanfiction to read. I guess medias outside of fanfiction would benefit a bit if they gave away a bit information on what the thing is going to be about- easier to chose for customers what to buy. There already is kind of tags, but they are less descriptive and more generic like: romance, drama, dark fantasy etc.

 

However toggling romances with it seems bit weird idea, I'm not sure where person got that idea from. I don't really know how it would work.

 

I also agree with Biotic Apostate that database outside of game than toggles inside of it would likely work better. And I think there kind of is that already with fans, there is usually talk about romances and warnings about them like Iron Bull's has BDSM (and the game already warned you about it before going through with it which is nice).

[DomeWing333]

I think the idea being suggested here is that each individual game with a romance component would be labeled to indicate the kinds of material it contains. So...like an ESRB rating but way more in depth on the sex part?

 

I don't see what makes the sexual component of a game so special that it would require a specific tagging system. Yeah, some people would be uncomfortable with BDSM sex and tentacles being featured in their games. But people are also uncomfortable with slavery and memory wiping and spiders, and those things are mandatory. If you keep "tagging" things you think the audience might be uncomfortable with, at a point, you'd just be spoiling all the content in a game.

[SporkFu]

Tagging stories in such a way is one thing. The content of a story doesn't change, and it can be a convenient way to find/avoid whatever content a person may or may not want.

Since the romantic content in a game is often entirely optional, and can be opted out of, then I dunno that it needs to be tagged.

[nightscrawl]

Oh gosh, so much to respond to.

I feel the necessity to add this, since so many of you have responded with these same thoughts. The idea of a "toggle" was not mentioned in the original piece, that is just what this idea sounds similar to in my head.

 

well problem number one is getting anything from Polygon...
 
Problems 2-99 are everything in that

 
Polygon gets a lot of flack, but I don't really get the reason why (other than intentionally misleading click-baity headlines). For this article specifically, it's pretty much straight reporting of what the panel and the audience discussed, so I don't think the snark is really warranted =/.

 

They used the femme-on-femme example, but that's even more confusing. If you know that a girly female character is gay or bisexual, wouldn't you just make a girly PC and be all set..? Why would you need a specific tag for that when you can just ask someone if there's a romance option like that in the game?

Maybe I'm missing something.

 
I thought that particular person's quote and language was unfortunate, not because it was vulgar, but because it was unclear. I think they want to be able to romance, and have sex with, girly lesbians, but some commenters on the article itself thought they meant "femme" as in any type of feminine traits, which can also be embodied by men. I think the person wants more Lelianas, as it were (not counting Josephine since there is no sex with her, sorry Josie).

 

A toggle/tag/latest excuse for censorship is not going to benefit games in any way, shape or form. This is not only a slippery slope, but I think that group discussion failed to take something in account: The amount of programming, coding and testing that would need to go into something like that. We all know how the BW devs feel about LGB+ content being "turned off."

Keep in mind that there were developers in the group discussion as well.
 
 

Honestly I'm not really comfortable with equating LGBT representation with giving characters kinks.
"the group conceded that the spectrum of kinks and sexual preferences doesn't necessarily appeal to everyone"
That quote is especially tone deaf to me. People with different sexualities exist and everyone has contact with them on an everyday basis. Kinks, like BDSM, exist in the bedroom only (aside from stuff like Folsom). If BW wants to flesh out romances, they could add some physical closeness other than sex. Some hugging, random kisses, stuff like that. Things normal couples do. Kaidan in a male romance really suffered from lack of such content. Outside of the sex scene they barely touched. I don't need a romance in Andromeda, where the LI is into chastity devices, I expect a relationship that works outside of the bedroom.
 
I'm also saying this, because I really disliked Bull's romance. I thought BDSM should be based on good communication. But Bull just goes 'I know better what you want and you will do it, unless I'm reading you wrong then oops, bye.'

It's funny that you should mention this, as I had a rant about Patrick Weekes at the end of my OP that I subsequently deleted. I think a large part of this is due to his continued self-congratulatory attitude about the BDSM sex in Iron Bull's romance, to the extent that it eclipses everything else about the character.
 

Leaving the sex part ambiguous (especially for a gay couple) makes it more welcoming to players. Also, having a same sex romance option doesn't lock anyone out of anything. Having that option be into a kink might limit options for some, all because of a small thing that doesn't have that much of an influence on the romance.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying here, since it's attached to the comments regarding Iron Bull's sexual content. By "ambiguous" are you referring to sexual roles, or showing actual sex? As I've mentioned before, that ambiguity in the Dorian romance allows the player to head-canon the sexual aspect of the relationship in whatever way they wish, which is why I prefer it.
 

And filters on Archive of Our Own help find content you're looking for, not for filtering out content from a fic. A better example with games would be a database with possible content written out, not a toggle inside the game. Making basically 2 romance paths (one with a kink, one without) is a colossal waste of time.

That's not necessarily accurate. I don't read fanfiction, but if I were to browse though a bunch of Dorian fics, I would want to know if they are Adoribull and Cullrian pairings so I DON'T read them. I would also like to filter out by Inquisitor race, but that's not as high a priority.

 

However toggling romances with it seems bit weird idea, I'm not sure where person got that idea from. I don't really know how it would work.

I'm not sure if you're referring to my commentary in the OP, or to the actual article itself. The article doesn't mention a toggle, but that is what the tag suggestion seems similar to in my own mind, which, as others have pointed out, is a slippery slope to go down.

 

I think the idea being suggested here is that each individual game with a romance component would be labeled to indicate the kinds of material it contains. So...like an ESRB rating but way more in depth on the sex part?
 
I don't see what makes the sexual component of a game so special that it would require a specific tagging system. Yeah, some people would be uncomfortable with BDSM sex and tentacles being featured in their games. But people are also uncomfortable with slavery and memory wiping and spiders, and those things are mandatory. If you keep "tagging" things you think the audience might be uncomfortable with, at a point, you'd just be spoiling all the content in a game.

Yepper, agree.

 

 

Finally, the reason this idea is so odious to me is because it seems like it is reducing the romance to just the sexual content. In that case, why even bother calling them "romances" in the first place; let's just make a Dragon Age Tinder and Grindr and have done with it.
 

[SardaukarElite]

I'm lazy so I only skimmed it but my main reaction is that I don't want engaging with a story (or part of a story) to feel like choosing a meal at a restaurant. 

 

Beyond that most games paint romances with pretty broad strokes, applying that level of granularity to their content seems a bit pointless. 

[Lady Artifice]

In my opinion, it's silly. Even if I set aside my suspicion that these kinds of requests are typically made with a desire to avoid LGBT content specifically, or decided it didn't matter why they want it, it seems both lazy and impractical to me. It's really easy to check on the content online these days, but it would be much more time consuming for the developers to label everything this way. It almost seems more pointless than a toggle would be.

[SardaukarElite]

Even if I set aside my suspicion that these kinds of requests are typically made with a desire to avoid LGBT content specifically, or decided it didn't matter why they want it

 

I think this one is actually coming from the perspective of encouraging all kinds of content and making it is easy to search for whatever floats your boat.

 

Which has it's own practicality issues. 

[Akrabra]

Polygon gets a lot of flack, but I don't really get the reason why (other than intentionally misleading click-baity headlines). For this article specifically, it's pretty much straight reporting of what the panel and the audience discussed, so I don't think the snark is really warranted

Believe me they deserve all they are getting, but so does IGN, Gamespot, Kotaku etc. It is a problem with the news media in general, not just Polygon. They are not working for us, they are working for corporations or Agendas like Feminist frequency, the bias is strong. 

 

I could go on a huge rant about this, but there is no reason to. I had no problem with this article, for once Polygon was doing their job. 

[SardaukarElite]

Believe me they deserve all they are getting, but so does IGN, Gamespot, Kotaku etc. It is a problem with the news media in general, not just Polygon. They are not working for us, they are working for corporations or Agendas like Feminist frequency, the bias is strong. 

 

The people on the other hand are known for their balanced opinions, proportional responses, incorruptibility in the face of advertising and new trends, and impeccable taste. 

[Donk]

I just can't believe "tentacle p*rn" was brought up and discussed seriously.

Oh wait. Yes I can.

[Akrabra]

The people on the other hand are known for their balanced opinions, proportional responses, incorruptibility in the face of advertising and new trends, and impeccable taste. 

Doesn't mean that the media should get away with lying. The truth is what is important, not false advertising for money and agendas. But this discussion is better suited for another time and place. 

[Biotic Apostate]

It's funny that you should mention this, as I had a rant about Patrick Weekes at the end of my OP that I subsequently deleted. I think a large part of this is due to his continued self-congratulatory attitude about the BDSM sex in Iron Bull's romance, to the extent that it eclipses everything else about the character.

 

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying here, since it's attached to the comments regarding Iron Bull's sexual content. By "ambiguous" are you referring to sexual roles, or showing actual sex? As I've mentioned before, that ambiguity in the Dorian romance allows the player to head-canon the sexual aspect of the relationship in whatever way they wish, which is why I prefer it.
 

That's not necessarily accurate. I don't read fanfiction, but if I were to browse though a bunch of Dorian fics, I would want to know if they are Adoribull and Cullrian pairings so I DON'T read them. I would also like to filter out by Inquisitor race, but that's not as high a priority.

Both. I mean that by leaving more to the imagination the players are welcome to headcanon what is essentially not that important to the story. Shep is a top with Kaidan? Why not. Steve tops in a relationship? You can go with that. Anders and Garrett are versatile? If you feel better with that sort of arrangement then you can totally think that. Bull jest screams 'I'm a top' every few minutes and the inclusion of BDSM actually hurt the characterisation, because as you said, it eclipsed his character. It's not even the predefined positions that's the problem (for some it is, but not for me). It's the fact that Bull assumes he knows best what his partners need. With both Dorian and the IQ he assumes they need to be dominated, and he will tell them what to do.

 

Leaving both positions and acts to the imagination, you end up locking out less players out of a romance (or avoid greatly diminishing their enjoyment of it). Normally people choose romance based on the personality of that character, will they now have to filter out possibilities based on what weirdly specific kink they enjoy? Aside from getting some people hot and bothered, it adds nothing to the story. Again, story heavy RPGs like DA are not the right place to explore kinks. In visual novels/dating sims sexual content can be the focus and the buyers expect it. RPG players do not.

 

I don't think I'll do the Bull romance, because of Bull's off putting attitude. And the BDSM part is not even that accurate. I think Weekes mentioned it's about players not comfortable with giving up control - that was the issue for them (I think he said it). But to give up control you need to trust your partner (which is a big problem if you choose to sacrifice the Chargers). You don't go rushing into an arrangement like that without talking about it first.

 

I posted before I read the article to the end and noticed that they don't mention toggles. But my poorly explained point stands - you can filter what you want to find - or don't want - but you don't get to use these tags to filter out, for example, Adoribull from within a specific fic you're reading. You just know it's there. So applied to games, it would more be like I mentioned a database with sexual content written out. And users can do it for others. Just like the aforementioned triggers, there is actually a website with such information. But it works the other way. If you absolutely don't want to see blood, or sexual assaults in a game, you can vet it there. I don't think anyone would read 'includes BDSM and male butts' and go 'whoa nice, I'm going to check this dragon ages game out!' 

 

Sorry for ranting, I should probably try to be more succinct.

[nightscrawl]

^ All good, it's why I posted the article in the first place .

[vertigomez]

I disagree that kinks or bedroom preferences should always be left 100% to headcanon. Most of the time, sure. Imagining what you want is fun and certainly more personally satisfying than knowing your character is having sex in a way that turns you off.

But if no NPC ever hints at having kinks - not necessarily central to the romance, as Bull's, but even in the Zevran way ("I hope it involves chains. I hope they ask me to join!") or Isabela's "Always be on top" comment - it makes it seem like... I don't know. Like they don't exist? Because what the game shows you is that every LI has very vanilla sex which may or may not bore one to death?

I guess it's like... there's a certain amount of personality there, the same way that Isabela aggressively leaping on and making out with Hawke or Anders gently leading Hawke to the bed says something about their intimate life, and that's not all headcanon...

But I get why someone would want it left up to the player, for the player's benefit. Just not my preference.

[Biotic Apostate]

But there's a difference between such little comments and making it the central part of the romance. I enjoyed Kaidan's 'you're the boss, except when you're not' or Hawke's 'did it have anything to do with finding another use for those chains.' You can set the tone without going in to deep with the details. The scenes with Isabela and Anders showed intimacy without going overboard with it.

I'd probably have a little different approach to all of this, if they didn't include Bull as a good depiction, and tentacle porn in that conversation.

[nightscrawl]

I enjoyed Kaidan's 'you're the boss, except when you're not'...

That's an adorable line.

I disagree that kinks or bedroom preferences should always be left 100% to headcanon. Most of the time, sure. Imagining what you want is fun and certainly more personally satisfying than knowing your character is having sex in a way that turns you off.

But if no NPC ever hints at having kinks - not necessarily central to the romance, as Bull's, but even in the Zevran way ("I hope it involves chains. I hope they ask me to join!") or Isabela's "Always be on top" comment - it makes it seem like... I don't know. Like they don't exist? Because what the game shows you is that every LI has very vanilla sex which may or may not bore one to death?

I guess it's like... there's a certain amount of personality there, the same way that Isabela aggressively leaping on and making out with Hawke or Anders gently leading Hawke to the bed says something about their intimate life, and that's not all headcanon...

But I get why someone would want it left up to the player, for the player's benefit. Just not my preference.

 
I think the main objection here is in the suggestion that that is the way the NPC is ALL the time, like Bull, or that that is their sole preference. Sure, Anders may lead the PC gently to the bed and settle over them for the first time for a nice, sweet session of romantic love-making, but that doesn't mean that the second time won't be hot, steamy, leaning against the wall. And too, we just see how the scene starts, we don't know what actually happens when things really get going -- Anders may ride Garret, or flip him over, or whatever other fun thing.