-shrugs- I just know Hanako identifies as demisexual, so I answered the question.
I myself am not demisexual but I believe it has to do with.... Not experiencing sexual attraction unless they feel an emotional attachment?
(Someone can correct me if I'm wrong)
Still, ask most people who played DA:I about Dorian, how is he going to be remembered?
Dorian the amazingly powerful mage?
Dorian the time traveler?
Dorian the wise?
Dorian the blood mage?
Dorian the mage who freed the slaves?
Or Dorian the gay with daddy issues?
(and I actually didn't dislike his character, he was somewhat charming and funny, and had some witty dialogue)
How 'bout Dorian the Guy Who Wants to Redeem His Homeland? I would've called that the crux of his character.
I'm curious, when people say that politics (here meaning sexual orientation as politics) shouldn't be in games, do they include games like the Witcher in that category?
I'll bite.
Dorian was a well written character which was letdown by a humdrum character quest.
Indeed. He was a good character, but I thought his personal quest was a bit "meh".
Now Cassandra's personal quest was great. Good balance of combat and dialogue, some nice revelations about the Seekers, and she even had a level just for that quest! Basically it felt like an ME2 Loyalty Mission.
Because of how hamfisted they handle it in every single game. Compare Inuqisition to how Witcher 3 handled a gay character.
In Inuqisition you get it thrown in your face constantly about how the character is "so progressive and diverse!" and all it does is ruin immersion. In Witcher 3 they had a gay character who didn't even mention he was gay until you spoke to him a bit more and found out about him, it felt natural and real.
Bioware has turned into a complete joke lately because of all their sexual pandering nonsense and to say Diversity is in demand is an outright lie, gamers don't care about diversity when it purely exists for the sake of diversity hence why so many games that are pandering are getting ignored from gamers that don't want the developers political agendas crammed down our throats. Bioware has became a meme lately with how much they've been pandering in their most recent game.
I couldn't give a **** if a character is straight, gay or some asexual attack helicopter, just give me a good game with a good story and believable characters. If they're gay so be it, just don't make that the basis of the character.
You quite obviously have issues with character that are not straight. Seeing as you do not understand why you like the Witcher more I will explain to you. You like the Witcher 3 because Geralt is always straight. The mere possibility that Shepard and Ryder can be gay is a problem for you. The only gay character in Witcher 3 is one of the most problematic protrayals of a gay character in video games. The guy lives in the wild because he is outcast from society for being gay. His boyfriend killed himself when the boyfriend's father found out he was gay. His father became a drunk and his estate fell into ruin. This is what you like the way Witcher 3 shows gay characters. You want to see gay characters suffer because you think that's how gay characters should be treated. You don't want to see gay characters treated well and be happy and equal. Because you are a homophobe.
Now I don't know Witcher 3's handling cause I have never played it, but I have surely heard more good about DAI's handling than Witchers. Also doesn't Witcher like have just one gay character in the all of the games or am I mistaken?
Mislav, the hunter
A gender fluid Elf clothing merchant
Ciri is a Lesbian or bi based on player choices
Dethmold, one of the main characters in TW2
Philippa Eilhart (in TW 2 and TW 3)
There could be more but IDK.
As for the different handling between TW3 and DAI. I don't think it would be fair to compare Dorian and Mislav. I think comparing Mislav or the elf merchant and Krem is more fair because their roles are minor. With Krem, I felt that BW stood on their soapbox for that and it got kinda cringey.
Krem mentions his boobs in jest, gets angry if the player doesn't automatically assumes he's trans, IB proceeds to give long winded lecture. In this case the player gets talked at rather than talked to.
With Mislav and the Elf, it's an interaction, a conversation. With Mislav Geralt asks him why he's out in the woods alone, Mislav hand waves it at first unless Geralt presses it (Geralt mistakenly believes he's a werewolf and offers to help). Mislav tells his story, Geralt can leave it at that or says he's sorry for what happened to him. The Elf Merchant can be found while on a main quest, he's mistaken for one of Dandelion's lovers. Geralt was searching for a woman and the Elf puts on his dress to show him that he's the woman Geralt was looking for. Geralt can ask why he dresses up as a woman, he simply gives his reply that he dresses as both, why he does it, and how it makes him feel. I think Geralt can remark that he shouldn't have asked, but either way it's done.
Dorian was a well written character which was letdown by a humdrum character quest.
This sums up my feelings about Dorian perfectly.
Dragon Age: Inquisition did the same thing as the Witcher 3. You didn't learn anything about a character's sexual orientation until after having previous conversations with them. Dorian doesn't bring it up his being homosexual until his personal quest since it was part but not the main part of his family drama and Sera doesn't bring up her being a lesbian until you flirt with her.
I disagree with what you said, it is not true.
Bioware should stop preaching and just create good stories with good companions.
How 'bout Dorian the Guy Who Wants to Redeem His Homeland? I would've called that the crux of his character.
I'm curious, when people say that politics (here meaning sexual orientation as politics) shouldn't be in games, do they include games like the Witcher in that category?
Than why wasn't his personal quest about redeeming his homeland?
TW3 made exactly zero political statements about gender politics. It was a story about a "promiscuous" (depends how you played) straight guy,
that at times actually went out of his way to acknowledge any "different" individuals and "freaks" (in the context of TW canon) he met.
If anything, this approach is probably much more effective at pushing for LGBT acceptance than the ham-fisted EaWare approach.
(certainly less preachy and more palatable without breaking immersion with PSA from another universe)
Reading a few posts back there and...did someone seriously suggest the words of a group of people don't matter because they're in the minority?
Since when do numbers outweight criteria like knowledge, logic and coherence to evaluate the merit an argument possesses?
Wow. Then before developing a vaccine, a laboratory should take into account the opinion of millions of citizens woefully ignorant about biology rather than the opinion of a few qualified doctors, since they are in the minority.
Reading a few posts back there and...did someone seriously suggest the words of a group of people don't matter because they're in the minority?
Since when do numbers outweight criteria like knowledge, logic and coherence to evaluate the merit an argument possesses?
Wow. Then before developing a vaccine, a laboratory should take into account the opinion of millions of citizens woefully ignorant about biology rather than the opinion of a few qualified doctors, since they are in the minority.
A minority should be represented proportionally to their relative size among the population or the consumers of the product.
And who are the "qualified doctors" exactly?
Than why wasn't his personal quest about redeeming his homeland?
TW3 made exactly zero political statements about gender politics. It was a story about a "promiscuous" (depends how you played) straight guy,
that at times actually went out of his way to acknowledge any "different" individuals and "freaks" (in the context of TW canon) he met.
If anything, this approach is probably much more effective at pushing for LGBT acceptance than the ham-fisted EaWare approach.
(certainly less preachy and more palatable without breaking immersion with PSA from another universe)
To expand, the more you try to ram your values and beliefs (whatever they are) down peoples throats, the more resistance you'll receive. You alter peoples perspectives by showing them the ugliness of the world not by tell them what to believe. Sure there are some idiots that won't get it and continue to be bigots, but far more will be repulsed by the persecutions. And I agree, TW3 displayed such ugliness brilliantly.
Than why wasn't his personal quest about redeeming his homeland?
Cuz he was in Fereldan/Orlais at the time.
Mind you, he was choosing to stay there to fight the evil Tevinter magister representative of all he stood against. Diluting Dorian to the gay guy with daddy issues says more about the person doing the diluting than it does the character.
TW3 made exactly zero political statements about gender politics. It was a story about a "promiscuous" (depends how you played) straight guy
This isn't a political statement though? If Twitcher was a story about a "promiscuous" (depends how you played) gay guy would it have qualified as a statement?
Cuz he was in Fereldan/Orlais at the time.
Mind you, he was choosing to stay there to fight the evil Tevinter magister representative of all he stood against. Diluting Dorian to the gay guy with daddy issues says more about the person doing the diluting than it does the character.
This isn't a political statement though? If Twitcher was a story about a "promiscuous" (depends how you played) gay guy would it have qualified as a statement?
Oh please. That's an excuse and you know it.
He could have strengthened his allies by any number of ways without going back home, and any number of related plots could have been written
without the need to leave the area.
"Twitcher"? Seriously?...
I wouldn't have seen it as a political statement, just as a game aimed at a specific demographic. (just like TW3 was in reality)
There are a number of lgbt-specific games out there, this would have been just one more.
TW3 isn't actually about Geralt at all. It is Ciri's story, you just experience it through the eyes of Geralt.
TW3 isn't actually about Geralt at all. It is Ciri's story, you just experience it through the eyes of Geralt.
While that may be true, both expansions are about Geralt himself, and both are arguably better than the main plot...
I liked them better anyway.
Oh please. That's an excuse and you know it.
He could have strengthened his allies by any number of ways without going back home, and any number of related plots could have been written
without the need to leave the area.
He does, he gives you wartable missions that help support Maevaris and the fledgling Lucerni faction, which, you guessed it, aim at redeeming and revitalizing Tevinter.
"Twitcher"? Seriously?...
I wouldn't have seen it as a political statement, just as a game aimed at a specific demographic. (just like TW3 was in reality)
There are a number of lgbt-specific games out there, this would have been just one more.
The Witcher, I thought it was a broadly accepted contraction.
So what is it that makes a game political for you?
He does, he gives you wartable missions that help support Maevaris and the fledgling Lucerni faction, which, you guessed it, aim at redeeming and revitalizing Tevinter.
So the actually interesting mission was relegated to the war table, and the political-agenda driven mission was in the game itself?
I don't really have an opinion on "conversion therapy", as far as I'm concerned everyone should do what they want as long as it is their choice
(even if they choose to waste their time and money on pseudo-science), but this mission is clearly using the game to preach about a current political issue.
Dorian won't be remembered for his contribution to the war table, he will be remembered for his "loyalty mission".
It wasn't as bad as how they bent the Qun backwards to suddenly become inclusive towards transgenders in complete about-face from the established theme, but still. (the idea of the Qun caring about any facet of individualism all of a sudden is simply absurd)
(I think Dorian is stereotypical, and his personal quest is painfully lack of originality.)
Still, ask most people who played DA:I about Dorian, how is he going to be remembered?
Dorian the amazingly powerful mage?
Dorian the time traveler?
Dorian the wise?
Dorian the blood mage?
Dorian the mage who freed the slaves?
Or Dorian the gay with daddy issues?
(and I actually didn't dislike his character, he was somewhat charming and funny, and had some witty dialogue)
I (and most of my friends) remember him as: The sarcastic guy that can kill your enemies. 
He reminded me of Hawke a bit.
Ps. In my OPINION (just so we are clear) if someones first thought is "the gay mage" they have either not played the game and only heard people complain OR just can't let go of that ONE loyalty mission. (I agree that they lost an opportunity when they turned it to "change him with blood magic") 
I (and most of my friends) remember him as: The sarcastic guy that can kill your enemies.
Ps. In my OPINION (just so we are clear) if someones first thought is "the gay mage" they have either not played the game and only heard people complain OR just can't let go of that ONE loyalty mission. (I agree that they lost an opportunity when they turned it to "change him with blood magic")
Overall he's a cool guy, I agree. And those war table mission Fred mentioned above should have been his loyalty mission, not some two-bit preaching about a current political issue.
The average player wouldn't remember Dorian for his contribution to the war table, he will be remembered for his "loyalty mission".
Then the "average player" is making a decision without all the relevant information, if the result is then "gay guy with daddy issues" that's their interpretation, despite the factual evidence to the contrary.
Like I said, says more about the people doing this than it does the character.
It wasn't as bad as how they bent the Qun backwards to suddenly become inclusive towards transgenders in complete about-face from the established theme, but still.
I saw that more as pragmatism than equality, and the Qun is pretty pragmatic. If a woman wanted to be a warrior really badly, to the point where the tamassrans decided she'd be ill used in a different capacity she'd become a warrior, a 'male' role. It's the role that defines the gender for qunari not the gender that defines the roles.
At least, that's how I read it.
Out of curiosity did you have any qualms about Sera, Bull, Briala, Celene or Josephine?
Then the "average player" is making a decision without all the relevant information, if the result is then "gay guy with daddy issues" that's their interpretation, despite the factual evidence to the contrary.
...
Out of curiosity did you have any qualms about Sera, Bull, Briala, Celene or Josephine?
I actually edited the post, but NVM.
The point is, conversion therapy was a hot political topic in the US as far as I remember at some point.
Using the "loyalty quest" of a gay character to make a point about it, is practically the definition of preaching.
It also makes the character look as if that's his main "thing".
(Cassandra for example was all about the Seekers and how they have been misused, not about her sexuality, Dorian should have been similar.)
I disagree about the Qun, but that's not the place for this argument.
As for your last question, I didn't have any particular problem with any of them. Nothing to do with their sexuality anyway.
Now I don't know Witcher 3's handling cause I have never played it, but I have surely heard more good about DAI's handling than Witchers. Also doesn't Witcher like have just one gay character in the all of the games or am I mistaken?
...
Can't really compare the world of The Witcher with that of Dragon Age; they are two completely different visions.
BioWare have a generally up-beat approach to their worlds - lots of bad things happen but people are generally good and accepting of each other.
CDPR have a far more bleak outlook - lots of bad things happen and people are generally small-minded, bigoted, spiteful, deceitful and petty. If the Witcher wasn't infused with it's own sense of self-mocking, tongue-in-cheek humour it would be really depressing.
BioWare have a generally up-beat approach to their worlds - lots of bad things happen but people are generally good and accepting of each other.
Hmm... Wasn't DA supposed to be "dark fantasy"?...
Hmm... Wasn't DA supposed to be "dark fantasy"?...
The Darkspawn were dark - the "bad things happening" was dark, the ritual to join the Grey Wardens was a little dark ... but the characters? Not so much - there was still a general feeling of people being generally good (or at least not evil)... even Loghain. Even the "fallen" could seek redemption (Legion of the Dead).
Whereas in the Witcher - the "good" guys are racists and fascists. The bad guys are either terrorists or oppressed freedom fighters depending on your perspective. The common folk on both sides are ignorant and at least casually racist. And the powers that be are all corrupt, or corruptible, while the mages pull the strings. There's no need for many people to seek redemption in the Witcher - being a bit s****y is the norm.
In both games the setting is dark - but in the Witcher takes a far bleaker approach to "human" nature.
Retour en haut
