OP: It's a complete fallacy to say that you have to be a certain way in order to write a certain way - by that logic, no male writer could ever create a "realistic" female protagonist (and vice versa). What you need is talent and an open mind, and some people have more of that than others.
@Tanthalas and @Alderon: Zevran is very similar to Jack from "Mass Effect 2" - if all you see is the easy lay, you're doing it wrong. If you pursue a relationship with him, you find out that all the flirting and innuendo is a smokescreen for something much deeper; it's a very interesting contrast to Alistair or Leliana, who wear their hearts on their sleeves.
As for the idea that romances are "taking over" RPGs: let's not forget that romances are optional. I've never played a Western RPG that forced you to choose a love interest - but if you are given that choice, you should be able to be with whoever you want to be with, since the game world conforms to your decisions anyway and none of us can (or should) impose the canon we create on other players.
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud: It's not "Everyone Is Bisexual", it's "Schrodinger's Sexuality" - the party member you're romancing will always be of the orientation that's compatible with yours, for your specific playthrough. And I honestly think that's the best approach to take, because it allows for so much more player representation within the game - if some guy wants to get down with Fenris because he's into the whole "white-haired pretty boy" look, who are we to say he can't? In that specific world, Fenris is gay; in mine, he isn't. Who cares?
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud: It's not "Everyone Is Bisexual", it's "Schrodinger's Sexuality" - the party member you're romancing will always be of the orientation that's compatible with yours, for your specific playthrough.
That's BioWare argument and, quite frankly, its stupid. Is it player knowledge that leads me to believe that everyone in the world is bisexual? Yes. But it isn't player knowledge that leads me to see that every companion that every protagonist I ever become is AMAZINGLY compatible to my avatar's implied godly looks.
Regardless, the world is much less believable when the world conspires to satisfy everyone's fetish. Even less when the first game in one of the discussed series (DA:O) didn't resort to that tactic and, indeed, inserted adequare choice/consequence of your character's sex.
And lastly, I think characters should be more than 'I'd like to bed X stereotype' and I also think that sexual orientation is a big part of characterization. Not that choosing wether X is gay or not is such a big decision, but rather that X's sexual orientation should somehow be relatable to who X really is and not wether the player wants to shag X on the virtual world.
My problem with Zevran isn't the romance itself, its how the male romance option is presented. I don't ever remember Leliana going "...and I can do women too if you're in to that" while Zevran uses similar lines several times in his dialogue to make it clear to the player that he's the male gay option.
Zevran would have a place as a minor npc, as a member of the party he is only filling space for a decent npc. As I said already, romances are extras and should be hidden in game and hard to get right.
Whoa, whoa, hold on. Zevran is my ruthless save-Fereldan-at-all-cost Human Noble's personal assassin and sidekick. I don't think I'd have enjoyed DAO as much without him as my quick-witted lackey. Also, his stories of basically being the worst but luckiest assassin ever were hilarious.
As for the idea that romances are "taking over" RPGs: let's not forget that romances are optional. I've never played a Western RPG that forced you to choose a love interest - but if you are given that choice, you should be able to be with whoever you want to be with, since the game world conforms to your decisions anyway and none of us can (or should) impose the canon we create on other players.
Sorry I'm not disagreeing with you, just want to add a point. If these games were in other media, movies\television, they would be fantasy\scifi action adventure. How many of these movies&tv shows do we see the Protagonist 'save the day and get the girl'? Most of them. It's only natural that whey would start to pop up more often in Video games as a natural extention of that.
My problem with Zevran isn't the romance itself, its how the male romance option is presented. I don't ever remember Leliana going "...and I can do women too if you're in to that" while Zevran uses similar lines several times in his dialogue to make it clear to the player that he's the male gay option.
Well, she was a nun, after all.
But her "coming out" moment is clear as day when you meet Marjolaine - if you talk to her afterwards, she never hides the fact that they were involved back in Orlais.
My problem with Zevran isn't the romance itself, its how the male romance option is presented. I don't ever remember Leliana going "...and I can do women too if you're in to that" while Zevran uses similar lines several times in his dialogue to make it clear to the player that he's the male gay option.
Don't really agree, like @shawne pointed it I think it's more like how he hides his feelings. He could be straight and have the same kind of discourse. I'm not sure to be clear but in my opinion, Zevran talks like this because he's "smokescreening", not because he's the gay option....
That's BioWare argument and, quite frankly, its stupid. Is it player knowledge that leads me to believe that everyone in the world is bisexual? Yes. But it isn't player knowledge that leads me to see that every companion that every protagonist I ever become is AMAZINGLY compatible to my avatar's implied godly looks.
Two things: first of all, you can't romance every NPC simultaneously, so that's never an issue. There's always a point where the romance is "locked in", at which point the sexuality of your other party members is a non-issue for you.
Secondly, NPC romances take time. And even the ones that trigger sooner rather than later still have you talking to the NPC and spending enough time with them that they could conceivably be attracted to you regardless of what your appearance.
Regardless, the world is much less believable when the world conspires to satisfy everyone's fetish. Even less when the first game in one of the discussed series (DA:O) didn't resort to that tactic and, indeed, inserted adequare choice/consequence of your character's sex.
You see it as fetish, I see it as fairness of representation. In a game where you can design so many facets of your character's physicality and mindset, you should have the freedom to choose the relationship you want to choose rather than settle for arbitrary restrictions that don't even make any sense (if anything, you'd think Morrigan would be more open to a female relationship than Leliana the former nun).
And the fact of the matter is that when you're playing the game, you're ignorant of other player's choices unless you're asking them about it or watching it on Youtube. So my ability to romance Merrill as a man has zero impact on your ability to romance Merrill as a woman, or vice-versa.
In other words, it's player knowledge that's giving you awareness of this "problem" at all - if your character is romancing Fenris, he or she won't be wondering which way Anders swings and it doesn't become something for you to solve either.
And lastly, I think characters should be more than 'I'd like to bed X stereotype' and I also think that sexual orientation is a big part of characterization. Not that choosing wether X is gay or not is such a big decision, but rather that X's sexual orientation should somehow be relatable to who X really is and not wether the player wants to shag X on the virtual world.
I don't really understand what you're saying here. The sexual orientation of your PC is irrelevant for every aspect of the game besides romance - which, as you've already said, is optional to begin with. And the only reason sexuality would be a topic of discussion at all in the context of the story you're experiencing is if you were hitting on a character who wasn't "designed" to be compatible with your gender. But the fact that you're flirting means you want your character to have that relationship - what do you gain by losing out on that aspect of the story because you're the "wrong" gender?
My problem with bisexual characters is that I enjoy exploring many of the dialogue options but I do not google characters beforehand. Mass Effect 2/3 and DA:O made me a mean mofo to most male characters due to accidentally romancing zevran and the only way to undo it was to turn him down and loose a whole bunch of loyalty.
RPG romance = any little nice word means trying to get into pants for romancable characters. Now if rpgs had expanded romancing dialogue so you can follow a romance dialogue chain instead of it being muddled in with regular dialogue. Especially when dialogue choices do not actually reflect what your character says leading to *facepalm* when "I'm happy to have you in my party" leads to character proclaiming his love.
I'm for making romance in rpgs to be either alot more subtle or alot less. To either have it develop that i might not even know it's happening(ala BG2) or with huge blinking hearts over romance dialogue.
I'm sorry, but you can't learn a sexual orientation, it's not like wanting to write about a doctor and going to a hospital for a couple of weeks for research. You can write objectively about a romance regardless of sexual orientation, but you can't understand what is attractive about a person in the same way - there is a completely different mindset, ESPECIALLY if you are writing it for your own gratification.
And that is what I mean when I say it is obvious when this is not the case - every gay character in every single bioware game have obviously been written for the gratification of a straight author (whether male or female). It's probably not impossible to do right, but it is glaring obvious when it is done wrong, which so far has been every single time
Sorry I'm not disagreeing with you, just want to add a point. If these games were in other media, movies\television, they would be fantasy\scifi action adventure. How many of these movies&tv shows do we see the Protagonist 'save the day and get the girl'? Most of them. It's only natural that whey would start to pop up more often in Video games as a natural extention of that.
Well, that's actually part of why I play the way I play: in other media, the male protagonist does indeed "save the day and get the girl" - almost exclusively so. Video games are one of the few narrative channels where you can add a bit of diversity so that my black female Hawke can save Kirkwall in time to get back to her white elf girlfriend.
Wether the game arbitrarily limits you from hitting on other companions (Gameplay and Story Segregation - which is bad) or the relationship can evolve into something deeper than appearances doesn't change the fact that Dragon Age II companions are all characterized in a way that they are all coincidentially infatuated by you no matter your sex or, in case of Origins, race.
'You see it as fetish, I see it as fairness of representation.'
I understand that fetish is too strong a word, substitute for 'taste', if you will. And again, pleasing everyone's taste on the body of a fantastical suitor should not be a primary task of the writers. Creating a belieavable world, where some people may like you and others not, should be.
'In a game where you can design so many facets of your character's physicality and mindset, you should have the freedom to choose the relationship you want to choose rather than settle for arbitrary restrictions that don't even make any sense'
A game where you can design so many facets of your character's physicality (Choice) should also imprint some meaning to that design (Consequence).
Now: which of the below adequately gives meaning to your character's design?
Choosing to be a male should, naturally, lock you out of some people's romantic desirability (True Consequence).
Choosing to be a male and, consequentially, a reality where everyone who gets really close to you is of the convenient sexual orientation so that your 'taste' of men/women isn't limited (False Consequence or, as I like to call it, Every Consequence To Avoid Someone Being Inconvenienced).
Believe it or not, some people being heterosexuals and some people being homosexuals do make sense. Everyone you meet being of the convenient sexuality as to please the player is a arbitrary decision.
'(if anything, you'd think Morrigan would be more open to a female relationship than Leliana the former nun)'
Leliana wasn't a nun. Morrigan, evidently, was not more open to female relationship, no matter what your preconceptions about her character might still be.
'And the fact of the matter is that when you're playing the game, you're ignorant of other player's choices unless you're asking them about it or watching it on Youtube. So my ability to romance Merrill as a man has zero impact on your ability to romance Merrill as a woman, or vice-versa.
In other words, it's player knowledge that's giving you awareness of this "problem" at all - if your character is romancing Fenris, he or she won't be wondering which way Anders swings and it doesn't become something for you to solve either. '
So you're saying that if you're ignorant of the fact that the game conveniently characterizes every love interest to favour the player, then there's no problem of immersion? I agree.
Now, how many people are ignorant of that fact again?
'The sexual orientation of your PC is irrelevant for every aspect of the game besides romance'
That's not even true.
'And the only reason sexuality would be a topic of discussion at all in the context of the story you're experiencing is if you were hitting on a character who wasn't "designed" to be compatible with your gender.'
That or if the game didn't give you the freedom to hit on whatever companion you want to. Morrigan was a point of contention in your game because you wanted to romance her but her writer didn't envision a homosexual character.
'But the fact that you're flirting means you want your character to have that relationship - what do you gain by losing out on that aspect of the story because you're the "wrong" gender? '
I gain a better written game that allows freedom without allowing you to override or conveniently change every rule of the setting.
My problem with bisexual characters is that I enjoy exploring many of the dialogue options but I do not google characters beforehand. Mass Effect 2/3 and DA:O made me a mean mofo to most male characters due to accidentally romancing zevran and the only way to undo it was to turn him down and loose a whole bunch of loyalty.
RPG romance = any little nice word means trying to get into pants for romancable characters. Now if rpgs had expanded romancing dialogue so you can follow a romance dialogue chain instead of it being muddled in with regular dialogue. Especially when dialogue choices do not actually reflect what your character says leading to *facepalm* when "I'm happy to have you in my party" leads to character proclaiming his love.
I'm for making romance in rpgs to be either alot more subtle or alot less. To either have it develop that i might not even know it's happening(ala BG2) or with huge blinking hearts over romance dialogue.
Except that's not how it works. It's very possible to be nice or be a good soundboard to these characters without romance ever being an issue. I explored the friendship tracks of both Zevran in DA:O and Steve Cortez in ME3 without them being in love with me. At one point Zevran did say my male PC was attractive, but my initially naive human noble was able to brush him off by having no idea what he was talking about. PC: "Uh, thanks Zevran, but I'm a dude." Z: "Yes, well, dudes can hook up with other dudes." PC: "What? Nooo. Don't be silly."
Friendship then continued as normal and we were best bros.
On the other hand, Steve never even mentioned the idea of hooking up with my male Shepard.
I agree with @Aliteri on this subject. You could just as well play a dating sim where sexuality is more a choice of the player. But this concept simply doesn't work for settings like Dragon Age and Bioware's usually nicely fleshed out characters. To me the bisexual characters in DA 2 seem very shallow in that aspect and it's also the cheap way out. Why not just accept the fact that you can't romance Morrigan? Her personality doesn't even fit openmindedness about sex, as much as her way of clothing might contradict that. This is shown in the fact that she sees having sex with either Alistair or Loghain as rather a job she needs to take care of. I mean, she seems rather reserved about the subject. As I pointed out earlier, it's the player who absolutely wants to romance that character, and thereby showing disrespect for the character's personality and choice of sexual orientation. I'm deliberately leaving out the writer in the process of character creation here, as he/she only represents the character for who he/she is, namely a possibly interesting companion for the player character.
Wether the game arbitrarily limits you from hitting on other companions (Gameplay and Story Segregation - which is bad) or the relationship can evolve into something deeper than appearances doesn't change the fact that Dragon Age II companions are all characterized in a way that they are all coincidentially infatuated by you no matter your sex or, in case of Origins, race.
Wrong. You're only aware of the infatuation of a specific character if you are actively flirting with this character. Sebastian won't barge into your house after you sleep with Merrill and scream at you for not choosing him. Once a romance is locked in, no other character will express infatuation with you or offer themselves as an alternative romantic prospect.
I understand that fetish is too strong a word, substitute for 'taste', if you will. And again, pleasing everyone's taste on the body of a fantastical suitor should not be a primary task of the writers. Creating a belieavable world, where some people may like you and others not, should be.
Taste, fetish, it doesn't change the fact that this is about representation. It's about giving a specific minority access to a kind of story in which they can represent themselves more fully, at no cost to players like you who wouldn't be interested in that.
A game where you can design so many facets of your character's physicality (Choice) should also imprint some meaning to that design (Consequence).
Agreed, but you're misreading what the Choice and the Consequence actually are. You think that the choice of gender should affect the available romantic options; in reality, it is the choice of love interest that results in blocking that level of access to other characters. You can't have a romance storyline with more than one character in "Dragon Age 2" - the choice you make is who you want, not who you can have based on the gender you chose, and the consequence is having all alternative paths closed off to you until you replay the game.
Believe it or not, some people being heterosexuals and some people being homosexuals do make sense. Everyone you meet being of the convenient sexuality as to please the player is a arbitrary decision.
Maybe so, but "Dragon Age 2" doesn't do that. Exactly one character's sexuality conforms to yours in any given playthrough - the orientation of the rest of your party is irrelevant.
So you're saying that if you're ignorant of the fact that the game conveniently characterizes every love interest to favour the player, then there's no problem of immersion? I agree.
Now, how many people are ignorant of that fact again?
No, I'm saying that your story can't be compromised by other people's stories, and they have as much right to theirs as you do to yours.
Name one instance in any BioWare game in which your character's sexual orientation is a component of a story event that is not part of the romance plot. Just one. I'll wait.
That or if the game didn't give you the freedom to hit on whatever companion you want to. Morrigan was a point of contention in your game because you wanted to romance her but her writer didn't envision a homosexual character.
A fault they corrected in "Dragon Age 2" and "Mass Effect 3", because they correctly realized that arbitrarily forcing certain configurations on players due to lack of imagination doesn't actually make the story any better.
I gain a better written game that allows freedom without allowing you to override or conveniently change every rule of the setting.
I think you're attributing a bit too much importance to this: romance is an optional component, with minimal gameplay relevance. If you're giving the player the option to choose a character to pursue romantically, it should be the character the player actually wants.
To me the bisexual characters in DA 2 seem very shallow in that aspect and it's also the cheap way out. Why not just accept the fact that you can't romance Morrigan?
Because romance isn't a mandatory part of the game. There are four potential love interests with four distinct personalities - I should be able to choose the character who's most compatible with my PC's personality, not gender.
Her personality doesn't even fit openmindedness about sex, as much as her way of clothing might contradict that. This is shown in the fact that she sees having sex with either Alistair or Loghain as rather a job she needs to take care of.
She'll also kiss the Warden if her approval is at a measly +20, the lowest of any romance option, and you can sleep with her before you even reach Lothering. The game reads this as part of the romance track, since your next dialogue will have her fighting her feelings for you. She finds the prospect of sex with Alistair or Loghain distasteful because she hates them both.
As I pointed out earlier, it's the player who absolutely wants to romance that character, and thereby showing disrespect for the character's personality and choice of sexual orientation.
You've got it backwards: if some players can pursue a love interest that other players can't, that's disrespect to the player, not the (fictional!) character.
'Wrong. You're only aware of the infatuation of a specific character if you are actively flirting with this character. Sebastian won't barge into your house after you sleep with Merrill and scream at you for not choosing him. Once a romance is locked in, no other character will express infatuation with you or offer themselves as an alternative romantic prospect.'
Anders. Isabella. Zevran. 3 characters that will express their infatutation no matter what. Wether you choose to pursue that or not doesn't change the fact that everyone is conveniently avaiable. That everyone's sex is merely cosmetic and their sexual orientation (with the exception of Prince DLC) are of mere cardboard cutouts.
'Taste, fetish, it doesn't change the fact that this is about representation. It's about giving a specific minority access to a kind of story in which they can represent themselves more fully, at no cost to players like you who wouldn't be interested in that.'
Cut the populist argument. This isn't about minorities and has never been.
Indeed, Dragon Age Origins provides half of possible love interests to minorities.
' it is the choice of love interest that results in blocking that level of access to other characters. ' In this respect, the game mechanics and the story are segregated because nothing should impede you from expressing love or attraction to anyone else. This is a arbitrary limitation that has no bearing on the story and doesn't change the fact that, on the beginning, everyone is conveniently avaiable to you no matter who you are.
'Maybe so, but "Dragon Age 2" doesn't do that. Exactly one character's sexuality conforms to yours in any given playthrough - the orientation of the rest of your party is irrelevant. '
Everyone is avaiable as a possible suitor from the get go no matter who or what you are.
'No, I'm saying that your story can't be compromised by other people's stories, and they have as much right to theirs as you do to yours. '
I'm taking no more than one person into consideration when I say that everyone being avaiable as a suitor from the get go diminishes the credibility of the setting, especially when compared to the more believable LI arrangement from Origins.
'Name one instance in any BioWare game in which your character's sexual orientation is a component of a story event that is not part of the romance plot. Just one. I'll wait. '
Wow that's easy.
My character is a heterosexual woman who won't hit on Leliana. Done.
'A fault they corrected in "Dragon Age 2" and "Mass Effect 3", because they correctly realized that arbitrarily forcing certain configurations on players due to lack of imagination doesn't actually make the story any better. '
'I think you're attributing a bit too much importance to this: romance is an optional component, with minimal gameplay relevance. If you're giving the player the option to choose a character to pursue romantically, it should be the character the player actually wants. '
Really, you don't have to answer anything else just this:
You claim that whatever the player wants should be the norm, and that, indeed, any silly 'limitation' is due to the lack of imagination. My only question is.... can this principle be applied to every spectrum and facet of game storytelling and design?
Anders. Isabella. Zevran. 3 characters that will express their infatutation no matter what. Wether you choose to pursue that or not doesn't change the fact that everyone is conveniently avaiable.
Merrill, Fenris, Leliana: three characters who won't express any interest in you unless you flirt with them first. And regardless of that, the point is that you're misrepresenting the way the romance plays out. "Everyone is conveniently available" only in the sense that whoever you choose as your love interest will be receptive to you, but once you make that choice, none of the other characters are available to you anymore. So it's not that "everyone is conveniently available", it's that the romance you want to pursue is available.
Cut the populist argument. This isn't about minorities and has never been.
Indeed, Dragon Age Origins provides half of possible love interests to minorities.
Wrong on both counts. Go read David Gaider's statements on this issue: romance in DA2 was specifically designed to be inclusive because there was no real reason to do otherwise.
And "Dragon Age: Origins" provides one love interest to minorities: it's Zevran for the guys and Leliana for the girls. Meanwhile, heterosexual relationships allow a choice between a "good" character (Alistair/Leliana) and an "evil" character (Morrigan/Zevran). That's what's missing from DAO and what DA2 has - the ability to match your character's alignment/personality to the person you want to pursue.
This is a arbitrary limitation that has no bearing on the story and doesn't change the fact that, on the beginning, everyone is conveniently available to you no matter who you are.
You can repeat that until the forum crashes, it won't make it any less false. You don't have the ability to sleep with Anders and then decide you'd rather be with Merrill instead because you don't swing that way anymore. Once a romance is activated, the specific character you've chosen is compatible with you - this has no impact on any other character in the game.
My character is a heterosexual woman who won't hit on Leliana. Done.
Nope. Let me repeat that: "'Name one instance in any BioWare game in which your character's sexual orientation is a component of a story event that is not part of the romance plot."
You claim that whatever the player wants should be the norm, and that, indeed, any silly 'limitation' is due to the lack of imagination. My only question is.... can this principle be applied to every spectrum and facet of game storytelling and design?
Of course not. But to break this down into its simplest components:
1. Romance is optional for any character and you can complete the story just fine without romancing anyone.
2. Characters can choose between several potential love interests.
3. Players don't have any gameplay-related reason to prefer one love interest over another.
4. Therefore, players will choose to romance characters who appeal to them or their characters.
5. Since romance is optional, and multiple options are available, players should be able to romance whomever they choose. Restricting characters based on gender/orientation has no inherent justification other than the fact that it might make some narrow-minded players squeamish, but since they'd only see that content if they went out and looked for it, that's entirely their problem.
npcs should have a well defined personality that is independent from whoever is playing the game.
Agreed, but a distinction can be made between one's personality and who they like to have sex with. "Rebellious mage possessed by a spirit of vengeance" is a descriptor that does not bother with who Anders enjoys boinking.
@Razor: Agreed, but anyone who believes Anders, Fenris and the rest of the DA2 party lacked distinctive personalities clearly didn't get very far in the game. Even if you think romancing a character somehow makes them... less independent? That's only true of one character per playthrough.
'"Everyone is conveniently available" only in the sense that whoever you choose as your love interest will be receptive to you, but once you make that choice, none of the other characters are available to you anymore. So it's not that "everyone is conveniently available", it's that the romance you want to pursue is available. '
They were still avaiable at the beginnning no matter your choice or any intelligent characterization the writers wish to give their characters. At the beginning, everyone is a cardboard cutout that is attracted to you. Just because you chose someone else and the game arbitrarily removed the 'flirt' options doesn't mean this characterization changed - you said it yourself.
'Merrill, Fenris, Leliana: three characters who won't express any interest in you unless you flirt with them first.'
Good for those characters. Doesn't change the ones I listed.
'Or maybe it's just not that big of an issue who your PC chooses to sleep with?'
So you concede my point? Its just not a big issue? Let's agree to disagree on that.
'Wrong on both counts. Go read David Gaider's statements on this issue: romance in DA2 was specifically designed to be inclusive because there was no real reason to do otherwise.'
And I already said my problem isn't because the romances include the minorities - given that DA:O already did that.
'And "Dragon Age: Origins" provides one love interest to minorities: it's Zevran for the guys and Leliana for the girls.'
Is that not inclusive? Well, if more options are sorely needed then what about 'let's add more options' instead of 'let's make everyone conveniently attracted to the protagonist on the beginning no matter the choice of sex?'.
'You don't have the ability to sleep with Anders and then decide you'd rather be with Merrill instead because you don't swing that way anymore. Once a romance is activated, the specific character you've chosen is compatible with you - this has no impact on any other character in the game. '
Because the game doesn't give you the option to flirt with Merril after Anders doesn't make your character physically or morally unable to do so. And just because you can't later find out if Merril would stay with you doesn't change the fact that Anders, Merril and everyone else were all avaiable to you at the beginning because they were written as to find you attractive no matter what.
Just because the game doesn't give you the option to flirt with Morrigan as a female doesn't mean Morrigan's sexuality exists as the Schrodiger's Cat. She's straight no matter if you can't find it out.
You said it yourself on the other thread: 'just because my male Warden went for Leliana and stayed friends with Morrigan doesn't change her character' - be it her sexual orientation or the fact that she the male warden attractive no matter what.
'Nope. Let me repeat that: "'Name one instance in any BioWare game in which your character's sexual orientation is a component of a story event that is not part of the romance plot." '
So easy. My character is a female heterosexual and I won't pick women at the Pearl (brothel).
'Of course not. But to break this down into its simplest components:'
So its not a principle of game design or storytelling, its just a sacrifice of characterization so that no one (be them gay or straight) doesn't find out the companions (and the game) don't fully revolve around their base wishes?
I didn't like that trade, that is all. I think its perfectly normal that the hero doesn't get the girl, so I don't think everyone should turn into trophy wives.
Agreed, but a distinction can be made between one's personality and who they like to have sex with. "Rebellious mage possessed by a spirit of vengeance" is a descriptor that does not bother with who Anders enjoys boinking.
I mean... some npcs may just not be gay, it may be against their beliefs, culture, god...
Well, it's not a choice so that won't be the reason why some of them aren't gay...though they could be repressed/closeted. Some of them just would(n't) be because they naturally are(n't), simple as that.
I mean... some npcs may just not be gay, it may be against their beliefs, culture, god...
Indeed, when I say that orientation is a big part of characterization, I don't mean that David Gaider will ponder for a month wether disgruntled mage A should be into boys or girls. But rather that in some instances, the character's history might just dictate that.
If you're focused on pleasing the player no matter what, you end up with many problems and inconsistencies in many departments. In here, you have the tradeoff of providing the maximum of love interests at dropped costs by sacrificing the writer's power over the story.
And, indeed, the sacrifice of the writer's power in order to provide wider player expression is a staple of the Western RPG genre. It has been done in much more important aspects of game design but not without its inconsistencies and issues - it hasn't been done in every aspect for a reason.
In this case, I don't think the tradeoff is worth it: it is too much of a coincidence that everyone on my party has a sexual orientation that fits my protagonist (because they do, wether I can follow every choice at once doesn't change the fact that every choice at one point existed and, therefore, imply something about the gameworld). Furthermore, its a inconsistency with the first game and it hurts characterization in ways that I don't like.
They were still avaiable at the beginnning no matter your choice or any intelligent characterization the writers wish to give their characters. At the beginning, everyone is a cardboard cutout that is attracted to you. Just because you chose someone else and the game arbitrarily removed the 'flirt' options doesn't mean this characterization changed - you said it yourself.
Wrong, and here's why: you can play through Dragon Age 2 without romancing anyone. At most, Isabela and Anders may toss a flirtatious line your way depending on how you talk to them, but most of your party will not express attraction to you unless you make the first move. As I've said, it's Schrodinger's Sexuality: confirm one possibility and all others become irrelevant for that specific playthrough.
So you concede my point? Its just not a big issue? Let's agree to disagree on that.
Now you're just talking in circles: this whole debate was prompted by you claiming that having "everyone wanting to sleep with you" damages the credibility of the game world in some ill-explained way. You seem to think it matters that Hawke can succeed at romancing a specific character regardless of gender, I think every player should keep their eyes on their own PC and pursue whoever they want to pursue.
Is that not inclusive? Well, if more options are sorely needed then what about 'let's add more options' instead of 'let's make everyone conveniently attracted to the protagonist on the beginning no matter the choice of sex?'.
You do realize that these are exactly the same thing? If there are six party members, "adding more options" means making those six available to either gender, as opposed to... what are you even proposing here? Adding new party members just as alternates to optional romantic subplots? Really?
Because the game doesn't give you the option to flirt with Merril after Anders doesn't make your character physically or morally unable to do so. And just because you can't later find out if Merril would stay with you doesn't change the fact that Anders, Merril and everyone else were all avaiable to you at the beginning because they were written as to find you attractive no matter what.
That's player knowledge. Within the context of a specific game, you have no way of knowing who does or does not find you attractive - your love interest will reciprocate your feelings, and that's all.
Just because the game doesn't give you the option to flirt with Morrigan as a female doesn't mean Morrigan's sexuality exists as the Schrodiger's Cat. She's straight no matter if you can't find it out.
And I view that as a failure of imagination. The DA2 format is ideal in my eyes because it doesn't exclude any version of the protagonist regardless of gender, orientation or alignment - your PC engages in a romance with the character you feel is best suited for them.
You said it yourself on the other thread: 'just because my male Warden went for Leliana and stayed friends with Morrigan doesn't change her character' - be it her sexual orientation or the fact that she the male warden attractive no matter what.
You're conflating her character arc with her romance arc when the former exists independently of the latter. If the male Warden doesn't flirt with her, she will not express romantic inclinations towards him.
So its not a principle of game design or storytelling, its just a sacrifice of characterization so that no one (be them gay or straight) doesn't find out the companions (and the game) don't fully revolve around their base wishes?
I didn't like that trade, that is all. I think its perfectly normal that the hero doesn't get the girl, so I don't think everyone should turn into trophy wives.
Only someone speaking from a narrow-minded perspective would see inclusion as "a sacrifice of characterization" in a game genre where characterization is at least partly informed by player choice. You don't like the story, don't play out that story - but you don't have a leg to stand on in saying others shouldn't have that option just because it's not what you would choose.
exactly Aliteri, I think you put it very nicely. even if it's not a choice, it does help defining a personality. For example I'am curious about how they are going to have a brute half orc as a romance option, for both man and woman... imo a half orc would faster rape than romance
Comments
OP: It's a complete fallacy to say that you have to be a certain way in order to write a certain way - by that logic, no male writer could ever create a "realistic" female protagonist (and vice versa). What you need is talent and an open mind, and some people have more of that than others.
@Tanthalas and @Alderon: Zevran is very similar to Jack from "Mass Effect 2" - if all you see is the easy lay, you're doing it wrong.
As for the idea that romances are "taking over" RPGs: let's not forget that romances are optional. I've never played a Western RPG that forced you to choose a love interest - but if you are given that choice, you should be able to be with whoever you want to be with, since the game world conforms to your decisions anyway and none of us can (or should) impose the canon we create on other players.
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud: It's not "Everyone Is Bisexual", it's "Schrodinger's Sexuality" - the party member you're romancing will always be of the orientation that's compatible with yours, for your specific playthrough. And I honestly think that's the best approach to take, because it allows for so much more player representation within the game - if some guy wants to get down with Fenris because he's into the whole "white-haired pretty boy" look, who are we to say he can't? In that specific world, Fenris is gay; in mine, he isn't. Who cares?
Regardless, the world is much less believable when the world conspires to satisfy everyone's fetish. Even less when the first game in one of the discussed series (DA:O) didn't resort to that tactic and, indeed, inserted adequare choice/consequence of your character's sex.
And lastly, I think characters should be more than 'I'd like to bed X stereotype' and I also think that sexual orientation is a big part of characterization. Not that choosing wether X is gay or not is such a big decision, but rather that X's sexual orientation should somehow be relatable to who X really is and not wether the player wants to shag X on the virtual world.
My problem with Zevran isn't the romance itself, its how the male romance option is presented. I don't ever remember Leliana going "...and I can do women too if you're in to that" while Zevran uses similar lines several times in his dialogue to make it clear to the player that he's the male gay option.
But her "coming out" moment is clear as day when you meet Marjolaine - if you talk to her afterwards, she never hides the fact that they were involved back in Orlais.
Secondly, NPC romances take time. And even the ones that trigger sooner rather than later still have you talking to the NPC and spending enough time with them that they could conceivably be attracted to you regardless of what your appearance. You see it as fetish, I see it as fairness of representation. In a game where you can design so many facets of your character's physicality and mindset, you should have the freedom to choose the relationship you want to choose rather than settle for arbitrary restrictions that don't even make any sense (if anything, you'd think Morrigan would be more open to a female relationship than Leliana the former nun).
And the fact of the matter is that when you're playing the game, you're ignorant of other player's choices unless you're asking them about it or watching it on Youtube. So my ability to romance Merrill as a man has zero impact on your ability to romance Merrill as a woman, or vice-versa.
In other words, it's player knowledge that's giving you awareness of this "problem" at all - if your character is romancing Fenris, he or she won't be wondering which way Anders swings and it doesn't become something for you to solve either. I don't really understand what you're saying here. The sexual orientation of your PC is irrelevant for every aspect of the game besides romance - which, as you've already said, is optional to begin with. And the only reason sexuality would be a topic of discussion at all in the context of the story you're experiencing is if you were hitting on a character who wasn't "designed" to be compatible with your gender. But the fact that you're flirting means you want your character to have that relationship - what do you gain by losing out on that aspect of the story because you're the "wrong" gender?
RPG romance = any little nice word means trying to get into pants for romancable characters. Now if rpgs had expanded romancing dialogue so you can follow a romance dialogue chain instead of it being muddled in with regular dialogue. Especially when dialogue choices do not actually reflect what your character says leading to *facepalm* when "I'm happy to have you in my party" leads to character proclaiming his love.
I'm for making romance in rpgs to be either alot more subtle or alot less. To either have it develop that i might not even know it's happening(ala BG2) or with huge blinking hearts over romance dialogue.
You can write objectively about a romance regardless of sexual orientation, but you can't understand what is attractive about a person in the same way - there is a completely different mindset, ESPECIALLY if you are writing it for your own gratification.
And that is what I mean when I say it is obvious when this is not the case - every gay character in every single bioware game have obviously been written for the gratification of a straight author (whether male or female).
It's probably not impossible to do right, but it is glaring obvious when it is done wrong, which so far has been every single time
Wether the game arbitrarily limits you from hitting on other companions (Gameplay and Story Segregation - which is bad) or the relationship can evolve into something deeper than appearances doesn't change the fact that Dragon Age II companions are all characterized in a way that they are all coincidentially infatuated by you no matter your sex or, in case of Origins, race.
'You see it as fetish, I see it as fairness of representation.'
I understand that fetish is too strong a word, substitute for 'taste', if you will. And again, pleasing everyone's taste on the body of a fantastical suitor should not be a primary task of the writers. Creating a belieavable world, where some people may like you and others not, should be.
'In a game where you can design so many facets of your character's physicality and mindset, you should have the freedom to choose the relationship you want to choose rather than settle for arbitrary restrictions that don't even make any sense'
A game where you can design so many facets of your character's physicality (Choice) should also imprint some meaning to that design (Consequence).
Now: which of the below adequately gives meaning to your character's design?
Choosing to be a male should, naturally, lock you out of some people's romantic desirability (True Consequence).
Choosing to be a male and, consequentially, a reality where everyone who gets really close to you is of the convenient sexual orientation so that your 'taste' of men/women isn't limited (False Consequence or, as I like to call it, Every Consequence To Avoid Someone Being Inconvenienced).
Believe it or not, some people being heterosexuals and some people being homosexuals do make sense. Everyone you meet being of the convenient sexuality as to please the player is a arbitrary decision.
'(if anything, you'd think Morrigan would be more open to a female relationship than Leliana the former nun)'
Leliana wasn't a nun. Morrigan, evidently, was not more open to female relationship, no matter what your preconceptions about her character might still be.
'And the fact of the matter is that when you're playing the game, you're ignorant of other player's choices unless you're asking them about it or watching it on Youtube. So my ability to romance Merrill as a man has zero impact on your ability to romance Merrill as a woman, or vice-versa.
In other words, it's player knowledge that's giving you awareness of this "problem" at all - if your character is romancing Fenris, he or she won't be wondering which way Anders swings and it doesn't become something for you to solve either. '
So you're saying that if you're ignorant of the fact that the game conveniently characterizes every love interest to favour the player, then there's no problem of immersion? I agree.
Now, how many people are ignorant of that fact again?
'The sexual orientation of your PC is irrelevant for every aspect of the game besides romance'
That's not even true.
'And the only reason sexuality would be a topic of discussion at all in the context of the story you're experiencing is if you were hitting on a character who wasn't "designed" to be compatible with your gender.'
That or if the game didn't give you the freedom to hit on whatever companion you want to. Morrigan was a point of contention in your game because you wanted to romance her but her writer didn't envision a homosexual character.
'But the fact that you're flirting means you want your character to have that relationship - what do you gain by losing out on that aspect of the story because you're the "wrong" gender? '
I gain a better written game that allows freedom without allowing you to override or conveniently change every rule of the setting.
Z: "Yes, well, dudes can hook up with other dudes."
PC: "What? Nooo. Don't be silly."
Friendship then continued as normal and we were best bros.
On the other hand, Steve never even mentioned the idea of hooking up with my male Shepard.
'Wrong. You're only aware of the infatuation of a specific character if you are actively flirting with this character. Sebastian won't barge into your house after you sleep with Merrill and scream at you for not choosing him. Once a romance is locked in, no other character will express infatuation with you or offer themselves as an alternative romantic prospect.'
Anders. Isabella. Zevran. 3 characters that will express their infatutation no matter what. Wether you choose to pursue that or not doesn't change the fact that everyone is conveniently avaiable. That everyone's sex is merely cosmetic and their sexual orientation (with the exception of Prince DLC) are of mere cardboard cutouts.
'Taste, fetish, it doesn't change the fact that this is about representation. It's about giving a specific minority access to a kind of story in which they can represent themselves more fully, at no cost to players like you who wouldn't be interested in that.'
Cut the populist argument. This isn't about minorities and has never been.
Indeed, Dragon Age Origins provides half of possible love interests to minorities.
' it is the choice of love interest that results in blocking that level of access to other characters. '
In this respect, the game mechanics and the story are segregated because nothing should impede you from expressing love or attraction to anyone else. This is a arbitrary limitation that has no bearing on the story and doesn't change the fact that, on the beginning, everyone is conveniently avaiable to you no matter who you are.
'Maybe so, but "Dragon Age 2" doesn't do that. Exactly one character's sexuality conforms to yours in any given playthrough - the orientation of the rest of your party is irrelevant. '
Everyone is avaiable as a possible suitor from the get go no matter who or what you are.
'No, I'm saying that your story can't be compromised by other people's stories, and they have as much right to theirs as you do to yours. '
I'm taking no more than one person into consideration when I say that everyone being avaiable as a suitor from the get go diminishes the credibility of the setting, especially when compared to the more believable LI arrangement from Origins.
'Name one instance in any BioWare game in which your character's sexual orientation is a component of a story event that is not part of the romance plot. Just one. I'll wait. '
Wow that's easy.
My character is a heterosexual woman who won't hit on Leliana. Done.
'A fault they corrected in "Dragon Age 2" and "Mass Effect 3", because they correctly realized that arbitrarily forcing certain configurations on players due to lack of imagination doesn't actually make the story any better. '
'I think you're attributing a bit too much importance to this: romance is an optional component, with minimal gameplay relevance. If you're giving the player the option to choose a character to pursue romantically, it should be the character the player actually wants. '
Really, you don't have to answer anything else just this:
You claim that whatever the player wants should be the norm, and that, indeed, any silly 'limitation' is due to the lack of imagination. My only question is.... can this principle be applied to every spectrum and facet of game storytelling and design?
And "Dragon Age: Origins" provides one love interest to minorities: it's Zevran for the guys and Leliana for the girls. Meanwhile, heterosexual relationships allow a choice between a "good" character (Alistair/Leliana) and an "evil" character (Morrigan/Zevran). That's what's missing from DAO and what DA2 has - the ability to match your character's alignment/personality to the person you want to pursue. You can repeat that until the forum crashes, it won't make it any less false. You don't have the ability to sleep with Anders and then decide you'd rather be with Merrill instead because you don't swing that way anymore. Once a romance is activated, the specific character you've chosen is compatible with you - this has no impact on any other character in the game. Nope. Let me repeat that: "'Name one instance in any BioWare game in which your character's sexual orientation is a component of a story event that is not part of the romance plot." Of course not. But to break this down into its simplest components:
1. Romance is optional for any character and you can complete the story just fine without romancing anyone.
2. Characters can choose between several potential love interests.
3. Players don't have any gameplay-related reason to prefer one love interest over another.
4. Therefore, players will choose to romance characters who appeal to them or their characters.
5. Since romance is optional, and multiple options are available, players should be able to romance whomever they choose. Restricting characters based on gender/orientation has no inherent justification other than the fact that it might make some narrow-minded players squeamish, but since they'd only see that content if they went out and looked for it, that's entirely their problem.
'"Everyone is conveniently available" only in the sense that whoever you choose as your love interest will be receptive to you, but once you make that choice, none of the other characters are available to you anymore. So it's not that "everyone is conveniently available", it's that the romance you want to pursue is available. '
They were still avaiable at the beginnning no matter your choice or any intelligent characterization the writers wish to give their characters. At the beginning, everyone is a cardboard cutout that is attracted to you. Just because you chose someone else and the game arbitrarily removed the 'flirt' options doesn't mean this characterization changed - you said it yourself.
'Merrill, Fenris, Leliana: three characters who won't express any interest in you unless you flirt with them first.'
Good for those characters. Doesn't change the ones I listed.
'Or maybe it's just not that big of an issue who your PC chooses to sleep with?'
So you concede my point? Its just not a big issue? Let's agree to disagree on that.
'Wrong on both counts. Go read David Gaider's statements on this issue: romance in DA2 was specifically designed to be inclusive because there was no real reason to do otherwise.'
And I already said my problem isn't because the romances include the minorities - given that DA:O already did that.
'And "Dragon Age: Origins" provides one love interest to minorities: it's Zevran for the guys and Leliana for the girls.'
Is that not inclusive? Well, if more options are sorely needed then what about 'let's add more options' instead of 'let's make everyone conveniently attracted to the protagonist on the beginning no matter the choice of sex?'.
'You don't have the ability to sleep with Anders and then decide you'd rather be with Merrill instead because you don't swing that way anymore. Once a romance is activated, the specific character you've chosen is compatible with you - this has no impact on any other character in the game. '
Because the game doesn't give you the option to flirt with Merril after Anders doesn't make your character physically or morally unable to do so. And just because you can't later find out if Merril would stay with you doesn't change the fact that Anders, Merril and everyone else were all avaiable to you at the beginning because they were written as to find you attractive no matter what.
Just because the game doesn't give you the option to flirt with Morrigan as a female doesn't mean Morrigan's sexuality exists as the Schrodiger's Cat. She's straight no matter if you can't find it out.
You said it yourself on the other thread: 'just because my male Warden went for Leliana and stayed friends with Morrigan doesn't change her character' - be it her sexual orientation or the fact that she the male warden attractive no matter what.
'Nope. Let me repeat that: "'Name one instance in any BioWare game in which your character's sexual orientation is a component of a story event that is not part of the romance plot." '
So easy. My character is a female heterosexual and I won't pick women at the Pearl (brothel).
'Of course not. But to break this down into its simplest components:'
So its not a principle of game design or storytelling, its just a sacrifice of characterization so that no one (be them gay or straight) doesn't find out the companions (and the game) don't fully revolve around their base wishes?
I didn't like that trade, that is all. I think its perfectly normal that the hero doesn't get the girl, so I don't think everyone should turn into trophy wives.
If you're focused on pleasing the player no matter what, you end up with many problems and inconsistencies in many departments. In here, you have the tradeoff of providing the maximum of love interests at dropped costs by sacrificing the writer's power over the story.
And, indeed, the sacrifice of the writer's power in order to provide wider player expression is a staple of the Western RPG genre. It has been done in much more important aspects of game design but not without its inconsistencies and issues - it hasn't been done in every aspect for a reason.
In this case, I don't think the tradeoff is worth it: it is too much of a coincidence that everyone on my party has a sexual orientation that fits my protagonist (because they do, wether I can follow every choice at once doesn't change the fact that every choice at one point existed and, therefore, imply something about the gameworld). Furthermore, its a inconsistency with the first game and it hurts characterization in ways that I don't like.
And I'm done.
even if it's not a choice, it does help defining a personality. For example I'am curious about how they are going to have a brute half orc as a romance option, for both man and woman... imo a half orc would faster rape than romance
"I like you but we wont work, I'm too dangerous and angsty and don't want to see you hurt"
"Bro I never even said I liked you...."
Anders rival +20