Or would you like a distinct character that knows he's bi and is shown through dialogue, maybe affecting how he views the world as well?
This. I've read that in DAO2 all romance options are bisexual and that way it feels more like 'yes, let's cater for everyone' instead of a character having a distinct personality. It doesn't have to be the same awkwardness we get here on earth because of abrahamistic religions' bigotry, but it does have to be written in a way that it's a believable part of his outlook of life. And an acknowledgement of a certain difference between the sexes, even if he likes them both. Generally speaking (of course it doesn't saying anything about a specific indivual, just the trend), girls behave differently among themselves then men among themselves do. And so my guess is (though I could be wrong), dating a male as a male or dating a female as a male, should have a different feel to it. And therefore, dialogue lines should differ wether charname is male or female, not just the same dialogue with just the pronouns swapped.
In my mind I'm already picturing Rasaad, I have a strong feeling it will be him who's bisexual.
Why does this debate have to devolve into segregating the community? This is after all a role playing game, and as such it is about playing roles, and the keys to immersion in the playing of a role is the breadth and depth of choices a player can make. This helps to create and define the characters we create. I get that people identify themselves through their characters, and often that ends up with people playing idealized versions of themselves. However there can be a great deal to be gained by trying out characters that are subtly or very different from who you are.
To detractors of gay romance, can't you simply see this an extra dimension of choice that can be chosen or ignored at your own discretion? Like it or not there is homosexuality in the real world, and there is no reason it should not be reflected in the choice based medium of role playing fiction. Let me make an appeal, to use roleplaying to illustrate my point, try playing a character as a member of a group that struggles with being discriminated against, like a city elf in Dragon Age. What does it feel like? Can you imagine being treated like that by society in the real world? Use role playing to expand your horizons. I'm not saying it should change your opinion on homosexuality, but it might broaden your perspective.
To supporters of same sex romance, please stop seeing seeing this as just a gay issue, the inclusion of options is massively beneficial to all of us as a community or dare I say it a family of gamers for the reasons I outlined above. I get you'd like to project into your characters, but just getting it added as a token afterthought, or making all characters bi just for simplicities sake, may feel like a victory, but it is a hollow one. I look ahead to the day, when all stories can come together and told as one rich narrative, with humor and with tragedy, with love and with loss, with light and with dark, and with all races, creeds, faiths, persuasions, orientations and genders all told with rich distinctive depth with none being dampened to make way for another. Trust me it is coming, and you'll love it!
@Samiel I think I can sum up where the vitriol comes from:
Most of the people who are against gay romance options in video games aren't opposed to the idea of gay romance in video games as a general concept, but rather to the idea that every video game has to enable every player to be gay or bisexual with every character in the game, which compromises the game's integrity. Dragon Age 2 is a fitting example because it doesn't seem that the writing is altered based on the character's sexual orientation (or the player's gender), which has the undesired effect of making the characters all feel static, as though the player's choices have less effect on the world and the story.
However, it's hard to suss out this difference. So what ends up happening on forums is that people get upset or offended by statements like "keep gay romance out of my game", when really what the person means is "keep badly written gay romance out of my game".
There's also a concern with some players that the "trigger" for starting a romance with a character might be so subtle that the player activates it by mistake, resulting in a gay or straight relationship where the player did not intend one. This undermines the player's ability to make choices, which in a video game that is supposedly a roleplaying game feels rather railroady.
@Samiel, partly of the reason is what @Aosaw said, but another part is a question of personal opinion, too.
This thread besides my initial worry of become a battle field, fullfiled an important role, that was to analyse the issue.
If you read the whole topic (what can take a long time), you gonna see that many kinds of arguments where used to justify gay relationships as well to justify the deny of those relationships.
For example, the fact that something that exist in the real world should be used in the game was highly refuted by people that defended gay content. That happened cos someone raised at the first pages (page 6+ more or less) that monks should be chaste and follow a strict moral code based on real life monks.
There are lots of good reasons for gay content exist in game (some that i start to agree after this thread) and there are lots of good reasons for gay content to not exist in the game, too, the fact that it exist in the real world is just not one of the good reasons.
In BG, taking the fact that's a game in which probally 90% of the customers have more than 25 years, gay content can be better explored, but a game that objective a 12 or 14 years customer for example could find some resistance as there are some conservative old fashioned families that would be openly hostile to this kind of content.
This is a Topic just a interresting as DRM & Steam. Just accept the way as it is. Whether you like it or not.
Who said he/she didn't like the topic? Your post is just below mine, but I don't see any link between what you saying and what I say. Who are you talking to? You might want to use the @someone symbol.
Well the fact that homosexuality exists in the forgotten realms universe is more than enough reason to let it become an option in-game. It has been said earlier in this very thread that it DOES in fact exist, and there's the winning mark.
@Samuel stating the case of proving the point, he's right, although that's been stated here as well. Homosexuality in a game should not be there as a placeholder. Yes, homosexuality should be addressed with facts, and truths; the only issue is that any "research" going out by either side is fundamentally flawed due to cultural limitations. In the United States at least, homosexuality is largely debated CONSTANTLY as a moral issue. I don't quite understand WHY, as there is no real argument against us that satisfies my personal curiosity as to that on going problem... But I'm deviating...
I do hope that the naysayers who have failed to win their case, as they will see with a new gay companion released by beamdog, will be able to bow out gracefully. I also hope that the companion in question is written well, not as a homosexual, but as a companion.
And as an aside, homosexual relationships aren't all that different from heterosexual ones in the case of social dynamics. WHY everyone seems to think they are is just ridiculous. Guys, all of you who are straight and kind of... Well, slow... Please stop treating us like we're aliens, we all grew up as humans, the ONLY difference we have from other human beings is who we think is cute. We drive the same way, we learn the same way, we shop, we eat, we dream the same ways.
And as an aside, homosexual relationships aren't all that different from heterosexual ones in the case of social dynamics. WHY everyone seems to think they are is just ridiculous. Guys, all of you who are straight and kind of... Well, slow... Please stop treating us like we're aliens, we all grew up as humans, the ONLY difference we have from other human beings is who we think is cute. We drive the same way, we learn the same way, we shop, we eat, we dream the same ways.
Well, my idea from gay (well, male gay) romance must be different, stems not from gays being alien, but from women feeling alien. Whenever I had a woman friend, or more, they always were the kind of woman that mostly felt more comfortable being with man. The tomboys who climbed in trees when they were young, the women that don't care much about make-up or gossiping. The more 'womanly' a woman is (caring about make-up, the way she looks, reading romantic novels, the 'archetypal' woman things), the more she feels alien.
Thus my idea that a romance between males would be different, from understanding each other better. To me, male friends feel more like people who just leave me be who I am and woman (especially when i was romantically involved with one) with people who had opinions about how I was and wanted to change me. That's very un-male in my experience.
Maybe that makes me sexist, but my experience is men and women are equally worthy (should be equal in opportunities for jobs, leading a company, or a church, or being head of state, whatever), but in the way they get intimate with friends and with their lovers, men and women feel different.
But than my gay friends tell me when I bring the issue up, gay romances (and courting) can be just as awkward as between a man and a woman.
Well, at least I'm glad I'm single, but that's also a reason I like experiencing what romances are written like in a game. I'd rather swim dry than in a wet river where you can drown.
@Son_of_Imoen I have to say that I am not a very womanly woman, but I do read romance novels (Especially the ones that cross over into erotica, like those by Emma Holly). But, other than that, I don't wear makeup. I do care at least somewhat about how I look, but I don't wear dresses or anything like that. Every woman is a continuum- a mix of traits that might be stereotypically "Male" and "Female". But at the end of the day, she's still a woman. This goes even for woman who are lesbian.
I've been wondering about what I've just wrote. It's not very sensitive. Having a cold and feeling miserable affects me as well as remembering past romances and friendships that went wrong makes me feel miserable.
The stupid thing is: the trait I characterized as 'womanly': to want to change your partner into what you think is best - I do the same thing to them when I'm in a romance with a woman. Only with friends I can let people be who they are. I found out a few years ago I just shouldn't be in a relationship and am far happier alone. Which makes a thread about romance a minefield for me, full of memories of conflict between sexual desire on the one hand and the need to be alone to take a break from a world that's far too taxing for my taste and my mental health condition on the other. And now my body isn't healthy as well. Damn.
Wow, that's a lot of pages of discussion for something that won't consist of more than 30 lines in the game. With all this time you've spent arguing, you guys could have written and published 3 gay romantic novel.
The attention this little detail get is completely disproportional to it's presence in the game.
What I personally don't like about the way a lot of "bisexual romances" are written is that, because the dialogue isn't changed based on your gender, you get weird instances like this:
NPC: "I just want to settle down with someone I love, in a little house, with a dog in the yard..." PC: "Yeah..." NPC: "Maybe a couple of kids..." PC: "Yeah... you mean like adopt?" NPC: "I know someone who runs an orphanage; why don't we go there and ask what it would take?" PC: "That sounds lovely."
Except that a lot of games don't do it like that. A lot of games do it like this:
NPC: "I just want to settle down with someone I love, in a little house, with a dog in the yard, maybe a couple of kids..." PC: "I like the sound of that. What do you say we get to work on that last bit?"
There are a few very important differences between a same-sex romance and an opposite-sex romance, and the biology of having children is one of them.
Didn't someone post a video earlier in this thread about one of the lesbian romances in Mass Effect? I may have misunderstood some of the dialogue, but that was what I got from it.
@Son_of_Imoen I have to say that I am not a very womanly woman, but I do read romance novels (Especially the ones that cross over into erotica, like those by Emma Holly). But, other than that, I don't wear makeup. I do care at least somewhat about how I look, but I don't wear dresses or anything like that. Every woman is a continuum- a mix of traits that might be stereotypically "Male" and "Female". But at the end of the day, she's still a woman. This goes even for woman who are lesbian.
I'm pretty similar trought me i wear make-up often and i don't read rommance novel, evem if i'm a bookish girl
@Son_of_Imoen It wasn't a slap at you, honestly. Just realize that gender roles aren't the same the world over. Stereotypical gender roles even more so.
I do recall that there was some talk about having children. Whether it was about actually birthing them, or about somehow acquiring them through a third party, wasn't super clear. And I'm not saying it ought to be.
But regardless, there are some things that are just different when it's a man and a woman versus two people of the same sex. Not better or worse, just different. Two men will never have to worry about getting pregnant. Two women will never fight about leaving the seat up on the toilet. Simple, logistical things that are often sidebarred when a writer or developer decides to leave gender open-ended.
I wrote a play. Great play. It was about two people in a relationship. I wrote it as a man and a woman, but when it came to the audition, I had these two awesome women show up, and I decided to cast them both. At first I thought that the script would work fine with no changes except to pronouns ("him" becomes "her", that kind of thing). But as the rehearsals went on, I realized that I had included some details and elements that, frankly, only made sense when one of them was a dude. I had to change those details.
My understanding of Dragon Age 2 (and Fable 3, now that I think about it) is that these changes are either never made, or the details never existed in the first place. In the first case, it's sloppy editing. In the second case, it's lazy writing. (In the case of Fable 3, it's both.)
I think that a same-sex romance can be really powerful in a video game, just as in any other medium. But like any other medium, it needs to be done well. More than that, it needs to be more compelling than a heterosexual romance, because there are some gamers that are going to be uncomfortable with the idea. You have to sell the concept on its merits, not on its political importance.
I hope that makes sense. The main character in the book I'm writing right now is bisexual, and the differences are--I hope--very much apparent, not because of the character's personality, but because of the social ramifications of having a non-heterosexual relationship (i.e. the King can't marry a man, because the King has to produce an heir).
If this discussion/debate had taken place 20+ years ago the religious argument would have been D&D was a form of witchcraft/idolatry, akin to wigi board, responsible for demon possession, and to be avoided at all cost.
I consider it a form of progress (of sorts) that the their sticking point has changed to homosexuality in the game, rather than the game itself.
Having grown up in the bible belt and within a religious family, thank goodness for those Forgotten Realms authors like Salvatore that challenged my biases with regards to race, sexuality and of course-the gods.
Hopefully in another 20 years this debate will sound as silly as the old objections.
If this discussion/debate had taken place 20+ years ago the religious argument would have been D&D was a form of witchcraft/idolatry, akin to wigi board, responsible for demon possession, and to be avoided at all cost.
I consider it a form of progress (of sorts) that the their sticking point has changed to homosexuality in the game, rather than the game itself.
Having grown up in the bible belt and within a religious family, thank goodness for those Forgotten Realms authors like Salvatore that challenged my biases with regards to race, sexuality and of course-the gods.
Hopefully in another 20 years this debate will sound as silly as the old objections.
Did you honestly read any of this thread? The only "religious" points in this thread were from me and Bjjorick, and we both aren't at a "sticking point" with homosexuality. Stop assuming that everyone who has an issue and says "no homosexuals in my game!" is saying it due to religious bias. It just isn't even in this thread.
I keep seeing posts like yours' where someone comes into the thread extremely late, apparently skimmed the thread, and makes big comments about some sort of "religious argument" that isn't even here. This thread was never backed in religion, and the only reason it came up at all was someone else making some sweeping assumption just like yours' and Bjjorick and I defending our non-homophobic, religious selves.
Now, if people are quite done having an open season on religion?
Yes I did, and I resent your knee-jerk and rude implication of laziness, carelessness and off topic troll mongering. Nor did I specifically accuse you, or anyone else, of being gay-bashing haters. But for you to say that, "The only "religious" points in this thread were from me and Bjjorick" and then say, "It just isn't even in this thread" seems a bit contradictory, to say the least. "This thread was never backed in religion". Is there any connection to those who disagree with with idea and hold religious beliefs? It would seem so. Sorry, but the "great ideas on both sides" is such a straw man argument it would put the Scarecrow from Oz to shame. If the debate is only about writing good gay romances in BGEE then there is no problem/no debate. But its about whether folks should even be represented at all in a world that already has these elements in its lore, that is THE problem.
I simply believe religion is always the elephant in the room and the root cause of these biases. You are welcome to disagree and engage in whatever mental and rhetorical gymnastics it takes to square your circle. Just don't be surprised when some folks don't buy it.
I think in this thread, "religion" is also interchangeable with "perceived religious bias". There's an awful lot of assuming that just because someone is religious that must mean they're homophobic, or that just because someone is homophobic that must mean they're religious--or that just because someone is opposed to the current crop of gay romances in video games, that must mean that they're homophobic and/or religious.
Sometimes it does. But I think in this thread, the concern for most people is less about whether homosexuality in general is wrong or unnatural, and more about whether it's being handled in a responsible manner in video games--and if it's not, what's to be done about it.
If this discussion/debate had taken place 20+ years ago the religious argument would have been D&D was a form of witchcraft/idolatry, akin to wigi board, responsible for demon possession, and to be avoided at all cost.
I consider it a form of progress (of sorts) that the their sticking point has changed to homosexuality in the game, rather than the game itself.
Having grown up in the bible belt and within a religious family, thank goodness for those Forgotten Realms authors like Salvatore that challenged my biases with regards to race, sexuality and of course-the gods.
Hopefully in another 20 years this debate will sound as silly as the old objections.
Did you honestly read any of this thread? The only "religious" points in this thread were from me and Bjjorick, and we both aren't at a "sticking point" with homosexuality. Stop assuming that everyone who has an issue and says "no homosexuals in my game!" is saying it due to religious bias. It just isn't even in this thread.
I keep seeing posts like yours' where someone comes into the thread extremely late, apparently skimmed the thread, and makes big comments about some sort of "religious argument" that isn't even here. This thread was never backed in religion, and the only reason it came up at all was someone else making some sweeping assumption just like yours' and Bjjorick and I defending our non-homophobic, religious selves.
Now, if people are quite done having an open season on religion?
@Quartz, to be fair, that bold part is true of almost every thread on every forum on the entire internet.
I simply believe religion is always the elephant in the room and the root cause of these biases. You are welcome to disagree and engage in whatever mental and rhetorical gymnastics it takes to square your circle. Just don't be surprised when some folks don't buy it.
I sure do appreciate stereotyping!
Yes, I know you won't buy it. Which is why we are done. You are just a bitter kid who "grew up in the Bible belt" and thus were legitimately exposed to some very blind faith, then when you hit your teenage rebellion phase you came to the conclusion that EVERY faith must be blind. Not worth arguing with you.
I think in this thread, "religion" is also interchangeable with "perceived religious bias". There's an awful lot of assuming that just because someone is religious that must mean they're homophobic, or that just because someone is homophobic that must mean they're religious--or that just because someone is opposed to the current crop of gay romances in video games, that must mean that they're homophobic and/or religious.
Sometimes it does. But I think in this thread, the concern for most people is less about whether homosexuality in general is wrong or unnatural, and more about whether it's being handled in a responsible manner in video games--and if it's not, what's to be done about it.
Really well said Aosaw. I completely agree ... err, obviously lol.
obviously the both sides have their strong opinions that are not in harmony, right? and therefore we're are all labeled as either "gay apologists" or "homophobes". if you ask me, those two word are just an excuse to act offended when you get frustrated or run out of arguments.
@aosaw this thread is not really about gay romance in the game and how good it will be written. that should be in ideal case. it is an argument about nature of homosexuality in most cases and various moral/social implications. at worst it is a flame fest with people being repulsively offensive, as seen in few posts when @quartz quoted them.
also, @quartz - you say you appreciate stereotyping and then you make a ton of assumptions/stereotypes about @Insert_Boo. why?
@quartz opinion against @Insert_Boo is probally because the last one equaled religion with stupid and a form of regression.
Literally, @Insert_Boo post wasn't offensive to the average person, but it can be to someone religious and it's a dangeours affirmative to be done.
First of all the behavior descibed by @Insert_Boo isn't a 20 years way of think, but an at least 100 years way of think.
Second, each culture has his limitations, they didn't had our technology in that time, neither the advancment of our knowledge, it's not our right to judge a culture that lived in conditions totally different than the ones that exist today, what we can do, is criticize someone that try to live today with the moral code of 100 years ago.
Third, @Insert_Boo left the idea that our discussion today is silly, and that's a tremendous fallacy, we discuss based on the moral standarts and with the knowledge of our life time, there's no good or bad when you compares the actual time with history, you can't define something right or wrong based on standarts of another age, this is absolutelly and ultmost stupid.
What i believe today, is that this kind of discussion, if don't become a pit fight, contributes to a better understandment, what is requested to evolve an idea. If in 20 years foward we will think different, no one can affirmate that, but if that happens we will see, evaluate and judge by different standarts and would not be fair to belittle the actual opinion made in an different context.
When you affirmate that the problem comes from religion you're just blaming the idea, the religious belief. The problem is not on religions but in the people that misunderstand or misuse it for own benefit. Democracy generate corrupt politics, do you blame Democracy for they existance, also?
also, @quartz - you say you appreciate stereotyping and then you make a ton of assumptions/stereotypes about @Insert_Boo. why?
It wasn't "a ton of assumptions/stereotypes," only one, but your point is an extremely valid one. Thank you, I will attempt to stay my wrath and avoid that next time.
@quartz opinion against @Insert_Boo is probally because the last one equaled religion with stupid and a form of regression.
Yes. This is *why* I did it, although I still don't think what I did was justified. I was pointing out that it was obvious why exactly @Insert_Boo was so hostile to religion.
Comments
In my mind I'm already picturing Rasaad, I have a strong feeling it will be him who's bisexual.
To detractors of gay romance, can't you simply see this an extra dimension of choice that can be chosen or ignored at your own discretion? Like it or not there is homosexuality in the real world, and there is no reason it should not be reflected in the choice based medium of role playing fiction. Let me make an appeal, to use roleplaying to illustrate my point, try playing a character as a member of a group that struggles with being discriminated against, like a city elf in Dragon Age. What does it feel like? Can you imagine being treated like that by society in the real world? Use role playing to expand your horizons. I'm not saying it should change your opinion on homosexuality, but it might broaden your perspective.
To supporters of same sex romance, please stop seeing seeing this as just a gay issue, the inclusion of options is massively beneficial to all of us as a community or dare I say it a family of gamers for the reasons I outlined above. I get you'd like to project into your characters, but just getting it added as a token afterthought, or making all characters bi just for simplicities sake, may feel like a victory, but it is a hollow one. I look ahead to the day, when all stories can come together and told as one rich narrative, with humor and with tragedy, with love and with loss, with light and with dark, and with all races, creeds, faiths, persuasions, orientations and genders all told with rich distinctive depth with none being dampened to make way for another. Trust me it is coming, and you'll love it!
Most of the people who are against gay romance options in video games aren't opposed to the idea of gay romance in video games as a general concept, but rather to the idea that every video game has to enable every player to be gay or bisexual with every character in the game, which compromises the game's integrity. Dragon Age 2 is a fitting example because it doesn't seem that the writing is altered based on the character's sexual orientation (or the player's gender), which has the undesired effect of making the characters all feel static, as though the player's choices have less effect on the world and the story.
However, it's hard to suss out this difference. So what ends up happening on forums is that people get upset or offended by statements like "keep gay romance out of my game", when really what the person means is "keep badly written gay romance out of my game".
There's also a concern with some players that the "trigger" for starting a romance with a character might be so subtle that the player activates it by mistake, resulting in a gay or straight relationship where the player did not intend one. This undermines the player's ability to make choices, which in a video game that is supposedly a roleplaying game feels rather railroady.
This thread besides my initial worry of become a battle field, fullfiled an important role, that was to analyse the issue.
If you read the whole topic (what can take a long time), you gonna see that many kinds of arguments where used to justify gay relationships as well to justify the deny of those relationships.
For example, the fact that something that exist in the real world should be used in the game was highly refuted by people that defended gay content. That happened cos someone raised at the first pages (page 6+ more or less) that monks should be chaste and follow a strict moral code based on real life monks.
There are lots of good reasons for gay content exist in game (some that i start to agree after this thread) and there are lots of good reasons for gay content to not exist in the game, too, the fact that it exist in the real world is just not one of the good reasons.
In BG, taking the fact that's a game in which probally 90% of the customers have more than 25 years, gay content can be better explored, but a game that objective a 12 or 14 years customer for example could find some resistance as there are some conservative old fashioned families that would be openly hostile to this kind of content.
@Samuel stating the case of proving the point, he's right, although that's been stated here as well. Homosexuality in a game should not be there as a placeholder. Yes, homosexuality should be addressed with facts, and truths; the only issue is that any "research" going out by either side is fundamentally flawed due to cultural limitations. In the United States at least, homosexuality is largely debated CONSTANTLY as a moral issue. I don't quite understand WHY, as there is no real argument against us that satisfies my personal curiosity as to that on going problem... But I'm deviating...
I do hope that the naysayers who have failed to win their case, as they will see with a new gay companion released by beamdog, will be able to bow out gracefully. I also hope that the companion in question is written well, not as a homosexual, but as a companion.
And as an aside, homosexual relationships aren't all that different from heterosexual ones in the case of social dynamics. WHY everyone seems to think they are is just ridiculous. Guys, all of you who are straight and kind of... Well, slow... Please stop treating us like we're aliens, we all grew up as humans, the ONLY difference we have from other human beings is who we think is cute. We drive the same way, we learn the same way, we shop, we eat, we dream the same ways.
Thus my idea that a romance between males would be different, from understanding each other better. To me, male friends feel more like people who just leave me be who I am and woman (especially when i was romantically involved with one) with people who had opinions about how I was and wanted to change me. That's very un-male in my experience.
Maybe that makes me sexist, but my experience is men and women are equally worthy (should be equal in opportunities for jobs, leading a company, or a church, or being head of state, whatever), but in the way they get intimate with friends and with their lovers, men and women feel different.
But than my gay friends tell me when I bring the issue up, gay romances (and courting) can be just as awkward as between a man and a woman.
Well, at least I'm glad I'm single, but that's also a reason I like experiencing what romances are written like in a game. I'd rather swim dry than in a wet river where you can drown.
The stupid thing is: the trait I characterized as 'womanly': to want to change your partner into what you think is best - I do the same thing to them when I'm in a romance with a woman. Only with friends I can let people be who they are. I found out a few years ago I just shouldn't be in a relationship and am far happier alone. Which makes a thread about romance a minefield for me, full of memories of conflict between sexual desire on the one hand and the need to be alone to take a break from a world that's far too taxing for my taste and my mental health condition on the other. And now my body isn't healthy as well. Damn.
The attention this little detail get is completely disproportional to it's presence in the game.
NPC: "I just want to settle down with someone I love, in a little house, with a dog in the yard..."
PC: "Yeah..."
NPC: "Maybe a couple of kids..."
PC: "Yeah... you mean like adopt?"
NPC: "I know someone who runs an orphanage; why don't we go there and ask what it would take?"
PC: "That sounds lovely."
Except that a lot of games don't do it like that. A lot of games do it like this:
NPC: "I just want to settle down with someone I love, in a little house, with a dog in the yard, maybe a couple of kids..."
PC: "I like the sound of that. What do you say we get to work on that last bit?"
There are a few very important differences between a same-sex romance and an opposite-sex romance, and the biology of having children is one of them.
Threads need a search function, I swear.
I do recall that there was some talk about having children. Whether it was about actually birthing them, or about somehow acquiring them through a third party, wasn't super clear. And I'm not saying it ought to be.
But regardless, there are some things that are just different when it's a man and a woman versus two people of the same sex. Not better or worse, just different. Two men will never have to worry about getting pregnant. Two women will never fight about leaving the seat up on the toilet. Simple, logistical things that are often sidebarred when a writer or developer decides to leave gender open-ended.
I wrote a play. Great play. It was about two people in a relationship. I wrote it as a man and a woman, but when it came to the audition, I had these two awesome women show up, and I decided to cast them both. At first I thought that the script would work fine with no changes except to pronouns ("him" becomes "her", that kind of thing). But as the rehearsals went on, I realized that I had included some details and elements that, frankly, only made sense when one of them was a dude. I had to change those details.
My understanding of Dragon Age 2 (and Fable 3, now that I think about it) is that these changes are either never made, or the details never existed in the first place. In the first case, it's sloppy editing. In the second case, it's lazy writing. (In the case of Fable 3, it's both.)
I think that a same-sex romance can be really powerful in a video game, just as in any other medium. But like any other medium, it needs to be done well. More than that, it needs to be more compelling than a heterosexual romance, because there are some gamers that are going to be uncomfortable with the idea. You have to sell the concept on its merits, not on its political importance.
I hope that makes sense. The main character in the book I'm writing right now is bisexual, and the differences are--I hope--very much apparent, not because of the character's personality, but because of the social ramifications of having a non-heterosexual relationship (i.e. the King can't marry a man, because the King has to produce an heir).
I consider it a form of progress (of sorts) that the their sticking point has changed to homosexuality in the game, rather than the game itself.
Having grown up in the bible belt and within a religious family, thank goodness for those Forgotten Realms authors like Salvatore that challenged my biases with regards to race, sexuality and of course-the gods.
Hopefully in another 20 years this debate will sound as silly as the old objections.
I keep seeing posts like yours' where someone comes into the thread extremely late, apparently skimmed the thread, and makes big comments about some sort of "religious argument" that isn't even here. This thread was never backed in religion, and the only reason it came up at all was someone else making some sweeping assumption just like yours' and Bjjorick and I defending our non-homophobic, religious selves.
Now, if people are quite done having an open season on religion?
Yes I did, and I resent your knee-jerk and rude implication of laziness, carelessness and off topic troll mongering. Nor did I specifically accuse you, or anyone else, of being gay-bashing haters. But for you to say that, "The only "religious" points in this thread were from me and Bjjorick" and then say, "It just isn't even in this thread" seems a bit contradictory, to say the least. "This thread was never backed in religion". Is there any connection to those who disagree with with idea and hold religious beliefs? It would seem so. Sorry, but the "great ideas on both sides" is such a straw man argument it would put the Scarecrow from Oz to shame. If the debate is only about writing good gay romances in BGEE then there is no problem/no debate. But its about whether folks should even be represented at all in a world that already has these elements in its lore, that is THE problem.
I simply believe religion is always the elephant in the room and the root cause of these biases. You are welcome to disagree and engage in whatever mental and rhetorical gymnastics it takes to square your circle. Just don't be surprised when some folks don't buy it.
Sometimes it does. But I think in this thread, the concern for most people is less about whether homosexuality in general is wrong or unnatural, and more about whether it's being handled in a responsible manner in video games--and if it's not, what's to be done about it.
Yes, I know you won't buy it. Which is why we are done. You are just a bitter kid who "grew up in the Bible belt" and thus were legitimately exposed to some very blind faith, then when you hit your teenage rebellion phase you came to the conclusion that EVERY faith must be blind. Not worth arguing with you. Really well said Aosaw. I completely agree ... err, obviously lol. HAHA, a good jest, I says! -hic-
@aosaw this thread is not really about gay romance in the game and how good it will be written. that should be in ideal case. it is an argument about nature of homosexuality in most cases and various moral/social implications. at worst it is a flame fest with people being repulsively offensive, as seen in few posts when @quartz quoted them.
also, @quartz - you say you appreciate stereotyping and then you make a ton of assumptions/stereotypes about @Insert_Boo. why?
Literally, @Insert_Boo post wasn't offensive to the average person, but it can be to someone religious and it's a dangeours affirmative to be done.
First of all the behavior descibed by @Insert_Boo isn't a 20 years way of think, but an at least 100 years way of think.
Second, each culture has his limitations, they didn't had our technology in that time, neither the advancment of our knowledge, it's not our right to judge a culture that lived in conditions totally different than the ones that exist today, what we can do, is criticize someone that try to live today with the moral code of 100 years ago.
Third, @Insert_Boo left the idea that our discussion today is silly, and that's a tremendous fallacy, we discuss based on the moral standarts and with the knowledge of our life time, there's no good or bad when you compares the actual time with history, you can't define something right or wrong based on standarts of another age, this is absolutelly and ultmost stupid.
What i believe today, is that this kind of discussion, if don't become a pit fight, contributes to a better understandment, what is requested to evolve an idea. If in 20 years foward we will think different, no one can affirmate that, but if that happens we will see, evaluate and judge by different standarts and would not be fair to belittle the actual opinion made in an different context.
When you affirmate that the problem comes from religion you're just blaming the idea, the religious belief. The problem is not on religions but in the people that misunderstand or misuse it for own benefit. Democracy generate corrupt politics, do you blame Democracy for they existance, also?