bastardofmelbourne said:
They tried the whole "everyone is bi" thing in DA:2 and it just...didn't work. Characters need fixed and defined traits to be convincing, and they need to be distinct from other characters to be compelling.
I think using the term bi for DAII's available characters is meaningless, as they - for the most part - do not have any orientation until the player reacts/acts.
As for needing "defined traits to be convincing"? Make Isabela straight or gay, and do the same for Anders. Fine, they have 'defined' orientations.
...and how are they different, in a truly meaningful,
relevant way? In a videogame world and for the player, what does that add to their characterisations? Perhaps to people who view romantic and sexual orientation as notable, it represents some kind of seismic, essential difference. But to people who see orientations as little more than, say, colour preferences (love and sex are, ultimately, identical regardless of combination of genders), it is simply an arbitrary limitation on the players range of RP choices.
If they just kinda went "You know what, everyone's bisexual now! Player choice!", then a) everyone's the same, and b) their orientation is effectively determined by the player, not by the people writing the character or (in-universe) by the character themselves.
Again, 'everyone's bisexual now' is a misleading concept - that's not what I'm arguing for at all. You don't need to assert some kind of conscious liberal utopia in the created world where all the characters discuss their openness to any gender. In DAII I remember Isabela, Anders, and I think Fenris discussing past infatuations, and - someone correct me if I'm wrong - all three primarily or exclusively referenced heterosexual experiences. Only Isabela can really be considered canonically bi/pan, given she (or a crappier version of the character) can be slept with in DA:O with a male or female Warden.
Their willingness to respond to a same sex Hawke doesn't contradict or break their "defined" identity. Well, again, perhaps it does for people who have a peculiarly strong view of exclusive orientations.
I think there ought to be fair representation of homosexual orientations in video games, because it's something that is still pretty rarely done, but I think that this representation ought to present the characters as individuals, rather than agents of the player's choice.
I'm a filthy feminist/progressive, so I certainly believe in better representation and more diverse voices/perspectives, particularly in the mainstream.
However, it's all relative and contextual. In a fixed linear narrative, yes, authorial intent is the be all and end all. But that is a completely different issue to the dynamics in a role-playing game.
"Agents of the player's choice": precisely. Gaming is often an incredibly egoistic medium, for better and sometimes worse. Per different genres and styles, the player's sphere of influence, if you will, changes. There is an expectation that we have more control over the overall story and/or events than in a wholly fixed narrative. What does or does not technically constitute 'RPG mechanics' is complex and highly debatable given any and all games can be said to now include such systems... but for the sake of this conversation, it's fair to assume BioWare's output is very much biased towards creating different kind of characters and shoving them into their created worlds, be it fantasy or sci-fi.
Player agency and their sphere of influence - i.e. projection of a role - includes stuff like cosmetic customisation, simple dialogue choices, what order certain tasks/quests are done in, which characters you talk to, which characters you talk to and like/dislike, key plot decisions, sometimes who lives/dies, and so on. It's a given romance arcs are a part of that, take Bull in DA:I: a player may have their character avoid him for a few reasons that greatly impact their RP - they may be prejudiced against the Qun, they may be a little bit racist, they might shun his hedonism, they may simply be attracted to a different gender, and so on.
RPG's are more egoistic than other genres, as they allow us to reshape entire worlds as well as the fate - and often disposition - of the party characters surrounding the PC. For me, it's entirely justified to see the party characters as--- well, puppets for the nefarious puppet master that is the player... The factions, the story, the world, the enemies, etc, they are all there for the player's enjoyment. Romance arcs are simply another part of that.
And so: the
negatives of fixed/canon orientations outweigh the positives of empowering the player with more choice.
Ultimately, can I deny authorial intent to explore a specifically straight, gay, or whatever outlook of a character? Clearly not. But the above sentence sums up my position with RPG's.
Both approaches objectively represent compromises, however: fixed = less player freedom [in a genre about player freedom], and player-defined = less room for authorial intent.
I liked what DA:I did. Inquisition's character lineup was actually one of its best parts. Iron Bull was unconcernedly bisexual, having come from a culture where that wasn't weird. Dorian was gay and it had affected his relationship with his father. Sera was gay and, weirdly, into Qunari women. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8py4twwaWw] Cassandra was butch but still very heterosexual, because having short hair and muscles doesn't mean you're a dyke. Solas is only interested in elves. Leliana is canonically bi, but too busy for a relationship. Vivienne will never bang you, because she's too professional for it.
They all felt like real people, with real hang-ups and preferences and dislikes and priorities, and not just agents for the player character to get their jollies off with.
Agreed, I feel DA:I's depiction of romance arcs across its characters was the best they've ever done, but for me the defined natures of their orientations didn't have much impact on that, as again, those characters would still be
those characters had they been open to an Inquisitor of either gender.
As I said before, even Dorian's arc would still work as it does if he was bi/pan, but had a preference for - or past experiences with - men. The bloodline element that's tethered to Tevinter's wacky eugenics culture would still work, as his father would still have the same exact reason to change/manipulate him.
To change that arc now (to rewrite a gay character into bi/pan) would be ruinously idiotic, of course, but that tweak wouldn't have been controversial in the slightest had BioWare created Dorian with it in mind from the off. Net result? More player freedom [in a genre
about player freedom].
I think that's important, and it's probably why - the quality of the game aside - I think it's a little ridiculous for people to complain that Cora isn't gay...
Again, perhaps semantics to some, but an important distinction for my point: I'm not complaining she isn't
gay at all, I'm disappointed it's a character who's not available for the gender of leads I tend to play. This isn't about identity politics or representation - it's about giving the player as broad a set of building blocks to cohere their own story.
Anyway, the game looks like a turd so I'm dodging it for the time being, but it's hard for me to pass up an opportunity to bash DA:2.
[sub]IT WAS TERRIBLE[/sub]
Subjective is as subjective does: DAII is probably my favourite BioWare game, and therefore one of my favourite RPG's of all time. ;-) Loved the setting (if not the actual
use of it throughout), the tone, the writing, and Hawke's [impressively tragic] three act story. Jo Wyatt's droll/sarcastic Hawke was sublime, too.
Zenja said:
I am pretty sure Bioware is going to allow you to be gay or bi just not with Cora. and that is simply world-building which is important because allowing the player to mold the world however they see fit also destroys the concept of "meaningful choices".
See above for an elaboration (as I'd just be repeating the same points). Essentially whilst I respect authorial intent, in a genre about player agency this design approach (with regards to sexuality) has a net loss, not a net gain.
