Player sexual companion

[algroth]

The main difference there probably is that BG2 just hid their numeric values in the background. As with all videogame systems, you can game that system. You had to have a certain number of talks with the NPC, you had to reach certain thresholds in their LoveTalk variable (it was actually called such), and you had to pick the right answers in critical dialogues. It was all very predetermined.

 

Newer RPGs, I think, tried to avoid that predetermined path by having various actions and dialogue add up (or subtract) from that variable so players could go several ways with their relationship. BG2 didn't really have to tell the players their exact numerical relationship state - the main reasons to "fail" were specific dialogue responses. In a more open system, they apparently felt the need to give feedback to the player, and came up with things like that gift system in DA:O.

 

Taking something from both examples would be the next step, I think - avoid having the relationship boil down to just a critical dialogue path like in BG2, and give the player less numerical feedback, like through dialogue.

I thought Pillars did a good job with having a more complex relationship system with many possible outcomes while not really revealing the system behind these interactions to the player. In the cases you mention above, Baldur's Gate II feels far more natural to me than Dragon Age: Origins because I felt that in the end I was making the choices I wanted to make, instead of those which felt more convenient - the system could be simpler and more lineal, but I felt less dictated by it because as a more casual player I couldn't actively see it. With Pillars I never felt the need of having that visual aid, nor do I feel the outcome was more streamlined or less reactive than that of other RPGs I've played.

 

Anyhow, just my thoughts/experience.

Edited August 5, 2017 by algroth

[Beyond The Sea]

 

If you were Sawyer and you had to decide which companions can be romanced, how would you decide?

 

Remove the popular obvious choices. Roll a dice for the remaining options. Bar the player from taking any part.

 

If you take out Pallegina there are only 2 other female characters left. I do find it a bit strange when characters you spend the length of a whole game with suddenly can be romanced in the next game. So would you not offer at least a choice between 2 characters to romance like other games with romance tend to do these days?

[Karkarov]

If you take out Pallegina there are only 2 other female characters left. I do find it a bit strange when characters you spend the length of a whole game with suddenly can be romanced in the next game. So would you not offer at least a choice between 2 characters to romance like other games with romance tend to do these days?

In all fairness having them un romancable in one game, but not in the sequel can be very reasonable.

 

Example:  Jaheira in BG1 cannot be romanced.  She is married to Khalid, and he is very much alive.  At least until I get a better party member, then bugbears eat him.  That is neither here nor there.  The point is, it makes sense that you can't romance her in game one.

 

Pallegina fits well here also, because in the first game she is obviously extremely driven, and being pushed by the forces of her code, loyalties, and own idea of what is best for the Republics/Dyrwood.  It is very clear she was going through a ton of turmoil at the time, and likely thinking of nothing but her duty.  The second game?  She has found her place in the world, and possibly made peace with it regardless of how it turned out.  So she may be more open to other things.

 

Edit: Just as an aside, I always found it odd that people insist on it being companions you romance.  Can't there be significant NPC's too?  In some cases wouldn't that even make more sense?

Edited August 5, 2017 by Karkarov

[MortyTheGobbo]

ME3, DA:I and Andromeda all include romance with non-teammates. To varying degrees of success. But they're there. I kind of get the impression Deadfire won't do it, but who knows.

 

As far as likes/dislikes of a given companion being kept track of... if someone wants to game the system, they will. Even if they don't have a journal entry for what makes a companion tick, they can keep track of it themselves. Or look up guides online. Conversely, if someone is dedicated to role-playing and picking what suits their character, they'll still do it. So I don't think obfuscating things to make it harder to game the system is worth it.

Edited August 5, 2017 by MortyTheGobbo

[injurai]

 

 

If you were Sawyer and you had to decide which companions can be romanced, how would you decide?

 

Remove the popular obvious choices. Roll a dice for the remaining options. Bar the player from taking any part.

 

If you take out Pallegina there are only 2 other female characters left. I do find it a bit strange when characters you spend the length of a whole game with suddenly can be romanced in the next game. So would you not offer at least a choice between 2 characters to romance like other games with romance tend to do these days?

 

 

I've decided. Eder and Xoti, Aloth and Maia, Pallegina and Tekehu. But if more than one couple hooks up in your party, you'll have to sacrifice someone to die by the end of the game. Their love is in your hands.

[MortyTheGobbo]

Kinda off-topic: Karkarov's post made me think of something. In Baldur's Gate 1, the paired-up companions were fairly annoying. It made perfect sense in-character - Khalid and Jaheira are married, Minsc is sworn to protect Dynaheir, and so on. But it really limited party composition.

 

in Pillars, this would be perfectly viable, due to the party roster model. You can recruit everyone, and swap them out at your home base or an inn. But... I can't remember any RPG with this kind of setup doing it. The only exception I can think of is Mission and Zaalbar, in KoToR 1.

[rjshae]

Mmm, if the developers would allow the modding community to create custom tavern recruits with associated conversation trees, portraits, voice overs, and such, then people could go hog wild creating romanceable companions.

[Beyond The Sea]

Just as an aside, I always found it odd that people insist on it being companions you romance.  Can't there be significant NPC's too?  In some cases wouldn't that even make more sense?

ME3, DA:I and Andromeda all include romance with non-teammates. To varying degrees of success. But they're there. I kind of get the impression Deadfire won't do it, but who knows.

ME only had gay and lesbian romances for non-teammates. The primary romance option for straight male players, the one you'll see in all the ads, is always a companion. These romance NPCs really do have no purpose beyond being romance options. They have no relevance to the plot and they are meant to be that way, to be completely avoidable. I mean ME3 had James Vega. The only new companion. He could have been the gay romance. But instead Bioware turned Kaidan from straight to bisexual and specifically created an entirely new non-companion NPC just to be a gay lover. And bisexual Kaidan is equally easy to miss. He can die on Virmire in ME1. If you start a new game in ME3, you have to know that you have to pick him as Virmire Survivor. If you click Quick Start or the options of "I don't know which" then the VS of the opposite sex to Shepard will be the survivor. And you can kill him during the Citadel mission.

 

It's actually not that dissimilar to Sky in Jade Empire. Shut down the female companions advances. Be in the right chapter. Have the main quest progressed far enough. Next chapter it's already too late. It's so easy to miss. You have to know what you're looking for.

 

Bioware has clear patterns for ME. You have the leading woman and main love interest, always attractive, always white. You have the primary male romance option, who cannot be better than the male player character and threaten his status as the big hero so they end up pretty bland. This is also a prime spot to have a person of color. So this characters gets even blander, so as not run the risk of being offensive.

 

Any player who doesn't want anything to do with the homosexuals can avoid them and won't be limited in chosing companions. And because these gay and lesbian characters are only create for a minority, they don't get much effort put into them. Their romances are much shorter. This is amplyfied even more since companions get quest lines, loyalty missions, party banter, comments on missions. Most of the time this isn't related to the romance but it builds up the character, and if you are in a relationship all these conversations contribute to the relationship.

 

straight male options

ME1: Ashley, Liara (+Asari Consort sex)

ME2: Miranda, Jack, Tali (+Kelly Chambers fling, Samara flirt, Morinth flirt and game over sex, Liara in Shadowbroker DLC)

ME3: Ashley, Liara, continued Tali (+Diana Allers sex, continued Miranda, continued Jack)

MEA: Cora, Peebee, Vetra (+Avela Kjar, Keri T'Vessa)

 

gay male options

ME1: none

ME2: none

ME3: Kaidan (+Steve Cortez)

MEA: (Gil Brodie, Reyes Vidal)

 

To be honest, I have no idea why ME does gay romance at all. They obviously don't think it's worth anywhere near the same effort as any of the other orientations. So I'd rather Bioware were honest about that and stopped forcing in some content made out of obligation without any care or passion.

[MortyTheGobbo]

That is true, unfortunately. Although, credit where it is due - Andromeda has since added Jaal as an option for a male Ryder. So they're at least willing to listen to feedback.

 

Still, I was thinking more about Dragon Age: Inquisition, where Cullen and Josephine seem to be full-sized romance options, a straight man and bisexual woman respectively. I've never tried them, but they seem to have their share of content and be fairly popular.

[Beyond The Sea]

According to the Dragon Age Lead Writer DA2 ended up with player-sexual romances, because the dev team didn't want to repeat DAO, where players pursuing same-sex romances only had 1 romance option. Since Jade Empire Bioware had begun offering 2 romance option to straight male player characters. DAO did the same for straight female player characters and the DA2 team wanted to expand it to same-sex romances. The most efficient way was to have player-sexual or bisexual options 2 male and 2 female, not only in terms of money, as we know the game's time in production was rather short. After DA2 Bioware has losely followed the minimum of 2/2/2. Male and female each 1 straight, 1 bi, 1 same-sex. The developers say sexual identities make for better stories over player-sexual characters. I see the point. You can't tell Dorian's story with a straight or bisexual character.

 

I don't think there has ever been a specifically straight, bisexual or lesbian story. There is nothing specifically gay about Steve Cortez story either. Really what having sexual identities boils down to, according to devs when they speak at GaymerX at least, as I understand, is to have gay and lesbian characters, to have representation, to properly acknowledge the existence of gay and lesbian players, instead of handing them a gender-neutral, bisexual or player-sexual romance.

 

Similarly Stardew Valley had all bachelors and bachelorettes available regardless of gender. It gives the most amount of options for everyone. It's most efficient with the time and effort put into content. It also means there is no gay character, except for the player character maybe. There is no real acknowledgement of gender in the romances.

 

So I am most curious what Deadfire will do. Will there be just 1 bisexual option each? Will there be different options? There are people who say Fallout: New Vegas had planned romances at some point. Aracade is gay, Boone is straight, Veronica is lesbian, not sure about Cass. Presumably that would have been one each. That was actually something that disappointed me in PoE, going from so many gay characters in NV down to basically nothing in PoE.

[Lord_Mord]

Just because I'm interested: May I ask, what your average age is?

[Wormerine]

Just because I'm interested: May I ask, what your average age is?

^.^ my average age is 27

[rjshae]

Just because I'm interested: May I ask, what your average age is?

 

My average age? Half my current age.

[algroth]

So I am most curious what Deadfire will do. Will there be just 1 bisexual option each? Will there be different options?

 

I'm not sure why we're assuming Deadfire is a lock for having same-sex romances of some sort. Personally the approach of having enough variety to cover a diversity quota only goes so far, as while it's better to have it than not to it doesn't by itself guarantee the romance will be interesting, engaging or at all worth investing time to implement. To me, honestly, the question falls to whether they have an interesting idea or dynamic driving a relationship - if they don't, and want to write in a same-sex relationship just because "there needs to be one", I'd say not to bother.

[MortyTheGobbo]

According to the Dragon Age Lead Writer DA2 ended up with player-sexual romances, because the dev team didn't want to repeat DAO, where players pursuing same-sex romances only had 1 romance option. Since Jade Empire Bioware had begun offering 2 romance option to straight male player characters. DAO did the same for straight female player characters and the DA2 team wanted to expand it to same-sex romances. The most efficient way was to have player-sexual or bisexual options 2 male and 2 female, not only in terms of money, as we know the game's time in production was rather short. After DA2 Bioware has losely followed the minimum of 2/2/2. Male and female each 1 straight, 1 bi, 1 same-sex. The developers say sexual identities make for better stories over player-sexual characters. I see the point. You can't tell Dorian's story with a straight or bisexual character.

 

I don't think there has ever been a specifically straight, bisexual or lesbian story. There is nothing specifically gay about Steve Cortez story either. Really what having sexual identities boils down to, according to devs when they speak at GaymerX at least, as I understand, is to have gay and lesbian characters, to have representation, to properly acknowledge the existence of gay and lesbian players, instead of handing them a gender-neutral, bisexual or player-sexual romance.

 

Similarly Stardew Valley had all bachelors and bachelorettes available regardless of gender. It gives the most amount of options for everyone. It's most efficient with the time and effort put into content. It also means there is no gay character, except for the player character maybe. There is no real acknowledgement of gender in the romances.

 

So I am most curious what Deadfire will do. Will there be just 1 bisexual option each? Will there be different options? There are people who say Fallout: New Vegas had planned romances at some point. Aracade is gay, Boone is straight, Veronica is lesbian, not sure about Cass. Presumably that would have been one each. That was actually something that disappointed me in PoE, going from so many gay characters in NV down to basically nothing in PoE.

 

I also lean towards DA:I's approach, but I also understand the point of people who prefer to be able to romance anyone with any character. At the end of the day, you're not going to satisfy everyone, so you just need to make sure you properly handle whichever approach you choose.

 

It's also a good point that romance isn't required for non-straight characters to exist in the game.

 

 

So I am most curious what Deadfire will do. Will there be just 1 bisexual option each? Will there be different options?

 

I'm not sure why we're assuming Deadfire is a lock for having same-sex romances of some sort. Personally the approach of having enough variety to cover a diversity quota only goes so far, as while it's better to have it than not to it doesn't by itself guarantee the romance will be interesting, engaging or at all worth investing time to implement. To me, honestly, the question falls to whether they have an interesting idea or dynamic driving a relationship - if they don't, and want to write in a same-sex relationship just because "there needs to be one", I'd say not to bother.

 

 

What difference is there between writing a straight romance and a non-straight romance? Either way, you decide that yes, this game is going to have romantic/sexual plots of some sort. Once you've decided that, what's the reason for not including non-straight plots? They don't need any more of a reason to be there than heterosexual ones, and that reason has already been satisfied.

[algroth]

 

 

So I am most curious what Deadfire will do. Will there be just 1 bisexual option each? Will there be different options?

 

I'm not sure why we're assuming Deadfire is a lock for having same-sex romances of some sort. Personally the approach of having enough variety to cover a diversity quota only goes so far, as while it's better to have it than not to it doesn't by itself guarantee the romance will be interesting, engaging or at all worth investing time to implement. To me, honestly, the question falls to whether they have an interesting idea or dynamic driving a relationship - if they don't, and want to write in a same-sex relationship just because "there needs to be one", I'd say not to bother.

 

 

What difference is there between writing a straight romance and a non-straight romance? Either way, you decide that yes, this game is going to have romantic/sexual plots of some sort. Once you've decided that, what's the reason for not including non-straight plots? They don't need any more of a reason to be there than heterosexual ones, and that reason has already been satisfied.

 

Depends on the way the setting responds to homosexuality and so on. If it's taboo or has a specific value or connotation attached to it (Greek love and so on for example), these elements can factor in as conflicts that make a romantic subplot more interesting and meaningful in the overall context of the setting and story. If there is no difference, then the romance still requires to be *interesting* the way any other romance would be. Just having one to pander to the playerbase or fill a diversity quota doesn't make for good or compelling writing, or for a meaningful experience.

Edited August 8, 2017 by algroth

[Beyond The Sea]

I also lean towards DA:I's approach, but I also understand the point of people who prefer to be able to romance anyone with any character. At the end of the day, you're not going to satisfy everyone, so you just need to make sure you properly handle whichever approach you choose.

 

It's also a good point that romance isn't required for non-straight characters to exist in the game.

I thought Dorian was written well, not just quality. He gets roughly the same quantity as other options. All things being relatively equal I prefer gay romance options over bisexual romance options. ME does gay romance with less quality and less quantity compared to straight options, then I'm suddenly not such a big fan of this approach.

 

 

 

 

So I am most curious what Deadfire will do. Will there be just 1 bisexual option each? Will there be different options?

 

I'm not sure why we're assuming Deadfire is a lock for having same-sex romances of some sort. Personally the approach of having enough variety to cover a diversity quota only goes so far, as while it's better to have it than not to it doesn't by itself guarantee the romance will be interesting, engaging or at all worth investing time to implement. To me, honestly, the question falls to whether they have an interesting idea or dynamic driving a relationship - if they don't, and want to write in a same-sex relationship just because "there needs to be one", I'd say not to bother.

 

 

What difference is there between writing a straight romance and a non-straight romance? Either way, you decide that yes, this game is going to have romantic/sexual plots of some sort. Once you've decided that, what's the reason for not including non-straight plots? They don't need any more of a reason to be there than heterosexual ones, and that reason has already been satisfied.

 

Depends on the way the setting responds to homosexuality and so on. If it's taboo or has a specific value or connotation attached to it (Greek love and so on for example), these elements can factor in as conflicts that make a romantic subplot more interesting and meaningful in the overall context of the setting and story. If there is no difference, then the romance requires to be *interesting* the way any other romance would be. Just having one to pander to the playerbase doesn't make for good or compelling writing, or for a meaningful experience.

 

I don't necessarily think the main issue with the quota filling is how compelling or meaningful the writing is. The gay romances in Mass Effect are bad for various reasons. They didn't exists when straight and lesbian romances did in ME1 and 2, and Bioware had gay romances in other games before ME (Jade Empire) and developed at the same time as ME (Dragon Age.) When ME finally had gay romance, they were worse than straight options in every single way, fewer options, no unique face and body models, barely any animations compared to fully animated kissing and sex scenes, dialog was way shorter and actual straight pandering within gay romances. Steve Cortez would literally ask you over and over if you really want to be gay, because some homophobe complained about accidentally having a relationship with a bisexual male option in DA2 despite the giant pink heart icon that clearly indicates flirt and romance options. Then I thought maybe it would get better for Andromeda, improve like DA did. But Andromeda was worse. Not even a bisexual companion like Kaidan this time. Another small crew member part and a fling limited to some planet storyline.

Models for Deadfire companions will presumably all be a bit unique. But they are so small in the world. It's not like you constantly have close-ups in dialog or cutscenes. I assume there won't be any romance animations at all. Even if there were more things animated, the height difference of races alone is a nightmare. I guess Deadfire won't have those issues at least. Romance writing might be not great, but being companions should hopefully provide a good amount of content and exposure, quests, banter, comments, conversations.

 

The watcher is a blank slate. Sawyer has said again and again he's interested in player choice. In the Salty Mast you can sleep with prostitues of the same sex. No gender locks. Most of the game's dialog is already kept gender-neutral. Why stop at romance? There are Maneha and Arcade. Obsidian is no stranger to gay and lesbian companions either.

[MortyTheGobbo]

The setting is going to respond to it in a variety of ways. Maneha is clearly comfortable enough to be openly gay in the Dyrwood. Vailian Republics probably don't look as kindly on it. But either way, a same-sex romance doesn't need to involve homophobia, or other societal reactions to it, to justify its existence. It just needs to be well-written... which I feel goes without saying. Of course we want it to be well-written. No more and no less than a straight romance is.

 

I mean, can you imagine people's reaction if we got a same-sex romance with the same level of "quality" Elanee's romance had in NWN2?

[algroth]

 

I also lean towards DA:I's approach, but I also understand the point of people who prefer to be able to romance anyone with any character. At the end of the day, you're not going to satisfy everyone, so you just need to make sure you properly handle whichever approach you choose.

 

It's also a good point that romance isn't required for non-straight characters to exist in the game.

I thought Dorian was written well, not just quality. He gets roughly the same quantity as other options. All things being relatively equal I prefer gay romance options over bisexual romance options. ME does gay romance with less quality and less quantity compared to straight options, then I'm suddenly not such a big fan of this approach.

 

 

 

 

So I am most curious what Deadfire will do. Will there be just 1 bisexual option each? Will there be different options?

 

I'm not sure why we're assuming Deadfire is a lock for having same-sex romances of some sort. Personally the approach of having enough variety to cover a diversity quota only goes so far, as while it's better to have it than not to it doesn't by itself guarantee the romance will be interesting, engaging or at all worth investing time to implement. To me, honestly, the question falls to whether they have an interesting idea or dynamic driving a relationship - if they don't, and want to write in a same-sex relationship just because "there needs to be one", I'd say not to bother.

 

 

What difference is there between writing a straight romance and a non-straight romance? Either way, you decide that yes, this game is going to have romantic/sexual plots of some sort. Once you've decided that, what's the reason for not including non-straight plots? They don't need any more of a reason to be there than heterosexual ones, and that reason has already been satisfied.

 

Depends on the way the setting responds to homosexuality and so on. If it's taboo or has a specific value or connotation attached to it (Greek love and so on for example), these elements can factor in as conflicts that make a romantic subplot more interesting and meaningful in the overall context of the setting and story. If there is no difference, then the romance requires to be *interesting* the way any other romance would be. Just having one to pander to the playerbase doesn't make for good or compelling writing, or for a meaningful experience.

 

I don't necessarily think the main issue with the quota filling is how compelling or meaningful the writing is. The gay romances in Mass Effect are bad for various reasons. They didn't exists when straight and lesbian romances did in ME1 and 2, and Bioware had gay romances in other games before ME (Jade Empire) and developed at the same time as ME (Dragon Age.) When ME finally had gay romance, they were worse than straight options in every single way, fewer options, no unique face and body models, barely any animations compared to fully animated kissing and sex scenes, dialog was way shorter and actual straight pandering within gay romances. Steve Cortez would literally ask you over and over if you really want to be gay, because some homophobe complained about accidentally having a relationship with a bisexual male option in DA2 despite the giant pink heart icon that clearly indicates flirt and romance options. Then I thought maybe it would get better for Andromeda, improve like DA did. But Andromeda was worse. Not even a bisexual companion like Kaidan this time. Another small crew member part and a fling limited to some planet storyline.

Models for Deadfire companions will presumably all be a bit unique. But they are so small in the world. It's not like you constantly have close-ups in dialog or cutscenes. I assume there won't be any romance animations at all. Even if there were more things animated, the height difference of races alone is a nightmare. I guess Deadfire won't have those issues at least. Romance writing might be not great, but being companions should hopefully provide a good amount of content and exposure, quests, banter, comments, conversations.

 

The watcher is a blank slate. Sawyer has said again and again he's interested in player choice. In the Salty Mast you can sleep with prostitues of the same sex. No gender locks. Most of the game's dialog is already kept gender-neutral. Why stop at romance? There are Maneha and Arcade. Obsidian is no stranger to gay and lesbian companions either.

 

 

You see, to me all of what you write above is pretty aside from the point: that there'll be more or less dialogue, that there'll be animations and options and so on... This is all fine if there is a good idea guiding it. Romance is only worthwhile as another kind of bond that can exist between two characters, but what drives this bond has to be something meaningful to the conflicts driving either character, or the overall themes of a piece, or otherwise it's superfluous. A good romance like, say, Annah's in Planescape: Torment, isn't something the writers decided to include in the game because a romance was 'necessary', but because that romance came about as a consequence of Annah's need for human contact - that was her 'torment' so to speak. Viconia's romance also worked because it was a vehicle with which to explore the clash between Viconia's Underdark lifestyle and the customs of the surface, where she now lives in. And while the protagonist in Pillars (as well as the Nameless One or the Child of Bhaal) is intended to be a blank slate (they aren't really, but that doesn't factor in on their sexuality), the companions *aren't*, and thus whatever romances will be in the game will be also dictated by the interest, conflicts and needs from the other half.

 

So just to be sure, I was never in disagreement with the existence of same-sex relationships in Pillars, nor will I ever protest the presence of one in it. However, it's the line of thinking that is often expressed in the quote I was replying to that I think is misguided, because it places its emphasis in the need for equality/representation and diversity of options over the things that make those romances worth playing or writing in the first place. The issue with so many of the 'bad examples' of same-sex relationships or relationships in general is that they are treated entirely like an afterthought, because again, only the option's existence matters. We say that the desire for the romance to be well-written 'goes without saying', but the issue is that good writing is characterized first and foremost by an adherence to a theme, idea, conflict or vision. It's this that should determine what makes it into Deadfire first and foremost - if that leads to a same-sex romance, then great, but if it doesn't and it turns out that there is only *one* romance path in the whole game because it's the only that the writers felt was worth writing, that's alright too. Otherwise we're hardly better off than BioWare or Neverwinter Nights 2.

 

With regards to themes, I used homophobia as an example. Does a same-sex relationship need to deal with that? Of course not! But there has to be something there that makes it worth writing. :D

[esyvjrt]

Doesn't have to to deal with the fact that its a homosexual relationship, unless the sexuality of a character is a defining characteristic, the decision of their sexuality could be made by rolling a dice. As Morty says, what's the difference. If the sexuality itself is not the problem, then the concerns are about relationships and no same-sex relationships.

[algroth]

Doesn't have to to deal with the fact that its a homosexual relationship, unless the sexuality of a character is a defining characteristic, the decision of their sexuality could be made by rolling a dice. As Morty says, what's the difference. If the sexuality itself is not the problem, then the concerns are about relationships and no same-sex relationships.

As I've mentioned, it was an example, and you're free to choose that as a theme or go with something else. That said, I do not think fantasy in any of its forms exists in a vacuum, and likewise I don't think you can approach the matter of a same-sex relationship without dealing in some form or other with the real-life parallelisms and implications attached to it. To outright ignore them, if anything, makes things awkward and unnatural due to bringing an "elephant in the room" factor to the matter (I think this is true of Maneha for that matter and why I also found her writing to be pretty poor and jarring with the rest of the game).

Edited August 9, 2017 by algroth

[HooAmEye]

Man, I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "elephant in the room". Is it the fact that she was an open lesbian in a world that seems to be perfectly fine with it?  It's not like there are plenty who view homesexual relationships as fine, and dozens of cultures throughout history who didn't find anything abarrent it. What you  want would be better suited to an after school special, rather than Pillars. There aren't any implications to bring forth, apart from "Hey, these are people. Lets give some space". Even if we ignore all of that, treading the same oppressed path is broing as hell, and wouldn't you like to read something just a bit more original. No need to have gay characters revolve around their sexuality any more than the breeders, just take a look at the works of Robin Hobb/ Steven Erikson/ R. Scott Baker/ Seth Dickinson/ Django Wexler/ Elizabeth Bear/ Jacqueline Carey.

 

P.S.

Anyone else absolutely abhor the term "Diversity Quota"?

Edited August 9, 2017 by HooAmEye

[algroth]

Man, I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "elephant in the room". Is it the fact that she was an open lesbian in a world that seems to be perfectly fine with it?  It's not like there are plenty who view homesexual relationships as fine, and dozens of cultures throughout history who didn't find anything abarrent it. What you  want would be better suited to an after school special, rather than Pillars. There aren't any implications to bring forth, apart from "Hey, these are people. Lets give some space". Even if we ignore all of that, treading the same oppressed path is broing as hell, and wouldn't you like to read something just a bit more original. No need to have gay characters revolve around their sexuality any more than the breeders, just take a look at the works of Robin Hobb/ Steven Erikson/ R. Scott Baker/ Seth Dickinson/ Django Wexler/ Elizabeth Bear/ Jacqueline Carey.

 

P.S.

Anyone else absolutely abhor the term "Diversity Quota"?

The elephant in the room is the fact that all these matters are still, unfortunately, to this day questions that lead to a great degree of conflict due to ongoing oppression, discrimination and rejection to those of us who have been involved in such situations. For myself, I have been involved in such an affair that I still to this day have to keep a secret from my parents because they are not particularly open to the matter - let alone my transgenderism. When you approach these topics in these games like it's all cool, it feels like it's avoiding the many issues that still exist at the heart of the matter and still makes us outsiders and places us at odds with those who would arguably be closest to us. The truth is that the world is not openly fine with it, and while it's nowadays fashionable to be open-minded and inclusive and whatnot, this sort of fantasy where we can all be super open and get along just fine isn't really there, and to my mind seems to often put a blindfold on the issue at hand. Now, as I said we don't *need* to treat the matter of homophobia while depicting a same-sex relationship, but there has to be a reason for it, because it is an aspect that will define a character whether you want to or not - you can't ignore how aware people are of the matter. With Maneha, the only thing I got out of her overt flaunting of her sexuality was, ultimately, the question of what was the point. It didn't really inform me much about her character, and it was played so overtly that it was hard not to feel it awkward in a game that by and large avoided romantic relationships and sexuality altogether.

 

Also, if you don't want to hear the term 'diversity quota' then don't treat the matter of sexuality in videogames as a quota that must be fulfilled. That was in regards to the assumption that Deadfire *will* have at least one same-sex relationship, or 2/2/2 or whatever. If there are, there will be, if not, that is okay too. Let the writers write what they wish to write and what they feel comfortable with writing.

Edited August 9, 2017 by algroth

[smjjames]

Speaking of homosexual relationships in the game, in Tyranny, there's this lesbian couple in Lethian's Crossing which consists of the rich granddaughter (or great-granddaughter, not sure) of the town's founder and her girlfriend. Then the rich girl ends up getting murdered by the other girl and I was like O.o 'Why did they do that to the gay couple?' when I saw that for the first time. I totally got that it was purely due to greed and not because lesbians are predators or some bull****, it just surprised me that they went there. No idea who wrote that part of the game though,

 

In PoE, I'm not sure if there are any homosexuals or transgender, I didn't really notice any. Though in Stalwart (White March), when you're looking at peoples souls for one that's a descendant of Durgan's Battery dwarves and looking at peoples memories, you can find in the inn, one that implies a homosexual relationship.

[algroth]

Speaking of homosexual relationships in the game, in Tyranny, there's this lesbian couple in Lethian's Crossing which consists of the rich granddaughter (or great-granddaughter, not sure) of the town's founder and her girlfriend. Then the rich girl ends up getting murdered by the other girl and I was like O.o 'Why did they do that to the gay couple?' when I saw that for the first time. I totally got that it was purely due to greed and not because lesbians are predators or some bull****, it just surprised me that they went there. No idea who wrote that part of the game though,

 

I liked that quest myself though I wish I could have reported the murderous wife to Lethian's Crossing's authorities.