Jump to content

Same gender relationships clarifications?


elexier

Recommended Posts

I don't think this is catering to gay customers, I think this issue caters to anyone who wants a better RPG aspect for the game in general. As I stated above, if you are going to make romance options in a game, you better include -ALL- of them.

 

Its just proper design in general, at least thats how I feel.

 

Oh, I agree, but "catering to the gays" is how the detractors often see it, I think. But we've certainly had plenty of straight people come in and say that they'd play same-gender romance content; character orientation and player orientation definitely don't have to coincide. I'm gay myself, and play a couple of straight characters; I'll also play bi characters, and gay characters not of my gender when I can.

 

 

 

I'm actually pretty curious how many people play characters who romance a gender they're not personally attracted to; you've got the stereotypical straight guys playing lesbians, of course, but how many of them will play gay men, or straight women, for instance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And, further, that they have not been. Correct?

 

Sadly, very correct. The game suffers for lack of it. I in fact played through my first two times thinking I just missed it before I came to the forums to find it had simply never been included.

 

In that respect, it is as much about telling the Developers something they ought to know as anything else.

 

What is it about a running tally that upsets you so much? Is it because it does in fact make it impossible to overlook or minimize the importance of same-gender content to some players?

 

The running tally seems moot and self inflammatory. That's all. Not upset by it in anyway, only feel its counterproductive to put any effort into counting. Though I do agree constant requests for the feature are important until it is implemented.

 

I simply do not see it as marginalization. I simply stand at odds with that opinion which seems to be held by a number of SGRA. I'm far more willing to believe it is poor feelings due to poor handling, where malice need not be implied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I agree, but "catering to the gays" is how the detractors often see it, I think. But we've certainly had plenty of straight people come in and say that they'd play same-gender romance content; character orientation and player orientation definitely don't have to coincide. I'm gay myself, and play a couple of straight characters; I'll also play bi characters, and gay characters not of my gender when I can.

 

 

 

I'm actually pretty curious how many people play characters who romance a gender they're not personally attracted to; you've got the stereotypical straight guys playing lesbians, of course, but how many of them will play gay men, or straight women, for instance?

 

I generally play female characters, I'm a straight male. I play them as straight, or gay. I've never played a gay male, except in the Sims, it doesn't appeal to me as much.

 

My girlfriend seems to make decisions on who she gets along with based on who is most submissive to her in game... I don't think she makes gender/sexuality biased decisions, more just dominance decisions lol, and her relationships in games reflect that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I agree, but "catering to the gays" is how the detractors often see it, I think. But we've certainly had plenty of straight people come in and say that they'd play same-gender romance content; character orientation and player orientation definitely don't have to coincide. I'm gay myself, and play a couple of straight characters; I'll also play bi characters, and gay characters not of my gender when I can.

 

 

 

I'm actually pretty curious how many people play characters who romance a gender they're not personally attracted to; you've got the stereotypical straight guys playing lesbians, of course, but how many of them will play gay men, or straight women, for instance?

 

How many we will likely never know, but I have a feeling a lot of people play outside their own identity for romance as well as other subjects. Otherwise, we would most likely never have any Sith (or, uh, should be very scared of the few Sith that would exist ;)

 

Anecdote time. I tend to play against type a lot, which means my Smugglers are gay, my Jedi is a womanizing arrogant prat and my Trooper is a timid little wallflower. But I find it particularly amusing that my straight brother tends to play female characters and occasionally ends up romancing the cute, naive guy if there isn't any SGR content. To make it just about identity is denying the huge number of people who are interested in this just for fun and diversity. But denying that it is also about identity is at least as bad, if not worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, further, that they have not been. Correct?

 

Sadly, very correct. The game suffers for lack of it. I in fact played through my first two times thinking I just missed it before I came to the forums to find it had simply never been included.

 

{allow me to ellide, here, as this bears on my point}

 

I simply do not see it as marginalization. I simply stand at odds with that opinion which seems to be held by a number of SGRA. I'm far more willing to believe it is poor feelings due to poor handling, where malice need not be implied.

I don't think malice is a necessary aspect of marginalization. I think it is unfortunate but I don't think it was done with cruel intent.

 

But it was done. A decision was made not to include same-gender content at launch, thus opting to handle it differently from opposite-gender content, which was given preference.

 

In the comments on the decision at the time, that marginalization is clear: "Over time we can get to add things that are exciting and interesting to smaller audiences," but "The vast majority of our content will be of interest to the vast majority of our potential audience."

 

It was addressed as content of marginal interest. I do not say this was malicious - it was likely seen as pragmatic. But the effect of the policy in action is to relegate same-gender affection to second-class status.

Edited by Uluain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anecdote time. I tend to play against type a lot, which means my Smugglers are gay, my Jedi is a womanizing arrogant prat and my Trooper is a timid little wallflower. But I find it particularly amusing that my straight brother tends to play female characters and occasionally ends up romancing the cute, naive guy if there isn't any SGR content. To make it just about identity is denying the huge number of people who are interested in this just for fun and diversity. But denying that it is also about identity is at least as bad, if not worse.

 

Yeah, I've got one smuggler who's going to be celibate and metaphorically run screaming in the other direction if someone starts coming onto him, and another who's going to be your stereotypical flirty, condescending-call-everyone-sweetheart type, only female. :D I think I tend to end up going against traditional gender roles more often than anything.

 

 

What I find I'm most interested in, in terms of romances for my characters, are ones which mesh with their personalities; so in the case of my arrogant Sith, I want the submissive type, yes. My no-nonsense, duty-driven Trooper got along with Jorgan great, my Jedi Knight's backstory + Kira worked out fine. They all tend to start out at least theoretically bi, and then who they meet determines who they're attracted to. Problem comes in when the perfect companion shows up for one of them and... they're the wrong gender. Sure, I can re-roll as the opposite gender with the same basic personality, but doing that 20, 30, 40 levels in is not just annoying in terms of getting back up to that point, but also because by that point I have an already defined character, and I effectively just changing their gender would be... wrong.

 

This is why I'm really strongly in favour of making current companions open for SGRAs; even if they did add a new gay option to go along with each straight one, there's no guarantee that they'll be the sort my character would be interested in. Much better to make all companions, new and old, potential romances for everyone, and give us all more scope to express who our characters are. Ultimately, restricting romances by orientation deprives everyone of choice; someone playing a straight character who wants to romance the gay-only NPC is going to be just as unhappy as I was when my male Warrior encountered Quinn, and got all that flirty, suggestive dialogue he couldn't respond to.

Edited by sparklecat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In the comments on the decision at the time, that marginalization is clear: "Over time we can get to add things that are exciting and interesting to smaller audiences," but "The vast majority of our content will be of interest to the vast majority of our potential audience."

 

Whoever wrote that in response or formulated it for the response should never work in public relations or customer service. I can only hope that is not indicative of the actual attitude of those in control of development and design. As it is probably one of the few times it was mentioned in the manner and there has been no mention of it in detail since, I can understand the frustration and feeling of marginalization.

 

I personally choose to continue to believe that it is a backwards customer service / PR team, and not a game planning and development team that made a wholly erroneous decision to believe that such content is only interesting to a "small audience." Knowing where these decisions actually got made would be the important part to realizing whether it is truly marginalization, or an ugly development oversight coupled with an Exec or someone else who knows exactly how to say the wrong thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why I'm really strongly in favour of making current companions open for SGRAs; even if they did add a new gay option to go along with each straight one, there's no guarantee that they'll be the sort my character would be interested in. Much better to make all companions, new and old, potential romances for everyone, and give us all more scope to express who our characters are. Ultimately, restricting romances by orientation deprives everyone of choice; someone playing a straight character who wants to romance the gay-only NPC is going to be just as unhappy as I was when my male Warrior encountered Quinn, and got all that flirty, suggestive dialogue he couldn't respond to.

 

I would say I'd prefer the original companions to remain the same. Add new ones in for replays. Do a Mass Effect style choice where you get to pick a companion or two that meshes for you. Going back and making say... Khem Val a romance option would completely change my view of what his character was. So would blanket assigning all companions an SGRA option... especially the droids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everyone,

 

We recently had to remove numerous posts for being off-topic or nonconstructive to the discussion. As another reminder to everyone, please remember the following:

 

  • Insults - Please do not resort to or use them in any way in your posts. Posts should be productive, not destructive.
  • Disruptive Behavior - Please do not post messages that are purposefully designed to provoke, antagonize, or otherwise elicit a negative emotional response.
  • Agree to Disagree - Be respectful of others' viewpoints even if they are opposite of your own. Discuss disagreements constructively.
  • Flag, Don't Fight - Utilize the Flag Post feature to report possible rules violations, rather than responding to or fighting them.
  • Ignoring - If you feel you simply cannot get along with another community member, please place them on your ignore list.

 

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The running tally seems moot and self inflammatory. That's all. Not upset by it in anyway, only feel its counterproductive to put any effort into counting. Though I do agree constant requests for the feature are important until it is implemented.

Self inflammatory? I'm sorry - could you rephrase that? I don't know what you mean.

 

How is it counterproductive to count? So far, it seems to have encouraged more activity in the Q&A thread. I'm curious to see how much response the situation is getting.

 

Do you mean counterproductive in that more visibility in the Q&A thread inevitable leads to more trolling here? Could you be more specific?

 

And, to clarify a point that gets lost so often that I would be remiss not to correct it:

 

The point is not to request implementation, but information - while demonstrating widespread interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say I'd prefer the original companions to remain the same. Add new ones in for replays.

 

Some of us haven't even got to do an initial play, let alone replays. If the current romanceable companions aren't given SGRA options this whole discussion is rather wasted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've got one smuggler who's going to be celibate and metaphorically run screaming in the other direction if someone starts coming onto him, and another who's going to be your stereotypical flirty, condescending-call-everyone-sweetheart type, only female. :D I think I tend to end up going against traditional gender roles more often than anything.

 

 

What I find I'm most interested in, in terms of romances for my characters, are ones which mesh with their personalities; so in the case of my arrogant Sith, I want the submissive type, yes. My no-nonsense, duty-driven Trooper got along with Jorgan great, my Jedi Knight's backstory + Kira worked out fine. They all tend to start out at least theoretically bi, and then who they meet determines who they're attracted to. Problem comes in when the perfect companion shows up for one of them and... they're the wrong gender. Sure, I can re-roll as the opposite gender with the same basic personality, but doing that 20, 30, 40 levels in is not just annoying in terms of getting back up to that point, but also because by that point I have an already defined character, and I effectively just changing their gender would be... wrong.

 

This is why I'm really strongly in favour of making current companions open for SGRAs; even if they did add a new gay option to go along with each straight one, there's no guarantee that they'll be the sort my character would be interested in. Much better to make all companions, new and old, potential romances for everyone, and give us all more scope to express who our characters are. Ultimately, restricting romances by orientation deprives everyone of choice; someone playing a straight character who wants to romance the gay-only NPC is going to be just as unhappy as I was when my male Warrior encountered Quinn, and got all that flirty, suggestive dialogue he couldn't respond to.

 

I feel pretty much the same way. Though for me there is an added incentive toward same-gender romance generally by being something I identify as part of me. So I would be more likely to have a character that starts out a clean slate and turns gay or bi rather than straight (also for the novelty of it, as it is still so rare in gaming).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just hope that we get same-gender relationships soon. I can't wait to have more flirt, and more story, and affection options, for my growing cast of characters.

 

Love is a lovely thing. ^_^

 

Please Bioware? It would be such a wonderful thing to do. it would make this game, in my eyes, finally complete.

 

SWTOR would be.......perfection.

Edited by JediElf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you mean counterproductive in that more visibility in the Q&A thread inevitable leads to more trolling here? Could you be more specific?

]

 

That is certainly true. This place has been troll central the last couple of days. Most of it hasn't even been bothered to be removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoever wrote that in response or formulated it for the response should never work in public relations or customer service. I can only hope that is not indicative of the actual attitude of those in control of development and design. As it is probably one of the few times it was mentioned in the manner and there has been no mention of it in detail since, I can understand the frustration and feeling of marginalization.

You can see it in its entirety, where I quote the full comment following the September Announcement a few pages back. Look for a block of three boxed quotes in a yellow-y color.

 

The remarks were made by Stephen Reid, Online Community Manager for SWTOR.

 

Again - I don't attribute it to malice. It's an awkward statement on an awkward situation. It's hard to look graceful when sitting on a fence.

 

Which, of course, is very likely to be a factor in the current reluctance to issue any further comment. It is a difficult situation. But acknowleging that would, in my opinion, be a good icebreaker. Then, let us know where this is and how they are looking at going about it.

 

They did Developer Blogs discussiong game design pre-launch, they are capable of offering some information. It's a matter of seeing that there is more to be gained by engaging in a dialog, when silence is proving to be so detrimental.

 

That, right there, is what I think we hope to get across.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Self inflammatory? I'm sorry - could you rephrase that? I don't know what you mean.

 

I think it just leads to more frustration on the part of those most involved, not more action on Bioware's side.

 

How is it counterproductive to count? So far, it seems to have encouraged more activity in the Q&A thread. I'm curious to see how much response the situation is getting.

Arguably if the ends justify the means, having more activity resulting in more responses could be valid. So far it has not been the case. so I would say again it just leads to more internalized frustrations with a lack of answering while lending credibility to the idea that the more vocal the more valid the want.

Do you mean counterproductive in that more visibility in the Q&A thread inevitable leads to more trolling here? Could you be more specific?

I had not considered that, but i don't think that negative feedback from single community members is necessarily anything more than a side effect of having any opinion at all. Though I can imagine it can be annoying and distracting to the overall cause.

 

The point is not to request implementation, but information - while demonstrating widespread interest.

 

My point is that some of the information being requested, some of it just in at least the way it is requested, is impossible, or unreasonable. There are questions as so "when," such as weeks, months etc. 1.2 doesn't have a date yet if I'm not mistaken. Specific game features that have not yet been mentioned even in line with 1.2, I consider impossible to answer.

Also in line again with the fact that any dev team that is working on something that is most likely backburner or at least not aimed for implementation in 1.2 (for whatever reason) may not have time estimations that could be released with any degree of certainty, or even any updates on how it may be implemented.

From what I've seen quoted by people in this thread by members of Bioware, it sounds to me like they are going to release SGRA in expansions. Not in any 1.x release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say I'd prefer the original companions to remain the same. Add new ones in for replays. Do a Mass Effect style choice where you get to pick a companion or two that meshes for you. Going back and making say... Khem Val a romance option would completely change my view of what his character was. So would blanket assigning all companions an SGRA option... especially the droids.

 

Uh, when people say "all companions" it's short for "all currently romanceable companions", generally. I know some people might also be asking for additional current companions, but by and large we're merely asking to have those companions everyone else already has.

 

And as I've said many times before, personality and sexual orientation have nothing to do with each other. If a companion can be in love with different species and different body types then making a case that the sexual orientation of that character - whose purpose it is to be a romantic foil - is immutable when it comes to gender seems rather ill-advised.

 

Not that I couldn't point to about five people who'd really want Zenith to be an option, generally speaking. It depends on the character if future content will change their status, but there is nothing stopping them from making currently romanceable companions available to everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel pretty much the same way. Though for me there is an added incentive toward same-gender romance generally by being something I identify as part of me. So I would be more likely to have a character that starts out a clean slate and turns gay or bi rather than straight (also for the novelty of it, as it is still so rare in gaming).

 

Yeah, most of my characters seem to turn out attracted to women, even if they're in a relationship with/attracted to a man as well, suprisingly enough :D

 

 

Like you said, I think novelty is actually a large part of the draw here; LGBT entertainment is still underrepresented in other popular media, which leads to a bit of a feeling of "well, maybe I can't watch/read the stories with a gay protagonist (especially a female one) and same-sex relationships I want to, but when it's my own characters, I'd better be able to play them". This as a medium is significantly more interactive than others, obviously, which means that being unable to identify with the characters is a bigger deal than it is if one random tv show has decided that gay people don't exist in their universe -- not that that isn't a problem too, but that's a whole nother kettle of fish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, when people say "all companions" it's short for "all currently romanceable companions", generally. I know some people might also be asking for additional current companions, but by and large we're merely asking to have those companions everyone else already has.

 

Yeah, this. I'm perfectly cool with not being able to romance the droids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sevenpsych, you make many valid points in your various posts. I appreciate your efforts to try to see the issue from varying points of view.

 

However, the one substantive difference I have with your opinions is in regards to what paying customers should do when the service they are receiving is not to their liking. The idea that we should stop asking and wait patiently for Bioware to tell us something, in fact that idea that Bioware doesn't owe us any information at all is, to put it mildly, something that I disagree with.

 

I can't see that kind of mentality being applied to other forms of businesses. For example:

 

*You've been waiting over an hour for your food restaurant. Your server refuses to update you on the situation. Well, sit tight. Your sever doesn't owe you any explanations. Your food will be here when its ready.

 

*You encountered a piece of slightly damaged merchandise at a department store, and the clerk has gone to consult with their manager about whether or not the store can give you a discount due to the damage. This information will influence your decision to purchase or not to purchase. The clerk has been gone for an hour. Sure, he said he'd be back, but the wait is becoming a bit lengthy for your taste. Well, buck up. That clerk doesn't owe you anything. You just wait there quietly until he returns, and by no means should you ask anyone else to check on the situation.

 

*You had to choose between a satellite television service or cable. You chose the cable company because they told you that a channel you really wanted would be included in their lineup "soon". Since then, every time you call your cable company for an update, the customer service reps don't have any information for you and their managers absolutely refuse to talk to you. You're paying a monthly fee for this service, but you have no right to expect any answers. The company taking your money doesn't owe you anything.

 

Okay, that's enough. Do you see where I'm going with these examples? We absolutely should be asking questions here, and we have every right to think we deserve an answer.

Edited by mrcaptainpants
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, when people say "all companions" it's short for "all currently romanceable companions", generally. I know some people might also be asking for additional current companions, but by and large we're merely asking to have those companions everyone else already has.

 

And as I've said many times before, personality and sexual orientation have nothing to do with each other. If a companion can be in love with different species and different body types then making a case that the sexual orientation of that character - whose purpose it is to be a romantic foil - is immutable when it comes to gender seems rather ill-advised.

 

Not that I couldn't point to about five people who'd really want Zenith to be an option, generally speaking. It depends on the character if future content will change their status, but there is nothing stopping them from making currently romanceable companions available to everyone.

 

I do understand, tongue in cheek about the droids. Tthough I do not see all romantic options as simply being blanket options for all, if we were to have the romantic foils changed in some patch to allow for SGRA, then all my options that previously may have presented a different character to me are now changed. Someone who may not have been receptive to my character before is all of a sudden an option, that changes the story for me, it changes my view of that character and mine.

 

I personally don't want the characters in the game to change, because I already have a view of them from my play through. Having that change makes it so I never had the option and i may have taken that option at the time,, and I wouldn't want to post-game go back and alter my character's romance choice or even have the option because it undermines the decisions that i already had to make.

 

Personally I'd just prefer more companions available who may be gay, straight, bi, or whatever floats their boat. Heck, make the number of options limitless, but don't mess with what I already did make for decisions or make it so i just missed out on decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*You've been waiting over an hour for your food restaurant. Your server refuses to update you on the situation. Well, sit tight. Your sever doesn't owe you any explanations. Your food will be here when its ready.

 

You walk out, you don't wait past closing time for an answer.

 

*You encountered a piece of slightly damaged merchandise at a department store, and the clerk has gone to consult with their manager about whether or not the store can give you a discount due to the damage. This information will influence your decision to purchase or not to purchase. The clerk has been gone for an hour. Sure, he said he'd be back, but the wait is becoming a bit lengthy for your taste. Well, buck up. That clerk doesn't owe you anything. You just wait there quietly until he returns, and by no means should you ask anyone else to check on the situation.

 

You walk out, bad customer service is bad, you want to buy a product that you may never get support on?

*You had to choose between a satellite television service or cable. You chose the cable company because they told you that a channel you really wanted would be included in their lineup "soon". Since then, every time you call your cable company for an update, the customer service reps don't have any information for you and their managers absolutely refuse to talk to you. You're paying a monthly fee for this service, but you have no right to expect any answers. The company taking your money doesn't owe you anything.

 

You leave their service, or call the BBB for false advertising.

 

Okay, that's enough. Do you see where I'm going with these examples? We absolutely should be asking questions here, and we have every right to think we deserve an answer.

 

I do, and where I differ is how much time I would waste asking before I left, instead of bashing my head against the metaphorical wall that is a poorly integrated customer service team.

 

I wouldn't sit back down with that same server and still expect an answer, you may deserve one, but its naive to expect one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I'd just prefer more companions available who may be gay, straight, bi, or whatever floats their boat. Heck, make the number of options limitless, but don't mess with what I already did make for decisions or make it so i just missed out on decisions.

 

Which is why there have been many systems proposed by people in this thread for allowing a replay of the companion conversations so that you could make it so you -didn't- miss out on decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is why there have been many systems proposed by people in this thread for allowing a replay of the companion conversations so that you could make it so you -didn't- miss out on decisions.

 

I just don't like that idea honestly, because I made that decision already, I have done that part of the game. It feels... dirty for lack of a better word, to go back in a role playing game and alter what I did. IMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...