What are your expectations of Romances and differences in sexualities in Mass Effect: Andromeda? - R

Alright, I already know this post will be long, so, sorry in advance Also, I'm just going to stick to Bioware stuff in my answers since they're going to be familiar to the people reading this.

1. My favorite LGBTQ characters would be Zevran, Iron Bull, Dorian, and Anders, but I'm not sure he counts... more on that in a bit. Interesting that while there are gay/bi female characters I like, I don't count any of my favorites among them. I guess I'll get to that later in discussing my favorite female characters.

I like Zevran and Iron Bull for similar reasons. They're both fun to have around, add levity with their banter and quest comments, and have intriguing backstories. And while I tend to play characters on the good side of the moral spectrum, I tend to enjoy companions who are more pragmatic. As far as their being bisexual, it makes sense for them to both be open about the fact, because they're open about their sexuality in general. However, it does reinforce an unfortunate stereotype about openly bisexual people being promiscuous and a little immoral: Zevran, Iron Bull, Isabella, Leliana (not promiscuous necessarily, but you can infer that seduction would be part a bard's skillset), Anders.

Anders was my favorite companion in Awakening, and though I think the transition between that and how he was in DA2 could have been handled better, I still think he made a fascinating figure. He's passionate, selfless, a freedom fighter... and is the epitome of 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions.' He makes all the worst decisions, for all the best reasons. I love him for all the reasons many hate him (and can certainly understand why people do). But his being bi was handled poorly. It'd be one thing if he were a private person, and that's why we don't learn of it unless we romance him (like Merrill or Fenris) but he tells us Karl was his lover only if we're male - a rather important distinction considering what just transpired. So either he hides it from f!Hawke (out of shame? the idea she might disapprove?) or the game hides it from us female players because it might make us uncomfortable. Maybe that wasn't the intention, but that's how it comes across, and I don't like it.

Dorian I have mixed feelings about. Personality wise, I love everything about him. He's a good person, but not without his flaws to keep things interesting. Funny, smart, charming... etc. etc. The fact that he's gay, juts kinda... is, you know? It doesn't really change how I feel about him one way or another in the confines of the game. Outside of the game, I'm happy about the inclusion. I know it means a lot to LGBT players that he's there, and that's far more important than my totally selfish disappointment that I can't romance him as a female player. I guess. *sigh* But, regarding his personal quest - here's where the mixed feelings come in. I enjoyed it and was moved by it and thought it was written well. But I also felt it was a bit... cliche, and it was a little disappointing in that regard. Finally we have this great gay character, and his personal quest is about being accepted as a gay man by his disapproving father. It just felt a little old hat, I don't know. Like that 'very special episode' in a nineties teen drama or something.

I do want to mention Steve Cortez, because while not a favorite he did leave quite an impression on me even being the relatively minor character he was. He was just a cool guy all around, and I thought the way we help him through his grief as a friend was really poignant. Gave us that human face to attach to the loss experienced in war (outside of soldiers who die fighting) we otherwise just hear about in the game. And, they could just as easily have made that story about a dead wife. But they didn't, and that's awesome. It doesn't change the fact that he's a good man who lost his love. Though the decision to make him romanceable seems forced, considering. But that's more a problem with game devs creating male LI's with some dead spouse/tragic ex thing in their past because apparently we're supposed to like that sort of thing than them trying to shoehorn in a gay romance. I hope

So now... favorite (straight or presumably straight) male characters... they're kind of all over the place. But the single thing I love most in a character is intelligence. Mordin Solus, our brilliant scientist. Solas, because, again, he's intelligent and is a great source of interesting lore. Garrus is more street smart and perceptive than academic, but he still comes across as (mostly) rational and intelligent. I also love Cole and Legion, but... I'm not sure they count as male, exactly. One's a spirit who happened to take a boy's form and the other is a machine, so... yeah

I suppose my favorite female characters fall into this category too. In Dragon Age, I love Morrigan (again, she's all about knowledge and the preservation of it and she's an expert on magic). Miranda, for all her being pushed on us as a hot space babe, was also a brilliant scientist in her own right (as head of the Lazarus project) and is rational and well spoken. Tali is more sweet and innocent than the previous examples but she's also a tech genius who matures into really strong woman over the course of the series. Cassandra is level-headed and thoughtful, and while she's strong in her convictions she's also open minded and willing to question. These are also the types of characters I like to play - whether they are heroic or pragmatic, innocent or world-weary, the characters I like to roleplay are always intelligent, curious, and willing to look at things from different sides.

So... why is it that all of these women are straight? I've often said that if they were available, I would totally leave my comfort zone as a straight player and romance them - but I'm not willing to play a male character to do it (I always play a female if the option's there). What is it about these women that the people who wrote them went 'I can't really see her as gay or bisexual'? I don't really know the answer. I mean, to be fair, Liara and Josephine are also intelligent women, but, they just don't have that special something that makes me love them as much as the characters I mentioned. Who all happen to be straight.

2. Should a character's gay/bi/trans-ness be 'optional' or 'in your face?' It should depend on the character. Like with people in real life. Some will be comfortable mentioning it, some won't. Some people are really private about their past relationships and about their sexuality, so trying to stick their orientation or gender identity or what-have-you into a conversation just for the sake of it being there just comes across as awkward. So maybe we don't find out about their orientation unless we ask. But if it makes sense for that character to talk about a past relationship, or brag about a sexual conquest, or hit on a same-gender character because they're flirtatious in general, than, yeah. Go ahead and make that past relationship with a same-sex partner. Have her flirt with a guy in one scene, and tell us she thinks that girl is beautiful in another. Don't hide it like with Anders, or have Zevran brag about all the women he's been with but have him make a single offhand comment about being with men, if that's, you know, your thing to let us know he's into both. As for side characters, and couples we meet out in the game world, mix it up. Because why not?

QFT!!!

I totally agree. I do not understand why character need to represent my sexual orientation to be relatable. That's pretty... sad actually. I relate to characters based on their personality. And I don't like people more because of their sexuality either. In fact, I have friends with whom I've never spoken about that at all and who never introduced partners to me. I have no idea if they are straight or gay and I don't care. I don't know anybody who makes a big deal out of their sexuality. And why would they? It's not particularly interesting.

I thought DAI was waaaay too focused on showing how very progressive Bioware is now. I do not disapprove of characters like Krem at all, in fact I really liked him. It's HOW Bioware made a massive deal out of certain characters' sexuality that felt a bit grating and preachy. They did a good job with Sera. She just likes girls but only mentions it in passing. It has no influence whatsoever on her personality. Her issues have a lot more to do with being an elf which is a real problem in Thedas, so it makes sense for her to be touchy about it. I want more such characters who just happen to be LGBT.
Dorian is my favorite DAI character and the best written imo - except for his romance. Like somebody has mentioned, it felt like I was watching a teen drama or self-help video. His personal storyline with his father should have focused on Tevinter society, NOT on him being gay. Especially since it was implied that his father did not disapprove of his sexuality in general but was concerned about producing an heir to continue the lineage. I would have liked to hear more about THAT. How Tevinter society works, especially the preservation of magic. Instead we got Dorian proclaiming that he has sex with men and likes it as if that was somehow shocking. I thought it was absolutely cringe-worthy and cliche. I am aware that as a white straight woman I cannot relate to this at all. And I have read that Dorian's story has helped young gay men face their families, which is cool. However, I know a number of gay colleagues who thought Dorian was an awful stereotype.

In Dorian's case I thought the focus on his sexuality hurt his character. None of the things that are great about Dorian have to do with his sexuality. I enjoyed his scathing sense of humor and his desire to improve Tevinter, haunted by what has become of his country. What his father tried to do to him should have been yet another thing totally messed up about Tevinter society, instead Bioware used it to show how very much ok it is to be gay. Of course, it's ok! Nobody in Thedas cares either except for Tevinter when it comes to a family's legacy, much like it used to be with royalty in real life. So why is Dorian being gay such an issue all of a sudden? It shouldn't be. It was about his family pressing for an heir. Which is VERY different. And yet Bioware made a huge fuss for the sake of the player.

I do not understand this extreme focus on sexuality. Sure, ME1 was the first game that allowed me to play a woman (aside from games that have a set female protagonist) and I did enjoy that immensely at the time. Romance option for my femShep? Awesome!!! So I do get the appeal of representation. Games used to be written for men featuring male protagonists. A lot has changed since then and I welcome more diverse heroes. But to me there's a difference between offering choices and making a massive fuss about them. DAI felt like a total dating sim that was more concerned with representing and showcasing every possible sexual orientation including transgender and possibly asexual than it was about writing a good story. The game was 90% the characters with a heavy focus on flirting and 10% a super lame main plot. The balance was off...

When games become too much about the player's sexuality and personal issues rather than telling a good story, I think it's a bad development. It slips into special snowflake territory. I always thought that roleplaying meant becoming somebody OTHER than myself, relating to these characters, choosing romances that fit that character's PERSONALITY. But in recent years it seems that this has changed. People want to be able to fully self-insert. And apparently the most important thing about it is who they can bang in a game.
And judging by the reception of all bisexual characters, it's not enough to have options. They need to make the player feel special and super validated.

And just to clarify, this has nothing to do with LGBT content but with putting too much focus on sexuality or gender which DOES happen with that target group a lot, though. However, it's also annoying how developers go out of their way these days to make female gamers feel appreciated by making female heroines extra amazing. DAI is guilty of that as well, offering four options to straight women. At least I haven't come across much modern feminist pandering where female characters are promoted by denouncing men.

My point is that nobody is special because of their gender or sexuality or race. And putting so much emphasis on that is the wrong way to promote equality imo. In DAO and DA2 characters were simply straight or bi and nobody cared and it was absolutely not relevant at all. Leliana was not that bisexual girl, she was just Leliana. I NEVER thought about characters in terms of their sexuality. Along came DAI and suddenly it was ALL over the game. Bioware changed from a developer that offered romance options as a bonus to this developer who focuses on romances and who has this really romance obsessed fandom, and I'm not sure it's actually all that positive a reputation. Especially considering the massive flaws that DAI had. Gameplay is boring as fuck but heeey, we have awesome romance options for everyone!

I hope nobody is offended by my post. I like romances in games but I don't really care all that much if I actually get to choose. I'd much rather play a character with an interesting personality than be given a blank slate onto which I can project myself completely. And if that hero happens to be a man and gay, that's fine too. I fully agree that there should be more heroes in games or movies that happen to be not straight or non-white. Because that is my point, they are still going to be relatable. Because what we relate to has little to do with sexuality. It's one thing on a list of many different things, nothing more. I might have a lot more in common with that gay character or that black man than I have with this white straight woman like myself. And no matter how many romance options Bioware throws my way that fit my sexuality, whether I'm happy with them depends on that character's personality. DAI offered four choices for self-insert romances and yet the characters I found most attractive AS PEOPLE were Dorian and Cassandra. Oops!

I really do understand the joy of romancing somebody I as the player find attractive. And yes, I usually play female first when I can. It's just my opinion that a character's sexuality is the least important thing. I don't mind gated romances because they "force" me to replay, but I never had a problem with player-sexual. In fact, it's the easiest solution that leaves more resources for other parts of the game.

The problem with the "player sexual" setups is: It get's even more complicated to keep all the different characters in line... remember DA2? Anders was player sexual, and it ended with more then one awkward exchange when playing a male straight Hawk... sure, BW would probably do it better this time around, but still, it's not as easily done as you might think - especially when you want characters to believably interact with each other and the PC - which BW is attempting to improve in MEA.

As far as this exaggerated push for inclusion/representation goes - and I know many people wont like that, but - I think it comes from the fact that you deal with people that are much more aware of/focused on their sexuality/identity then your run-of-the-mill cis/het/white person. I, in example, am a such a person - in my late 30, wife and child, stay at home dad, partially disabled, etc. yet, non of those things define me... that's WHAT I am, not WHO I am. Who I am is someone that - in example - enjoys games, and I don't expect those games to be about ME, in the contrary. I - my identity - am not important here, the potential fantasy I want to experience is.

So, frankly - to all those people that think that "representation of the self" is so damn important in their games - I can only say one thing: Stop it, all you are doing is robbing yourself of the potential for a great experience... Games are there to take time off from what you are, and maybe even might help you explore who you are.

If it interests me to do so? Sure... I played female, trans and gay characters in pen and paper RPGs, I regularly play female characters in video games... practically every time I get the option. Why? Because it gives me the option take on a trait I don't have and explore being something I'm not, but - and that's a big BUT - I don't expect a game to allow me to. In pen and paper, when my group is uncomfortable with me playing a woman (which happened), I don't do it, and when a game doesn't let me play a male character, I'm also fine with it, as long as it is a good game.

On the assumption that "I am over represented to the point I don't even notice", and I expected that retort: No, I'm not... people that share one or more aspects of WHAT I am are, but what does that do for me? Nothing... sure, Brad Pitt is white like me, and he is male like me, and maybe even straight like me (still not totally sure there, to be honest ), but do you honestly think I feel REPRESENTED by him? I'm me, my own person, and I'm not so full of myself as to expect to be represented anywhere outside where it counts, with my friends and my family.

Sorry, but only because there are one or two aspects of your person that  - right now, values change all the time - aren't as "accepted" by a whole lot of people that you probably don't really care about anyway (ie. a part of society), doesn't make you any different from me... we are all human BEings in name only. Terribly sorry nobody ever told you that convincingly, but you (a general you) aren't a minority person, you are a person that also happens to be part of a minority group.

warbaby2 is dropping some mighty truth bombs here.

You're saying exactly what I wanted to say, except I couldn't find the right words myself. You're exactly right, you aren't defined by WHAT you are (gender/race/sexuality), you're defined by WHO you are (personality/beliefs/actions).

People who think gender, race and sexuality is somehow a great important aspect of us really seem mentally immature to me, not to mention that thinking in such a way extremely racist/sexist.

Not to mention that demanding to be represented in media is an act of incredible narcissism and/or insecurity. If you're one of those people who cares about these sort of things, I have to ask: Are you really that self-centered that you want yourself fully represented in media and want every videogame character to be your potential self-insert? Are you really that insecure that you need to feel validated by media in order to feel good about yourself?

I'll leave you with this fun fact: For 3 years of my childhood I lived in Taiwan, a country where they didn't speak my language, where none of the people on TV had the same skin-color as me and none of their media displayed my culture in any meaningful way. Do you think I cared? Do you think my parents cared? No. If anything, we were fascinated by the Taiwanese culture and how different it was from our own. Instead of throwing a temper tantrum, demanding Taiwan to be more "inclusive" and "diverse", we respected their culture and tried to adapt to them instead of being disrespectful and demanding they'd adapt to us.

For the follow-up questions:

I saw the potential concept of every romance being open as the supposed ideal for how ubiquitous such choices might become in this supposed future. In that, I think Liara had the potential to express that sentiment, but I feel that the upcoming female Turian squadmate might be able to do a better job of it. I generally find it cloying when characters are written with a "look at me" mentality in the mindset of the writers, whatever the subject of it may be (whether it be orientation, gender, blind mistrust [Virmire Survivor], or just painful and failed attempts at badassery [Kai Leng]). Sure, characters must have a purpose, but don't create them JUST to be a punchline or a bullet point.  This is part of why sometimes, villains just fall flat (basic mustache twirlers).

Anything else could potentially be a disservice to the characters. Let them live their lives, ease the audience into their story, and have it all make sense from an emotional perspective as well. I mean, it was almost laughable how randy some of the crew on the Normandy could get at times (looking at you, Jacob "The PRIIIIIZE" Taylor!), although granted, it was fairly easy to avoid that as well (hell, I always enjoyed denying Morrigan when she was playing the manipulator).

Now, having said that, I always found Juhani's emotions and potential to be a sweet tragedy. They never really got to fully realize her romance arc, and I feel like it could have made for a very poignant moment...that giving into her passions in a certain manner might actually NOT condemn her, whereas the previous case had. I also loved Anders in his initial appearance, but they destroyed his motivations and emotions in DA2 (I understand the mechanism for doing so, but it still felt disjointed). And Iron Bull is just freaking hilarious and fun without even needing to try to hard, he's just naturally awesome!

EDIT: OMG the BBCode was screwing with the formatting for my post, lol!  Gotta be careful with those brackets!

Liam-bisexual

Cora-Straight

Peebee-lesbian

Vetra-bisexual

Drack-hook up with Nakmor Kesh/ non-romanceable

Play doh alien (angarran?)-straight

Synth- non-romanceable

....that's just squadmates. Who knows how many flings/other romances are out there.

I'm hoping for some interesting non-squad LIs. So far there's no squad members I'd like to romance.

I could say so many things here, but I'd best leave it with a quote from Flemeth:

"You are required to do nothing, least of all believe. Shut one's eyes tight or open one's arms wide, either way, one's a fool."

Hey guys,

as always thanks for the great and thoughtful responses!

As before, maybe lets consider some additional questions:

1) I guess I never really asked this yet, but why do you think BioWare has tried to include a larger variety of Gender and LGBTQ+ representation in their games? Has this worked for them? What would you suggest BioWare does in future regarding LGBTQ+ and gender representation in its future games?

2) an interesting statement has been raised by some members that has caught my attention, regarding what helps to define someones identity, I guess I am looking to get some more info on this, why do you think that gender, race, sexuality don't represent 'valid' concepts that can contribute to someones identity?

I'll take the second one then...

Gender, race and sexuality are base human characteristics. They are part of the base set of variables a person is born with, and while they might have initial influence on a human beings personal and social development they are still just that: The base line. Let me put it this way: They are the car you are driving along the highway of life in... yet, they don't define where you are driving. They might sometimes influence the direction, they might sometimes force you to adjust the speed, but they aren't doing the steering... that's you're will to action, that is doing that. That's the "steering wheel".

So, in that light, one might already gleam the potential problems, when people start to define them self by what their "car" is like, and not by what the "road" ahead is like...

Yet, in our modern society, with so many - maybe even most - "roads" already well traveled, if you will, it seams that - especially young people - started to shift their focus from the "road" ahead, to the only thing they perceive as unique around them - their "car". You might already be able to see where I'm going with that. Sufficed to say: Knowing your "car", while important, doesn't do much for you if you loose sight of the "road". The "road" doesn't care about what "car" you drive, it's the same for everybody, it only cares about how good your driving is...

That's a very simple philosophical observation... and I'm not quite sure about the quality of the metaphor, but I think it's workable.

I very much disagree... if anything, the definition of the self through relatively irrelevant factors like race and gender expression are rapidly becoming the big problem for the younger generation, yet, there is nothing changing in their behavior. They are still rebelling against and acting according to the same paradigms every generation before them has, only their targets are becoming more and more... petty? While generations before them stood up to to real inequalities and social injustices, they are waging war against what is perceived as "normal"... that's what I meant when I wrote: All roads worth traveling have already been traveled... more even, they have been plowed to a point where nothing is left to do for an army of young, ambitious people looking for cause.

So, what do they do? They turn to the self... to what makes humans, human, and they are dissecting it, rearranging it and finding something - anything - worth fighting over...

If on one thing I can agree, though - this is probably the last generation doing so - but not because humans will have advanced far enough to look beyond base factors like race or gender, but because the western world might not survive a couple of decades of identity politics.