http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1521856-character-creation-gender/

Since some people might want to continue this discussion.

I would advise you to actually research how surrogates and sperm donors work. For sperm donors one of the mothers gets pregnant, for surrogates both men mix their sperm and it is put into a woman who is hired to deliver the baby

This is of course if there aren't other ways for a same-six couple to get a child in a technologically advanced fictional universe.


Criticizing and giving examples of diversity =/= whining and I will ask you to not write people off that easy especially on a very serious topic for some people.

The old one isn't closed...?

doesn't matter if it's closed or not, it's over 200 posts thus people shouldn't be posting in it as it hit the post count.

No, considering the emulation of the 50's culture that doesn't seem unreasonable at all actually.

Correct. The game's initial setup implies that the option might not be present more so than it implies it might though.

He's right though, it's currently impossible for the child to be biologically related to both same-six partners (but we're getting there). The closest you can get is passing down mitochondrial DNA.

I have no idea if it matters here. The story hook probably comes from the fact that the child is related to us, I doubt our spouse will play an important role.

2nd one already?

Wow you may hit 10 threads mark in a couple of weeks, yet sooner or later you will understand that it is simply Bethesda's choice, just like the one they made in Fallout 3 where you are a 18 years old vault-dweller looking for his father, middle age guy.

Reposting this from the last thread because people kept assuming that I actually hadn't heard of Eleanor Roosevelt rather than focusing on the stuff I wrote that mattered beyond trying (and apparently failing) to point out that if you're going to use historical examples in your argument, it would help if those historical examples were accurate:

Personally, I'm torn on this. On the one hand, Bethesda has the right to make the game they want to make, and that includes making a character you play as the character they want you to play as. Age, race, personality, looks, gender, religion, all of that can totally be dictated by Bethesda if they want to, and if they feel it better serves the story they want to tell, then they should probably do it.

That said.

I do think it's counter intuitive for a company like Bethesda, which uses its character creation as a selling point for their games, to not be as inclusive as they can. If the name of the game is make the character you want, it seems odd that sixual orientation is the thing that gets determined for you. And I don't see why people are bothered by the fact that this is an issue for some people. Going "It doesn't bother me so it doesn't shouldn't be an issue to you" just comes off as petty and childish, not to mention unable/unwilling to actually discuss the issue with the people who care about it.

I'm straight, but I've played as gay characters of both genders in the past, and I wouldn't have a problem with a game "forcing" me to play as a gay character because it serves the game's narrative, just like I don't mind having to play as a member of this couple if it serves the game's narrative.

For me, the question is less "Why can't I play a gay man or a lisbian from the start," but "Why do we have to be a married parent?" I'm not bothered by it. In fact, I'm definitely going to be playing as a woman first because the female Sole Survivor strikes me as inherently more interesting than the male one (not to mention her voice acting doesn't sound like a robot). But my question is what purpose do the spouse and baby serve? Are they just something to emotionally manipulate the player and make the character sad at the beginning because they died? If so, why not play as the child, or start the game at your sibling's wedding, with the nuptial bliss being interrupted by atomic warfare and everybody you know and love dying? If it has to be your child because the kid is going to be the antagonist in the end like some people are suspecting... That's a really lame twist.

As a writer, I'm less interested in the restrictions that Bethesda's placed on the player themselves and more interested in what purpose those restrictions serve.

Edit: To add to the above, the restrictions that existed in previous games existed to serve the story Bethesda wanted to tell. Skyrim was about a hero of prophecy, so you were that hero. Morrowind was about Azura getting back at the Tribunal, and so you served as the instrument of that revenge in the form of the reincarnation of the person they betrayed. Fallout 3 was about obligations to family. James forsook Project Purity out of an obligation to keep you safe after losing his wife. He then reattempts Project Purity out of obligation to his wife once again. You're left with the decision of whether or not you'll show the same sense of duty to your bloodline, risking your life for your parents' legacy. In New Vegas, you were the Courier because that needed to happen to put you in the situation the game opens up in.

In all the above examples, the restrictions exist to serve the story. So, if the story is served by having you be a spouse and parent, that's fine with me. But I'm worried about the actual content of the story if that's the reason those restrictions are in place.

Unless the parents are related...

Honestly, I'm for discussing anything, but I didn't see this previous thread going very far. You're never gonna achieve any good point if you're just going to pick out the lowest argument from your opponent every time. And as a person who is somewhere in the middle ground of this argument, I'm not personally invested or interested in this discussion because so far it's not been generating really any good ideas or points. Just a thought from some wandering party. I do understand that it's kinda rude of me to interrupt here and I do apologize, but I felt compelled.

I've read speculation that the baby may survive and been thawed out earlier, and you encounter him as an advlt/possible antagonist.

This would explain why he's a set gender (because he's a set character), and would make for a role reversal on Fallout 3's plot.

I hope not. I think that'd be lame.

But still, if it were going to be like that, I'd rather the baby be the gender you aren't. That way, they favor your spouse in the looks department, making it personal for the player that not only are they fighting their child, but a reflection of their lost love.

That said, such a connection is utterly meaningless if the connection isn't really there. As in, the characters don't know/don't acknowledge that they're related.

In this case I honestly don't care about the baby's gender, or the baby's anything for that matter. What I do care about is if the game is trying to impose emotions on my character, which - for me - never works. I can't care about chars I've superficially interacted with for five minutes. I can't. Any attempt to make me feel like I want to search for my family if it happens in the game will fall flat. I don't give a fudge. This is my main issue.

I never cared for my disappeared dad in FO3, and I won't for my generic wife and kid in FO4, if Bethesda does decide to go down this cliche path. But I do still have hope they won't. We'll see.

That and it's an interesting twist on the usual 'father vs. son' conflict. As lame as it'd be to have your child be the antagonist, it would be interesting (and refreshing) to see a story about a mother vs. son conflict. You don't see that very often, if at all.

Of course, I'm of the same mindset of MeanSzuszu. It'll take a lot more than a 'hey, look, you've got a virtual family!' for me to care about them. If the tutorial is the only time we actually know them before the MQ, then there's little room for me to actually care more than on a superficial 'you two are related to my characters' way.

I am not going to argue about this, but let's think about this. What is the story of New Vegas? I have a hard time remembering it unless I am actually playing it, for some reason. All I know, is that I get to create any kind of character I want, and not play a story that has no impact to me. But I can remember the story of Fallout 3, because the Story was impactful. It seems that the more character options we get, the less of a real story we get.

You will probably be able to roleplay as a closeted character in pre-war that comes out as gay in the wasteland. Can't see why they wouldn't address this since you literally could marry any race and gender in Skyrim.

Maybe on a dialogue or some quest we will be able to choose this for our characters.

Sadly due to the really crap dialogue system I don't see that happening.

One more time...

Gender Selection =/= Diversity.

Gender Selection == Gender Selection.

Diversity is a whole hell of a lot more involved that just gender selection. Gender selection is just ONE SMALL part of diversity. You cannot equate the two any more than you can equate mammals and cats.

No, gender selection is actually diversity because you have the option to select different genders then male or female.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diversity

diversity

the quality or state of having many different forms, types, ideas, etc.

OR

the state of having people who are different races or who have different cultures in a group or organization

having the ability to choose the gender of your character or spouse is 100% diversity by the literal definition of the word.

But, cats ARE mammals.

I agree with the whole "you can't make me care about my virtual family" thing. Unless a good portion of the game is spent getting to know them...... (right, a 1950's version of "the sims".....) The thought of your offspring being your antagonist though, unfortunately, that makes a lot of sense....... from a variety of viewpoints. But, being as it's an open world game, and interacting with the world is more important than the main quest, my guess is, that just like in previous games, you can simply ignore it.

They sure are mammals, so are dogs and humans. but dogs and humans are not cats. That is where equating cats and mammals falls apart.

So are you attempting to say that you cannot have diversity without gender selection?

I don't mind a proposition that states gender selection enhances diversity. That is something that I will accept.

But there has been a lot of comments that imply and in some cases categorically state that you cannot have diversity without it, and that is just a flat out lie.

Sure it adds to diversity but yes, I don't think the game is fully diverse if we can't pick what our character is.

But you CAN pick what your character is, male, or female. sixual orientation is something else entirely. I don't want to get in to the whole 'gender identity' can of worms.

As a transwoman I would really appreciate you not go that route. Gender identity is a very big deal to people.

Then don't bring it up. If you have the twig and berries, you are physically male, if not, you are physically female. I don't see how anything else is even relevant.