9243 réponses à ce sujet

[ScotGaymer]

Personally I wouldnt mind if the charatcer was a bit camp as long as he was well written and wasnt a complete walking talking stereotype/trope.



As much as I love Zevran in DAO he comes off as a total bisexual stereotype; ie will happily do anything anywhere anytime. Total man****. It takes a bit of work and time to actually get a little deeper and discover he isnt as shallow as he first appears.

But that stereotypical first look at him turns lots of people right off.



I only investigated cos frankly he was the only "gay" option for my gay warden, which surprised me cos frankly Alistair seemed a little more gender flexible than Zevran (he seemed like just a man**** rather than genuinely into guys).



Id like someone real. And I maintain id like the romances in future to be a little more fleshed out, a little less shallow, and a little harder to accidentally fall into. Just cause my ManShep wasnt being a complete **** doesnt mean he wanted into Miranda's or Jack's pants thank you very much, he still held a torch for his kick ass soldier-**** Ashley.

[fleaisbackwoot2]

Siansonea II wrote...


Being intolerant of intolerance is as it should be. Embracing a group of people who are actively promoting an exclusionary agenda is silly. This group is for same-sex romances, the other side is against it. Tolerating people who are against something for no discernible reason other than bigotry, religion, or whatever doesn't make any sense. Where does one draw that line? Homophobes are okay, but racists are bad? Nonsense. They're all bad.

But it just seems to me and i think you would agree with me for a change that BOTH sides are intolerant, right OR wrong, and there seems to be no COMPROMISE or Middle ground where the sides can agree on...it seems to me that you want and even almost demand that there should be s/s in ME3 while the other side says h3ll NO there shouldnt be...so where can there be a compromise? what is your suggestion? I am all ears...I hate to admit it but i think you are slowly changing my opinion on this but its gonna be rough but then again every time i flippin post here my account gets banhammered and the INTOLERANT people in this threat (not you sian) do not want to hear any opposition just immediate actions from bioware..its obsecured! (notice its fleaisbackwoot2...not fleaisbackwoot)

You think you have me on the ropes, don't you? Sure, Simone Shepard's history with Liara added a lot of depth to that experience, and so did Devon Shepard's. But what about Martín Shepard? He romanced Liara, then went for Miranda and didn't look back. He might love to have a shot at a third romance altogether in ME3, maybe even with a dude. That's just his personality. Who is to say otherwise? Any given Shepard can perform acts of genocide, or conversely save an entire species from extinction; execute people outright, or allow them to live; ally himself/herself with a known terrorist organization, or give them the finger. Why is a little sexual flexibility so difficult to grasp? Especially since Shepard is already open to having sex with four different alien species. Really? Human males are that much more of a stretch? That is just silly.

It is hardly a stretch to be honest but to say one sex (fem shep) has an s/s when the other sex (male) doesnt its not all true...asari is a monogender race...i mean thats like saying if you have sex with a hermaphadite (an individual that has both sexes) are you gay or are you straight for having sex with that individual? I dont know to be honest but that doesnt really count to having gay sex because they are of both sexes...do you understand what i am trying to say? All i am saying is that if shep (fem or male) could have a s/s in mass effect 1 then I would not be posting here at all but to demand that there should be a s/s on me3 because of its exclusion of homosexuality when me3 is the last part of the story just doesnt seem like it should or even would fit...but i am open to suggestions

im not saying the whole game, just the relationship yet if you change mshep to be able to have s/s in me3 it will not be the same (speculating) but then again you speculating that shep would be the same...truth is..is that we dont know how it would affect the game because it hasnt been in the series..

I really don't understand this statement, please clarify.

what i was getting at that statement is that we know what shep is like now but we are all speculating how it would effect shep and the crewmen/crew women if shep is gay so he can have his s/s...thats to counter the points that shepard would change but everyone here is insistent that shep would not change because he is gay (yall's speculation)

How many times do we have to say that no one is pushing for an aggressive homosexual character to pester Shepard with sexual advances? Are there currently ANY characters in the ME universe that behave that way toward Shepard? And doesn't Shepard have to initiate conversation with people before they'll even discuss romance? This objection works if we're talking about Dragon Age, but we're not.

Well i would have to say that I can only hope that if they changed thane or garrus or jacob or mordin (all characters i find interesting...maybe not so much jacob) so they can have s/s with male shep and they are anything remotely like the women in me2 that you literally have to beat them off with a stick with in the second game (that is why i think there will be a character that will be like the elf if this is made possible in the last installment) then yes you will be pushing your homosexuality onto people that do not want to explore in the game or in life
PS: you are punishing people that want to find out more about characters in the game through convos therefore you would be "initate conversation with people before they'll even discuss romance" because if the questionable gay individual starts hitting on you when you just wanted to be friends and learn more about the person...you see what I mean? i hear this is very evident with femshep and jacob? i never played as a chick...because i really dont want to play me1 agan as a chick because i find it sooo slow compared to me2 but thats just my opinion but do you think i should? have you? and i want to say sorry if i ticked you off before...I can be a real d!ckhead

Modifié par fleaisbackwoot2, 11 septembre 2010 - 01:48 .

[shootist70]

fleaisbackwoot2 wrote...

But it just seems to me and i think you would agree with me for a change that BOTH sides are intolerant, right OR wrong, and there seems to be no COMPROMISE or Middle ground where the sides can agree on...it seems to me that you want and even almost demand that there should be s/s in ME3 while the other side says h3ll NO there shouldnt be...so where can there be a compromise?

It's optional - o...p...t..i...o...n...a...l. If you don't like it don't use it and you never need to know it's there. How hard is this to understand?

[fleaisbackwoot2]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Pacifien wrote...

If you would like to critique someone's writing, please send them a PM instead of using the forum.

That poster is alienatedflea, blatantly circumventing his ban to resume trolling us. You can't blame us for not being thrilled.

On topic, for those who have not seen it, here is the Gavorn clip (doesn't spoil anything about the Lair storyline.)
I agree it isn't much, but it is a tantalizing hint.

technically its not trolling when some people in here that are in support of the thread said some pretty questionable trollish statements...and i was never a troll...a troll is when you say **** to ****** people off...some would say this whole thread is inflammatory TO SOME PEOPLE...i am sorry you take this too seriously and i can only hope before you beg the modiators to ban me again that you read my post because it was only questioning people's statements...not real trolling there to say why should we make content for the intolerant, a statement by shootist then dont you think its perfectly ok to ask who is the intolerant? wouldnt you agree with me that there are intolerant people on BOTH sides of this issue at hand? or saying to sian that her history (assuming she is a she if not my bad sian sorry) with liara with her femshep was established in ME1 meant a ton more to her than any LI in me2...so going with my "consistency theory"
SO somehow that is sooo OFFBASE that its considered trolling to you? the only troll i see here is the people who say mean spirited sh!t...i dont think that way but that doesnt mean I am going to sit by and allow a bad move to happen...if s/s was in me1 then there is an element that will never be captured if s/s is put in me3 because there is no history there..it will only result it feeling like it was a fling at best...nothing serious but if sian's femshep ends up marrying liara because those two characters have been through thick and thin then awesome...but to say I am trolling NOW..i say nay but obiviously you do not care for my presence here so you want me banned ASAP and for that I am sorry for offending you for whatever it is that i did

[FataliTensei]

shootist70 wrote...

fleaisbackwoot2 wrote...

But it just seems to me and i think you would agree with me for a change that BOTH sides are intolerant, right OR wrong, and there seems to be no COMPROMISE or Middle ground where the sides can agree on...it seems to me that you want and even almost demand that there should be s/s in ME3 while the other side says h3ll NO there shouldnt be...so where can there be a compromise?

It's optional - o...p...t..i...o...n...a...l. If you don't like it don't use it and you never need to know it's there. How hard is this to understand?

Apparently quite difficult

[fleaisbackwoot2]

shootist70 wrote...

fleaisbackwoot2 wrote...

But it just seems to me and i think you would agree with me for a change that BOTH sides are intolerant, right OR wrong, and there seems to be no COMPROMISE or Middle ground where the sides can agree on...it seems to me that you want and even almost demand that there should be s/s in ME3 while the other side says h3ll NO there shouldnt be...so where can there be a compromise?

It's optional - o...p...t..i...o...n...a...l. If you don't like it don't use it and you never need to know it's there. How hard is this to understand?

its not really all that optional if you think about it...now hear me out...lets say in me 3 you can have an s/s with garrus and you really want to know his adventures on omega before his squad got murdered right? and lets say this s/s OPTION was only triggered through convos right? then seeing how i just wanted to learn more about my best friend in the game then I have to trigger this romance in order to learn about him some more...how is that optional when you force someone's hand into romancing them to learn more about the character's history? and whats your suggestion again to include s/s? i dont think i remember seeing one from you...really im not trying to ****** you off i wanna know

[FataliTensei]

fleaisbackwoot2 wrote...

shootist70 wrote...

fleaisbackwoot2 wrote...

But it just seems to me and i think you would agree with me for a change that BOTH sides are intolerant, right OR wrong, and there seems to be no COMPROMISE or Middle ground where the sides can agree on...it seems to me that you want and even almost demand that there should be s/s in ME3 while the other side says h3ll NO there shouldnt be...so where can there be a compromise?

It's optional - o...p...t..i...o...n...a...l. If you don't like it don't use it and you never need to know it's there. How hard is this to understand?

its not really all that optional if you think about it...now hear me out...lets say in me 3 you can have an s/s with garrus and you really want to know his adventures on omega before his squad got murdered right? and lets say this s/s OPTION was only triggered through convos right? then seeing how i just wanted to learn more about my best friend in the game then I have to trigger this romance in order to learn about him some more...how is that optional when you force someone's hand into romancing them to learn more about the character's history? and whats your suggestion again to include s/s? i dont think i remember seeing one from you...really im not trying to ****** you off i wanna know

We've already addressed this multiple times, sometimes directly to you(then again talking to you is like to a talking to a brick wall, at least in the past). We all agreed that wanting a friendship with a character should not constitue a romance, we've already said that clearly labelled romance triggers should be in the game, that way no one has to romance anyone. There have been multiple suggestions about this exact issue throught this and the last thread. In fact we've even talked about how these things should be applied to all romances.

And please don't worry about Garrus if we get an S/S romance option it would most like be Kaidan, Thanem or a new character.

[MisterDyslexo]

fleaisbackwoot2 wrote...

shootist70 wrote...

fleaisbackwoot2 wrote...

But it just seems to me and i think you would agree with me for a change that BOTH sides are intolerant, right OR wrong, and there seems to be no COMPROMISE or Middle ground where the sides can agree on...it seems to me that you want and even almost demand that there should be s/s in ME3 while the other side says h3ll NO there shouldnt be...so where can there be a compromise?

It's optional - o...p...t..i...o...n...a...l. If you don't like it don't use it and you never need to know it's there. How hard is this to understand?

its not really all that optional if you think about it...now hear me out...lets say in me 3 you can have an s/s with garrus and you really want to know his adventures on omega before his squad got murdered right? and lets say this s/s OPTION was only triggered through convos right? then seeing how i just wanted to learn more about my best friend in the game then I have to trigger this romance in order to learn about him some more...how is that optional when you force someone's hand into romancing them to learn more about the character's history? and whats your suggestion again to include s/s? i dont think i remember seeing one from you...really im not trying to ****** you off i wanna know

There are a few extremely simple ideas to avoid this. A good one that's been talked about is making the conversation option a colour that isn't red, blue, or white. That way you can avoid it easily because you'll know what it is. I know what you're saying, and that does happen a lot. It happened to me when talking to Jack, and the same for Jacob. Fortunately Bioware probably knows they made a bit of an oopsie with that. At least in the first mass effect they're were a little more clear.

And don't worry about Garrus. He would be a very out-of-place same-sex romance, since when they're the same gender, Garrus sorta idolizes him Shepard, whereas when shepard is female, she isn't as influential on him, and even then you have to bring the idea up. It would probably be Kaiden or Thane, since they've already have been planned in the past.

[CShep25]

fleaisbackwoot2 wrote...

shootist70 wrote...

fleaisbackwoot2 wrote...

But it just seems to me and i think you would agree with me for a change that BOTH sides are intolerant, right OR wrong, and there seems to be no COMPROMISE or Middle ground where the sides can agree on...it seems to me that you want and even almost demand that there should be s/s in ME3 while the other side says h3ll NO there shouldnt be...so where can there be a compromise?

It's optional - o...p...t..i...o...n...a...l. If you don't like it don't use it and you never need to know it's there. How hard is this to understand?

its not really all that optional if you think about it...now hear me out...lets say in me 3 you can have an s/s with garrus and you really want to know his adventures on omega before his squad got murdered right? and lets say this s/s OPTION was only triggered through convos right? then seeing how i just wanted to learn more about my best friend in the game then I have to trigger this romance in order to learn about him some more...how is that optional when you force someone's hand into romancing them to learn more about the character's history? and whats your suggestion again to include s/s? i dont think i remember seeing one from you...really im not trying to ****** you off i wanna know

Yes, finally, yes; a legimate concern. This is my standpoint. I'd actively support homosexual romances if the conversation system was changed to allow friendship conversations seperate to romance convos. If they don't change the system, then I won't support same-sex romance. Selfish it may be, but I'd prefer more friendly banter rather than finding myself in a relationship accidently. There are plenty methods of changing up the dialogue wheel to accomodate seperate romance/friendship trees and these have been stated ad infinitum in this thread. Dragon Age 2 has a different system in place and we'll see how successful that becomes before we can accurately judge how ME3 conversations will work. But I just don't see them changing anythinng as major as the dialogue wheel for the final game, which is why I'm currently leaning over the anti-same-sex side of the fence.

[Poaches]

I don't see how the current conversations are still any better, given your concerns. As; you still fall into the a random romance as of ME2, and there is no friendship conversations in light of rejecting romance to speak of. The only sticking point is the possibility of having a member of the same sex suggesting attraction to your character yes? But that already exists in form of asari; but that's not an issue because they're female?

[ElitePinecone]

The current conversation system certainly has its drawbacks, in terms of 'falling into' romances - I had to escape romance offers from Miranda, Tali and Jack - all of whom I didn't realise I was romancing. There needs to be a distinction drawn between 'friendly' dialogue and conversation choices that can lead to a romance proposition.



This can certainly be done within the current system, for example by altering the colour of romance dialogue (as discussed before), or even a [Romance] text tag before the dialogue itself, much like is done currently for [Lie] options. Making the text itself less ambiguous (it's hard to see motives in written text) would help in this regard, for all people who want to avoid unwanted romances - same-sex or otherwise.



And certainly, if the Dragon Age conversation wheel works well, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be considered for Mass Effect 3. They changed "something as major" as the entire combat and levelling system for ME2, remember. Given the level of innovation we've seen in just the few months between the main game and ME2's DLC, I wouldn't rule out a change to the dialogue system at this stage. Then again, with virtually no information at this stage we'll just have to wait and see.



It's a legitimate concern, and hopefully it gets addressed. That being said, I don't agree that it's a deal-breaker for s/s romances. Plenty of us have had to cope with 'accidentally falling into' unwanted romances, and I think it's a broader gameplay concern than one which exclusively applies to people who don't want to encounter s/s romance.

[catabuca]

FataliTensei wrote...

catabuca wrote...

robtheguru wrote...

I haven't got any issues with the majority of gay people. They are just normal down to earth people no different from straight people. However, there are a minority of gay men who insist on being overly camp and that does nothing but drive me up the wall. There is no need for it. Anyway, if Bioware want to add a Gay male romanceable character in ME3 I really don't mind, hell i'd even sign a petition, just make him a man, not a flaming rainbow queen.

In real life there are some straight women who wear whorish clothes and it drives me up the wall. There is no need for it. If Bioware want to add a straight female romanceable character in ME I don't mind, as long as she isn't wearing whorish clothes and is a nice, clean, good girl.

Oh, oops, Miranda.

Seriously robtheguru - you have an 'issue' with camp men because they act camp? How does that affect you? You'd do better to stop worrying about the behaviour of others that you can't control, and focus on your own reactions to it, which you can control.

Catabuca I'm gay and have issues with camp men. They're annoying, shallow, and sadly are the stereotype of of homosexuality. They are an embarrassment to our entire sexual orientation and are on of the main problems when it comes to equal rights. So please don't think that straight people have issues with camp because it's gay, alot of people have issues with camp, because it's a sterotype and just plain annoying. IF they gave us a campy gay character in ME3, i would not but the game even though there is an S/S romance, because to me, it would be an insult.

Read this: http://www.stephenfr...9/think-pink/2/ (Do you know who Stephen Fry is? The relevant part starts a couple of paragraphs down.)

My point was that I agree that portraying a gay character as camp in ME (or any other video game) is potentially a bad thing, because it reinforces negative stereotypes in a limited genre that battles with prejudice already. However, my other point was that in wider society I believe it is wrong to further demonise camp men simply because of the way they act. It is not the way they act that 'gives all gay men a bad name' or however you might phrase it, it's homophobic responses to that behaviour that causes the negative reaction to perpetuate. There is a difference. This is a ridiculous analogy, so I apologise for making it but I can't think of another at the moment: you wouldn't blame a woman who wore a short skirt if she was raped, you'd blame the person who raped her. Why blame a victim of homophobia for acting/being camp? Blame the people who are homophobic and so narrow minded that they can't make space for all types of behaviours. By blaming camp men you help the homophobe win. Divide and conquer.

Here in the UK there are a handful of camp gay men who have been embraced on TV and are now big stars. There is a long tradition of camp gay men on UK TV stretching back decades, and as such they are accepted for who they are, and in some circles their behaviour is applauded and even fetishised. While their acceptance is a good thing, there are also problems with it: camp gay men are 'safe', they can be every woman's best friend and aren't threatening to straight men because they are so outrageous and 'pantomime'. I don't deny these problems, but the answer isn't to insist camp men alter their behaviour or hide away from the public eye. The answer is to make space for all types of people, be they camp and gay, gay and not camp, straight and camp, camp and geeky, and on and on. It's only through embracing all types of behaviour and all types of people that equality can ever work. If you continue to say 'my behaviour as a gay man is acceptable, but your behaviour as a gay man is not' you do more to divide and perpetuate negative stereotypes than dispell them and bring people together. The image of the camp gay man is only a negative stereotype because people keep insisting campness is wrong. It isn't. The people who perpetuate the idea that only certain types of behaviour are legitimate are wrong.

[catabuca]

I'm going to quote a letter Stephen Fry quotes in the article I linked to above. It's from his friend, who is lamenting a certain aspect of the Independent newspaper's 'Pink List' (the top 100 successful gay people in the UK). It says what I was trying to say in my post above, but far more eloquently than I did:

Very nice to see you [Stephen,] ranking high on The Independent’s Pink List. Quite right too. They made one vast and vastly suggestive mistake, though. They instituted a Rogues Gallery and frogmarched Louie Spence into it. Do you know who I mean? He’s a big old lisping, nelly screamer at Pineapple Dance Studios (Sky something) whom Joe Sixpack has clasped to his bosom because he’s sweet and funny and fabulous. Brightens the day, cheers the hour. There’s another reason the public loves him, but we’ll get to that in a mo. The compilers of the List, however, hate him because – well, can’t you guess? What’s the least imaginative, least penetrating thing you could possibly say about an unreconstructed flamer? That’s right – he “perpetuates the stereotype.” Christ on a marmalade cross but that pisses me right off.

Occupying the top spot was the rugby player, Gareth Thomas, who came out (finally) last year. Well done for that, boyo, I suppose. Can’t have been easy. It usually isn’t for most people, even on the Liberal Riviera where we’re all supposed to be basking today. Now, you can see where I’m going with this, can’t you? Gareth is a “real man”. He was married to a real woman. Louie is not and was not. If only we could all disport ourselves like Gareth the straights won’t hate us whereas if we all carry on like Louie….ach, how quickly these cowardly, self-oppressed, social-climbing McCarthyites forget where they come from. If I remember rightly, the whole Gay Lib thing wasn’t engineered by “real” men at all. It wasn’t sponsored by marines or scaffolders or rugby players. It was ignited by…ah, yes: drag queens.

So, instead of getting a hate on at poor Louie, instead of frantically trying to patrol their butch and instead of gussying up their drool for Gareth into blather about bravery, these creeps should remember the Rainbow. They should remember Diversity. They should remember Tolerance. They should remember that in evincing a distaste for effeminacy they’re simply making an exhibition of their own misogyny. And they should remember that (and here’s that other reason the public likes him) Louie isn’t trying to pass. There’s nothing a straight boy hates more than an obvious **** trying to hide it. I know lists like these are mere churnalism but they’re telling nonetheless.

[FataliTensei]

catabuca wrote...

FataliTensei wrote...

catabuca wrote...

robtheguru wrote...

I haven't got any issues with the majority of gay people. They are just normal down to earth people no different from straight people. However, there are a minority of gay men who insist on being overly camp and that does nothing but drive me up the wall. There is no need for it. Anyway, if Bioware want to add a Gay male romanceable character in ME3 I really don't mind, hell i'd even sign a petition, just make him a man, not a flaming rainbow queen.

In real life there are some straight women who wear whorish clothes and it drives me up the wall. There is no need for it. If Bioware want to add a straight female romanceable character in ME I don't mind, as long as she isn't wearing whorish clothes and is a nice, clean, good girl.

Oh, oops, Miranda.

Seriously robtheguru - you have an 'issue' with camp men because they act camp? How does that affect you? You'd do better to stop worrying about the behaviour of others that you can't control, and focus on your own reactions to it, which you can control.

Catabuca I'm gay and have issues with camp men. They're annoying, shallow, and sadly are the stereotype of of homosexuality. They are an embarrassment to our entire sexual orientation and are on of the main problems when it comes to equal rights. So please don't think that straight people have issues with camp because it's gay, alot of people have issues with camp, because it's a sterotype and just plain annoying. IF they gave us a campy gay character in ME3, i would not but the game even though there is an S/S romance, because to me, it would be an insult.

Read this: http://www.stephenfr...9/think-pink/2/ (Do you know who Stephen Fry is? The relevant part starts a couple of paragraphs down.)

My point was that I agree that portraying a gay character as camp in ME (or any other video game) is potentially a bad thing, because it reinforces negative stereotypes in a limited genre that battles with prejudice already. However, my other point was that in wider society I believe it is wrong to further demonise camp men simply because of the way they act. It is not the way they act that 'gives all gay men a bad name' or however you might phrase it, it's homophobic responses to that behaviour that causes the negative reaction to perpetuate. There is a difference. This is a ridiculous analogy, so I apologise for making it but I can't think of another at the moment: you wouldn't blame a woman who wore a short skirt if she was raped, you'd blame the person who raped her. Why blame a victim of homophobia for acting/being camp? Blame the people who are homophobic and so narrow minded that they can't make space for all types of behaviours. By blaming camp men you help the homophobe win. Divide and conquer.

Here in the UK there are a handful of camp gay men who have been embraced on TV and are now big stars. There is a long tradition of camp gay men on UK TV stretching back decades, and as such they are accepted for who they are, and in some circles their behaviour is applauded and even fetishised. While their acceptance is a good thing, there are also problems with it: camp gay men are 'safe', they can be every woman's best friend and aren't threatening to straight men because they are so outrageous and 'pantomime'. I don't deny these problems, but the answer isn't to insist camp men alter their behaviour or hide away from the public eye. The answer is to make space for all types of people, be they camp and gay, gay and not camp, straight and camp, camp and geeky, and on and on. It's only through embracing all types of behaviour and all types of people that equality can ever work. If you continue to say 'my behaviour as a gay man is acceptable, but your behaviour as a gay man is not' you do more to divide and perpetuate negative stereotypes than dispell them and bring people together. The image of the camp gay man is only a negative stereotype because people keep insisting campness is wrong. It isn't. The people who perpetuate the idea that only certain types of behaviour are legitimate are wrong.

Catabuca we should probably continues this conversation over messages simply because we'll get really off topic with this

[Siansonea]

fleaisbackwoot2 wrote...

*snipped*

But it just seems to me and i think you would agree with me for a change that BOTH sides are intolerant, right OR wrong, and there seems to be no COMPROMISE or Middle ground where the sides can agree on...it seems to me that you want and even almost demand that there should be s/s in ME3 while the other side says h3ll NO there shouldnt be...so where can there be a compromise? what is your suggestion? I am all ears...I hate to admit it but i think you are slowly changing my opinion on this but its gonna be rough but then again every time i flippin post here my account gets banhammered and the INTOLERANT people in this threat (not you sian) do not want to hear any opposition just immediate actions from bioware..its obsecured! (notice its fleaisbackwoot2...not fleaisbackwoot)

I do agree that people tend to approach this issue rather emotionally, and I would call for much more dispassion. As for compromise, I think it’s built into our suggestions. We don’t want sexually aggressive characters, we want clear indicators that Shepard is pursuing romance dialogue, etc. No one wants ANY sort of romance to be forced on the player, same-sex or otherwise. It is really unfortunate that Shepard can’t ‘paragon’ speak with potential LIs without pursuing romance. We’d like to see that addressed. So there actually already is considerable overlap between the two sides of the issue, but it’s often lost in the emotional arguments.

*snipped*

It is hardly a stretch to be honest but to say one sex (fem shep) has an s/s when the other sex (male) doesnt its not all true...asari is a monogender race...i mean thats like saying if you have sex with a hermaphadite (an individual that has both sexes) are you gay or are you straight for having sex with that individual? I dont know to be honest but that doesnt really count to having gay sex because they are of both sexes...do you understand what i am trying to say? All i am saying is that if shep (fem or male) could have a s/s in mass effect 1 then I would not be posting here at all but to demand that there should be a s/s on me3 because of its exclusion of homosexuality when me3 is the last part of the story just doesnt seem like it should or even would fit...but i am open to suggestions

The thing is that asari considerations aside, there still aren’t any human same-sex relationships depicted in the game, except for the FemShep/Kelly ‘flirtmance’. But including the option in future games is hardly game-breaking, any more than Shepard suddenly being able to get busy with drell, turians and quarians in ME2 was. Shepard showed no sign that he/she was into non-asari aliens in ME1, but suddenly in ME2 he/she is, and no one bats an eyelash. But everyone acts like it is so completely out of character that ManShepard might have been playing for both teams the whole time, and just hasn’t gone for a dude yet. People really aren’t that consistent in real life, so it wouldn’t be odd if Shepard was all over the map with his/her romance decisions. As it is now, ManShepard can get busy with alien-hating Ashley in ME1, then turn right around and schtupp Tali in ME2. That’s not terribly consistent. Conversely, a Liaramancer who then romances Miranda or Jack is kind of departing from what was established with Liara (xenophilia). Both of these violations of consistency don’t seem to be addressed, merely that this same Shepard moving on to a same-sex romance is somehow completely unrealistic. I say that’s nonsense, just because ManShepard isn’t pinching the butts of every man he sees doesn’t mean he’d go there if the right man came along and was interested.

im not saying the whole game, just the relationship yet if you change mshep to be able to have s/s in me3 it will not be the same (speculating) but then again you speculating that shep would be the same...truth is..is that we dont know how it would affect the game because it hasnt been in the series..

I really don't understand this statement, please clarify.

what i was getting at that statement is that we know what shep is like now but we are all speculating how it would effect shep and the crewmen/crew women if shep is gay so he can have his s/s...thats to counter the points that shepard would change but everyone here is insistent that shep would not change because he is gay (yall's speculation)

This whole argument is based on the belief that being gay somehow changes Shepard’s personality in a fundamental way that affects all non-sexual interactions. We state that sexuality is only part of a person’s personality, and that non-sexual interactions wouldn’t necessarily be any different for a bisexual or gay person as they would for a nominally heterosexual person. This might be difficult to understand if you haven’t known many gay people, but a good many of them don’t allow their sexuality to ‘become’ their identity/personality. They just live their lives, have friends, do the things they love, and have relationships with persons of their own sex. When society progresses to the point where homosexuality is less stigmatized, I would imagine that this would be a much more prevalent circumstance.

*snipped*

Well i would have to say that I can only hope that if they changed thane or garrus or jacob or mordin (all characters i find interesting...maybe not so much jacob) so they can have s/s with male shep and they are anything remotely like the women in me2 that you literally have to beat them off with a stick with in the second game (that is why i think there will be a character that will be like the elf if this is made possible in the last installment) then yes you will be pushing your homosexuality onto people that do not want to explore in the game or in life
PS: you are punishing people that want to find out more about characters in the game through convos therefore you would be "initate conversation with people before they'll even discuss romance" because if the questionable gay individual starts hitting on you when you just wanted to be friends and learn more about the person...you see what I mean? i hear this is very evident with femshep and jacob? i never played as a chick...because i really dont want to play me1 agan as a chick because i find it sooo slow compared to me2 but thats just my opinion but do you think i should? have you? and i want to say sorry if i ticked you off before...I can be a real d!ckhead

On this issue you’ll find a lot of people heartily agree with you. No one wants to be forced to avoid the squad mates or be a jerk to them in order to avoid inadvertently triggering a romance, same-sex or otherwise. We want Shepard to pursue romance very consciously, not be in the middle of conversation and realize that he just agreed to have sex with whomever he or she is talking to.

Modifié par Siansonea II, 11 septembre 2010 - 05:07 .

[PsyrenY]

Wade and Herren from Dragon Age were pretty camp, mannerism-wise, but Wade had a very masculine profession - Blacksmith. That's the kind of juxtaposition of stereotype and stereotype-breaker that I appreciate.



I don't think we have to worry about "bisexual rogues" - the only real rogue in ME is Kasumi. Everyone else is either not a rogue at all or enough of a hybrid to break out of the Zevran-Leliana-Sky mold. The other initially-bi characters were - Liara (Mage), Kaidan (Mage-Thief), Ashley (Fighter), Jack (Fighter-Mage), Miranda (Mage) and Thane (All).

[Collider]

But those characters did not end up bisexual in the final versions, so I cannot count them.



Let's look at how many rogue bisexual characters there have been:

Juhani: "Rogue" Sentinel class

Sky: Rogue

Silk Fox: Rogue

Isabella: Rogue

Leliana: Rogue

Zevran: Rogue

Morinth: "Rogue"



Two of these are not technically rogues in name, but they were both on the wrong side of the law, something typical of rogues. There's nothing inherently wrong with the bisexual rogue, but it's a tired archetype and if I try hard enough, it's almost offensive.

[PsyrenY]

Collider wrote...

But those characters did not end up bisexual in the final versions, so I cannot count them.

I don't see why not. Bioware went to all the trouble of recording homosexual dialogue for those individuals; they would not have done so had the writers not been able to conceive of them as being bi.

Collider wrote...
Two of these are not technically rogues in name, but they were both on the wrong side of the law, something typical of rogues.

That's a bit of a stretch. Shepard ends up on the wrong side of the law multiple times, even in ME1. That doesn't make him/her a "rogue." And NONE of your party members in either Jade Empire or Dragon Age were ever on the "right side of the law" either, so by that metric they would ALL be "rogues."

Collider wrote...
There's nothing inherently wrong with the bisexual rogue, but it's a tired archetype and if I try hard enough, it's almost offensive.

I can't see how any of those characters are offensive. Zevran was irritating not so much because of his character, but because he was the only option my Warden had and I don't find guys like him very attractive. I was still glad he was there.

[Quething]

Optimystic_X wrote...

the only real rogue in ME is Kasumi.
Everyone else is either not a rogue at all or enough of a hybrid to
break out of the Zevran-Leliana-Sky mold.

Meh. I'd put Tali in that category too. (Who interestingly enough still has a girlcrush on femShep in the game-as-shipped, even if you can't take it anywhere the way a male Shep can. I really want to know if that LotSB dossier was intentional or if they just forgot to clean up their gender flags like they did with the Anderson one. It would be a significant indicator of BioWare's current position on s/s amongst the main cast.)

I do agree that there was something a bit... let's just call it "noticable," about Leli and Zev both being rogue honey trap assassins. Shame, because a bi LI Kasumi would have been the one ME2 character who could actually tempt my mainShep to cheat on Ash, and I hate to lose that tempting scenario for the sake of principle.

Modifié par Quething, 11 septembre 2010 - 05:54 .

[Collider]

I don't see why not. Bioware went to all the trouble of recording homosexual dialogue for those individuals; they would not have done so had the writers not been able to conceive of them as being bi.

Not necessarily. Meer and Hale are given the same script (which saves time). This is why there is a voice file in the original game disk where Meer refers to himself as a woman. Then there's this.

That's a bit of a stretch. Shepard ends up on the wrong side of the law multiple times, even in ME1. That doesn't make him/her a "rogue." And NONE of your party members in either Jade Empire or Dragon Age were ever on the "right side of the law" either, so by that metric they would ALL be "rogues."

Shepard isn't a party member. I'm sure you understand my meaning though.

I can't see how any of those characters are offensive. Zevran was irritating not so much because of his character, but because he was the only option my Warden had and I don't find guys like him very attractive. I was still glad he was there.

The characters themselves were not offensive. The fact that most of them were of questionable morality was a bit - tending towards "roguish" or "scoundrel" like behavior, was a bit. Kind of like the "evil bisexual" trope.

Meh. I'd put Tali in that category too. (Who interestingly enough still has a girlcrush on femShep in the game-as-shipped, even if you can't take it anywhere the way a male Shep can.

Kinda. They had the line where Tali becomes a bit flustered, but the dialog that follows afterward. seems pretty indicative that they're just gal pals. That said, there was a clear avenue for an S/S romance there with Tali.

Modifié par Collider, 11 septembre 2010 - 06:08 .

[Berkilak]

I'm not gay, and I approve of this message.



And shame on anyone suggesting a gay toggle in options and whatnot. They should be as legitimately recognized as any straight romance. And they should not be tossed into the bisexual bin merely by making a straight romance open to the opposite sex.

[Tirigon]

Welcome back Flea!!! I love you too!

[Tirigon]

yorkj86 wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

People really aren’t that consistent in real life, so it wouldn’t be odd if Shepard was all over the map with his/her romance decisions. As it is now, ManShepard can get busy with alien-hating Ashley in ME1, then turn right around and schtupp Tali in ME2. That’s not terribly consistent. Conversely, a Liaramancer who then romances Miranda or Jack is kind of departing from what was established with Liara (xenophilia). Both of these violations of consistency don’t seem to be addressed, merely that this same Shepard moving on to a same-sex romance is somehow completely unrealistic.

No offense, Sian, but that's an ignorant statement.  Moving from Liara to Jack, for example, is not necessarily an indicator of hypocrisy.   There are many reasons why he could choose to move on, not the least of which is Shepard simply not caring about the person's species, and, instead, only caring about what's between the person's ears/sensory pits/whatever.

If Shepard thinks like that he doesn´t care about his partner´s sex either.