5 réponses à ce sujet

[David Gaider]

I'll say this much and be done with it:

For Anders and Isabela it was decided they would initiate the romance, but only if the player was showing themselves at all receptive (beyond actively flirting with them, I mean) -- in Anders' case, for instance, there's only one option (the Diplomatic one) when you speak to him that leads to this. The other two options do not. Otherwise it's up to the player to initiate.

If that's not what you're interested in, then turn him down. You may get rivalry points (you don't always), but that's not a "punishment". There are plenty of other ways to get friendship points if the Friendship path is what you're interested in. Rivalry is not a punishment-- it's an alternate follower path with its own dialogue, romance and gameplay bonuses.

Beyond that, if the concern is you might accidentally be exposed to an unwelcome sexual advance-- oh well. One would hope you'd deal with it in the same mature manner you'd do so in real life. There are numerous other times in Dragon Age where you might be confronted with uncomfortable situations, and you don't get to dictate those, either.

Fenris and Merrill don't initiate a romance with any gender, and really their sexuality is the most subjective since they don't discuss it. Regardless, why someone would be concerned about what other people might do in their playthroughs is difficult to say. If the idea that a character might be having hypothetical sex with someone of the same gender in an alternate dimension bothers you, then by all means don't continue with their romance. That's why they're optional.

In DA2 specifically, one of the strongest elements of choice in the game is your choice of relationship-- with friends, family as well as with romances--and we feel that's important to retain. That's why it's there. It's not political correctness that drives this, but an effort to provide freedom in the places we feel it's most important.

And I'll leave it at that. Enjoy.

Modifié par David Gaider, 16 mars 2011 - 05:26 .

[David Gaider]

Maria Caliban wrote...
And while having four bisexual characters in a group of 6 might be unlikely, it's still more realistic than having characters who are straight or gay depending on the gender of the PC.

I'm sorry, but just to chime in again-- how are we coming to the conclusion that the characters are either straight or gay, exactly? Considering that they don't generally discuss their sexuality with the player, the idea that their sexuality changes seems a bit bizarre when their actions don't. You can decide for yourself what they are-- that is indeed part of the point in leaving it to your interpretation-- but deciding that they are one thing or the other and calling this "not realistic" seems to me to be a little self-serving.

And, yes, they don't discuss their sexuality. Perhaps you'd prefer if they would. It strikes me that the only way some people will be happy is if we had an entire array of characters to romance-- some completely straight, some completely gay with maybe a few canonically bisexual characters for good measure. Enough to be "fair", and all of them covering the complete range of attractions for players of that persuasion.

I don't know about you, but that seems unlikely.

So as I said, we went with simply giving players the option of deciding for themselves, as well as interpreting for themselves. If some people are unhappy that they still didn't get the particular flavor they were looking for-- well, that's just too damned bad. As always, we're never going to be able to provide enough to suit everyone. At least in this case the people that don't like it can be equally unhappy, and I can live with that.

Modifié par David Gaider, 17 mars 2011 - 03:25 .

[David Gaider]

Maria Caliban wrote...
You know? Let's end it right here because I'm not going to be lumped in with 'some people' or attempt to defend a viewpoint I've never had.

Fair enough. It seemed like you were saying that, but I was responding not only to you but to those who'd espoused this view.

I want companions to talk about whatever they're inclined to talk about; I find the idea that someone is only bisexual if they explicitly talk about attraction to men and women annoying.

Indeed. I suppose one could probably infer that at least a couple of the characters are bisexual because of some things they say-- but it is indeed an inference only, and is intended as such. If someone feels the need to slap a label on a character, or feel differently about them based on what they might be, that's up to them. In this particular case, we're evidently damned if we do as well as damned if we don't. I'd rather be damned if we do.

[David Gaider]

wyvvern wrote...
So I'm not seeing how it's a great leap or inference to deduce both Anders and Isabella at least are cannonically bi-sexual.

I'm not saying they could be anything-- there are a few instances (Anders and Isabela, primarily) when their past might come up. I'll point out that, with Anders, he doesn't say "I am attracted only to men" or "I am attracted to both men and women". You could decide one way or the other... perhaps if someone says a member of the opposite sex or same sex is attractive, that's enough for you? But they simply don't say where they preference lies. My point is that their actions don't change, yet some people are deciding that their inference is enough to suggest the characters alter their preferences at the player's whim.

Even if they did, I'm not sure that would be a crime. Regardless, it's not the case.

Modifié par David Gaider, 17 mars 2011 - 04:47 .

[David Gaider]

Captain Cornhole wrote...
If he is straight in one play through and not in the other and it is still cannon then we have a continuity problem. 

You do realize that not mentioning Karl or having the opportunity to have sex with a man in a particular game does not make him straight, yes? That is your assumption. You are free to assume such-- as I said, it's not mentioned much for precisely that reason -- but that does not alter reality and cause "a continuity problem".