258 réponses à ce sujet

[City6]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Strawman. Potentially ad homenim as well.

It would have been better if they had written a range of characters.

You're living in a fantasy land. We will not get a romance to the depth of the romances in DA:O when there's only a gay option, because of the simple fact that such a large resource isn't going to be allocated to a relatively small section of the gaming community.


So the alternative is just not to have gay romance options. Do you really think that's a better option? Really?

[the_one_54321]

City6 wrote...
Why? On one play-though (which is what 95% of people do) you want to choice to romance the person you want to romance.

The biggest complant in the 4000 post Romances thread for DA:O was that a male warden could get Alistair drunk and play naked Twister.

Because I know that the characters are not characters. I know that the choices I make in my character define what that character is.

A character in a game should feel as much as possible like there is someone else behind that character, playing that character and reacting to what my character says and does instead of just being whatever I want him/her to be.

And you guys are getting cyclical with this. Are the characters variable or were they all intended to be bi? It can't be both.

If they are variable, really awful writng. If they were all intended to be bi, it's lazy that they didn't spend more time writing more characters.

[the_one_54321]

City6 wrote...
You're living in a fantasy land. We will not get a romance to the depth of the romances in DA:O when there's only a gay option, because of the simple fact that such a large resource isn't going to be allocated to a relatively small section of the gaming community.

So the alternative is just not to have gay romance options. Do you really think that's a better option? Really?

They were able to write four full romances in 15 months and you think they couldn't have fit in more options had they spent more time in development?

The real root of the issue here is that they made the game way too darn fast.

[Ryzaki]

NVM I give up.  

Modifié par Ryzaki, 23 mars 2011 - 09:50 .

[City6]

the_one_54321 wrote...

City6 wrote...
You're living in a fantasy land. We will not get a romance to the depth of the romances in DA:O when there's only a gay option, because of the simple fact that such a large resource isn't going to be allocated to a relatively small section of the gaming community.

So the alternative is just not to have gay romance options. Do you really think that's a better option? Really?

They were able to write four full romances in 15 months and you think they couldn't have fit in more options had they spent more time in development?

The real root of the issue here is that they made the game way too darn fast.

No, the real root of the issue here is that you felt icky knowing that in someone else's game, your sweet girlfriend Merril was sailing the USS Scissors on the Ocean Lesbonica.

[the_one_54321]

City6 wrote...
No, the real root of the issue here is that you felt icky knowing that in someone else's game, your sweet girlfriend Merril was sailing the USS Scissors on the Ocean Lesbonica.

Wow this has to be a first. The people in favor of the bi options were the first to start flinging insults and flames. Isn't it always the homophobic commentators that usually start this stuff?


Spend more time in development. Write more characters.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 23 mars 2011 - 09:56 .

[BeljoraDien]

City6 wrote...

No, the real root of the issue here is that you felt icky knowing that in someone else's game, your sweet girlfriend Merril was sailing the USS Scissors on the Ocean Lesbonica.

Are you joking? That made her even hotter.

[City6]

the_one_54321 wrote...

City6 wrote...
No, the real root of the issue here is that you felt icky knowing that in someone else's game, your sweet girlfriend Merril was sailing the USS Scissors on the Ocean Lesbonica.

Wow this has to be a first. The people in favor of the bi options were the first to start flinging insults and flames. Isn't it always the homophobic commentators that usually start this stuff?


Spend more time in development. Write more characters.

We've established that financially, gay-only romances with depth is not going to happen. We've also established you haven't actually played any of the romances to be able to say "they are badly written". Anders, Merril, Fenrs and Isabella actually all play very well, and make perfect narrative sense, in their same-sex dialogues.

So basically all you wish to do is remove the option for other players. That's what it boils down to.

Modifié par City6, 23 mars 2011 - 10:04 .

[nightingales]

Wow. ITT: straight people are persecuted, woe is them!

[Tirigon]

Why is this reopened?

The other one was locked for good reason, and all was said and done anyways.

[the_one_54321]

City6 wrote...
We've established that financially, gay-only romances with depth is not going to happen.

We have established no such thing. The game was done in 15 months and they managed four romancable characters and two non-romancable characters.

City6 wrote...
So basically all you wish to do is remove the option for other players. That's what it boils down to.

No, the argument here is that they cut corners. They should have spent more time on the game.

Also consider this:
I am saying that they should include bisexual and homosexual characters. You are saying that they should not include heterosexual characters. Which of us is being discriminatory?

[MorningBird]

Well for me, I wouldn't call of the LI's bi per se (DON'T HIT ME, ISH.) Their sexuality (sans Isabela) is completely subjective.

For example, my Lady!Hawke is a lesbian with a clear interest in Isabela. She's not interested in perusing a relationship with Fenris, Anders or even Merrill. From my Lady!Hawke's perspective, they're all straight. After all, it's not like they exactly broadcast their sexuality, so what reason does she have to assume otherwise?

Heck, Anders and Isabela admit that they got 'horizontal' at the Pearl in Denerim. Fenris and Merrill seem to be pretty asexual if they're not straight.

Then there's my Male!Hawke. He's currently in a relationship with Anders. Sure, Isabela's preferences are still pretty obvious, but Fenris and Merrill (Fenris especially) once again give every indication that they are either straight, or asexual.

Heck, if you don't romance Fenris or Isabela the two of them even hook up. More than once. My Hawke is completely under the impression that Fenris is straight.

So that's two different characters that I've role-played that both had completely different impressions of the characters. Sure, my Lady!Hawke could have just as easily gone after Merrill instead of Isabela, but she never tried, so she's never going to know/think that Merrill is anything but straight.

And sure, my Male!Hawke could have just as easily pursued Fenris, but he didn't. He's fully committed to Anders, and with the elf getting some from Isabela (and never voicing an interest in men), what reason does he have to think that Fenris might even swing both ways?

Heck, there's a moment (after recruiting Fenris) where a Male!Hawke can interpret his dialogue as flirty. If Hawke jumps to an assumption (OMG HE'S HITTING ON ME) and turns Fenris down cold ("Let's just keep this friendly, shall we?") Fenris' response is, "Of course, I never meant it otherwise." Which, once again, just seems to be another indication (for my Male!Hawke) that the elf is straight.

So, it's no mystery that I liked the way the romances were implemented, and I don't think the characters suffered for it at all. The only way I can really see this being a problem is if you take what you know as the player and assume that just because you know the LI's are completely accessible to everyone, Hawke must know that as well.

Meaning: "I the player, know that Hawke can romance any LI, regardless of gender. Therefore, my Hawke must also be fully aware that they are surrounded by BISEXUALS!"

As opposed to: "I, the player, know that Hawke can be romanced by any LI, regardless of gender. Hawke, however, isn't going to know anyone's sexuality unless they outright state it, or he/she pursues a relationship with one/more of them and sees for him/herself."

[mesmerizedish]

MorningBird wrote...

(DON'T HIT ME, ISH)

Babe, I would never. Well, unless you'd been a bad girl 

[Tirigon]

MorningBird wrote...

Fenris and Merrill seem to be pretty asexual if they're not straight.

They´re elves (from DAO, we know that elves, Dalish in particular, are rather .... careful.... with relationships), and both are not in the best situation to pursue relationships - both actually state that Hawke, regardless of gender, is the only one they really trust.

So it makes sense, imo, that both are attracted to Hawke regardless of gender......

[the_one_54321]

MorningBird wrote...
The only way I can really see this being a problem is if you take what you know as the player and assume that just because you know the LI's are completely accessible to everyone, Hawke must know that as well.

Most of what you say is about how I've seen it. Except for this.
What Hawke does or doesn't know doesn't matter at all. If the characters are as you have described them, they are badly written.

More to the point it could have nothing to do with sexuality and they would still be badly written if they are as you described them. Characters should not be variable.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 23 mars 2011 - 10:19 .

[LURadioDJ]

I can't believe 3/4 of you people, all you do is complain about everything, is nothing that the try to create ever going to please you ??

You all need to start enjoying what you're given, the characters were still quite well written and sexuality doesn't matter at all, it didn't effect the way they were molded at all.....everyone was exactly right, except Anders wasn't as cool but the whole Justice angle it's understandable why he's not as funny.

Quit whining

Modifié par LURadioDJ, 23 mars 2011 - 10:27 .

[City6]

the_one_54321 wrote...

MorningBird wrote...
The only way I can really see this being a problem is if you take what you know as the player and assume that just because you know the LI's are completely accessible to everyone, Hawke must know that as well.

Most of what you say is about how I've seen it. Except for this.
What Hawke does or doesn't know doesn't matter at all. If the characters are as you have described them, they are badly written.

More to the point it could have nothing to do with sexuality and they would still be badly written if they are as you described them. Characters should not be variable.

Why not? Most people play though once, so having as much content open to them as possible is a great thng.

You're acting as if the "characters react randomly". They don't. In each play-through, the game is tailored to give the broadest options to the character you've created. 

You'll notice that your family is entirely dependant on the character you create too. Why are you not outraged that a black Hawke has a black mother? "My Hawke mother was white! All Hawke mothers should be white! Variable characters is BAD WRITING!"

Modifié par City6, 23 mars 2011 - 10:33 .

[the_one_54321]

City6 wrote...
You're acting as if the "characters react randomly". They don't. In each play-through, the game is tailored to give the broadest options to the character you've created. 

You'll notice that your family is entirely dependant on the character you create too. Why are you not outraged that a black Hawke has a black mother? "My Hawke mother was white! All Hawke mothers should be white! Variable characters is BAD WRITING!"

You're supposed to be the one that writes Hawke. Or so they would have us believe. The look of the family is for consistancy. That's the difference: the other characters are not our characters. Only Hawke is our chracter. If it's not our character we should not be able to dictate who that character is as a person.

[City6]

the_one_54321 wrote...

City6 wrote...
You're acting as if the "characters react randomly". They don't. In each play-through, the game is tailored to give the broadest options to the character you've created. 

You'll notice that your family is entirely dependant on the character you create too. Why are you not outraged that a black Hawke has a black mother? "My Hawke mother was white! All Hawke mothers should be white! Variable characters is BAD WRITING!"

You're supposed to be the one that writes Hawke. Or so they would have us believe. The look of the family is for consistancy. That's the difference: the other characters are not our characters. Only Hawke is our chracter. If it's not our character we should not be able to dictate who that character is as a person.

So basically, you'd prefer a situation where the game is *worse* for a set of players, but identical for everyone else (given we;ve agreed it's only meta-game knowledge that impacts this)?

So for a chunk of people, the game plays identically, but for players wanting to have a gay protagonst, you want less content (it's already be established, in about 5 years of Romance threads that have discussed the issue to death, that gay-only deep romances are currently financially impossible).

[Joe_8998]

City6 wrote...

Why not? Most people play though once, so having as much content open to them as possible is a great thng.

You're acting as if the "characters react randomly". They don't. In each play-through, the game is tailored to give the broadest options to the character you've created. 

You'll notice that your family is entirely dependant on the character you create too. Why are you not outraged that a black Hawke has a black mother? "My Hawke mother was white! All Hawke mothers should be white! Variable characters is BAD WRITING!"

Come on man. Hawke's racial identity has absolutely no impact at all on anything but the character's looks. He doesn't talk, act, or behave any differently.

The same cannot be said about about a character's sexual identity. I'm going to repost some other thoughts on the issue that got buried early in the topic. 

The problem I have with the party member-dynamic-sexuality concept is that it precludes your party members from having set personalities and emotions. Granted, their sexual orientation and past trysts (in Anders case) don't hugely impact their story events or dialogue, but their sexual orientation does comprise a part of their personality and who they are. If that part of them is fluid and incomplete, then their entire character is fluid and incomplete, at least in my mind. 

If I played a gay character and wanted to romance Alistair for example, it wasn't going to happen. He has no interest, and I cannot change him. Alistair is Alistair, and in Origins I had to work with and around his personality. It was part of the fun of the party dynamic,a nd was realistic. In real life, you will find people you have no chance with.

In Dragon Age II, that doesn't happen. It doesn't matter who you are, you will always be their type! Anders and Merrill and Fenris can essentially be whoever or whatever you want them to be, from a romance standpoint. It really weakens their characters and cheapens the romances. I don't see that it has a place in a game that strives to be an RPG. For example, lets say I play through the game as a male Hawke. I then decide to play through again as a female Hawke. I am now playing in an 'alternate universe' where my party member's sexualities have been inverted. 

It also makes it so that the romance experience is exactly the same no matter how you go through the game, which actually takes the fun out of playing through as different genders. When I played through Mass Effect, I played as a Male Shepard, and I took Kaidan with me everywhere. I really liked his character.

It was also really cool to watch my girlfriend play through as a female Shepard and begin a romance with him. Totally new perspective on his personality, as I got to see dialogue and scenes with him i had never watched before. 

In Dragon Age II, that can't happen. The gameplay experience is now identical, whether you are male or female, because your companions sexuality chanegs in tune with you.To me, that hurts replay value, cheapens the characters, and isn't really realistic.

From the responses I have read so far however, I guess it isn't as a big an issue to others as it is to me. I don't mean to mindlessly bash the game or to nitpick, it was just something I found that I thought hurt the gaming experience for me.

[City6]

Joe_8998 wrote...

City6 wrote...

Why not? Most people play though once, so having as much content open to them as possible is a great thng.

You're acting as if the "characters react randomly". They don't. In each play-through, the game is tailored to give the broadest options to the character you've created. 

You'll notice that your family is entirely dependant on the character you create too. Why are you not outraged that a black Hawke has a black mother? "My Hawke mother was white! All Hawke mothers should be white! Variable characters is BAD WRITING!"

Come on man. Hawke's racial identity has absolutely no impact at all on anything but the character's looks. He doesn't talk, act, or behave any differently.

The same cannot be said about about a character's sexual identity. I'm going to repost some other thoughts on the issue that got buried early in the topic. 

The problem I have with the party member-dynamic-sexuality concept is that it precludes your party members from having set personalities and emotions. Granted, their sexual orientation and past trysts (in Anders case) don't hugely impact their story events or dialogue, but their sexual orientation does comprise a part of their personality and who they are. If that part of them is fluid and incomplete, then their entire character is fluid and incomplete, at least in my mind. 

If I played a gay character and wanted to romance Alistair for example, it wasn't going to happen. He has no interest, and I cannot change him. Alistair is Alistair, and in Origins I had to work with and around his personality. It was part of the fun of the party dynamic,a nd was realistic. In real life, you will find people you have no chance with.

In Dragon Age II, that doesn't happen. It doesn't matter who you are, you will always be their type! Anders and Merrill and Fenris can essentially be whoever or whatever you want them to be, from a romance standpoint. It really weakens their characters and cheapens the romances. I don't see that it has a place in a game that strives to be an RPG. For example, lets say I play through the game as a male Hawke. I then decide to play through again as a female Hawke. I am now playing in an 'alternate universe' where my party member's sexualities have been inverted. 

It also makes it so that the romance experience is exactly the same no matter how you go through the game, which actually takes the fun out of playing through as different genders. When I played through Mass Effect, I played as a Male Shepard, and I took Kaidan with me everywhere. I really liked his character.

It was also really cool to watch my girlfriend play through as a female Shepard and begin a romance with him. Totally new perspective on his personality, as I got to see dialogue and scenes with him i had never watched before. 

In Dragon Age II, that can't happen. The gameplay experience is now identical, whether you are male or female, because your companions sexuality chanegs in tune with you.To me, that hurts replay value, cheapens the characters, and isn't really realistic.

From the responses I have read so far however, I guess it isn't as a big an issue to others as it is to me. I don't mean to mindlessly bash the game or to nitpick, it was just something I found that I thought hurt the gaming experience for me.

Actually, you could romance Alistair. A male warden, with the right choices, could conjure up a very well written edge-of-something bromance (one of the best sets of writing in tha game)

For 95% of players, they play through once, and don't spend a second play through "watching their girlfriend play through". That really isn't the target audience.

Either we have characters that can adapt to the character you create, or we have little non-heterosexual content.

The former is obviously the better choice.

[Sabariel]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sabariel wrote...
This is not a new-out-of-the-blue thing. Zevran and Leliana's sexuality changes based on the Warden's gender. If you're female they swing more toward the female side of the bisexual arc, both admitting that they prefer women more than men. If you're male both stay resolutely in the middle of the bisexual arc, neither saying anything about a preference. Did this weaken them as characters? To quote my two favorite characters from DAO and DA2: "No."

No matter what gender you play they make it clear that they swing both ways.

But their sexuality still differs based on the Warden's gender and their character is not weakened by it. Unless of course you want to tell me that a bisexual who prefers women more, a bisexual who prefers men more, and a bisexual who has no gender preference are not different. I could use a good laugh

Modifié par Sabariel, 23 mars 2011 - 11:17 .

[Vindicis]

City6 wrote...

Either we have characters that can adapt to the character you create, or we have little non-heterosexual content.

The former is obviously the better choice.

No, you left out the best option.  We have no romances at all.   ALL of them are just plain odd and out of place.  I feel like I'm playing a JRPG henti simulator half the time.

[-leadintea-]

Joe_8998 wrote...

City6 wrote...

Why not? Most people play though once, so having as much content open to them as possible is a great thng.

You're acting as if the "characters react randomly". They don't. In each play-through, the game is tailored to give the broadest options to the character you've created. 

You'll notice that your family is entirely dependant on the character you create too. Why are you not outraged that a black Hawke has a black mother? "My Hawke mother was white! All Hawke mothers should be white! Variable characters is BAD WRITING!"

Come on man. Hawke's racial identity has absolutely no impact at all on anything but the character's looks. He doesn't talk, act, or behave any differently.

The same cannot be said about about a character's sexual identity. I'm going to repost some other thoughts on the issue that got buried early in the topic. 

The problem I have with the party member-dynamic-sexuality concept is that it precludes your party members from having set personalities and emotions. Granted, their sexual orientation and past trysts (in Anders case) don't hugely impact their story events or dialogue, but their sexual orientation does comprise a part of their personality and who they are. If that part of them is fluid and incomplete, then their entire character is fluid and incomplete, at least in my mind. 

If I played a gay character and wanted to romance Alistair for example, it wasn't going to happen. He has no interest, and I cannot change him. Alistair is Alistair, and in Origins I had to work with and around his personality. It was part of the fun of the party dynamic,a nd was realistic. In real life, you will find people you have no chance with.

In Dragon Age II, that doesn't happen. It doesn't matter who you are, you will always be their type! Anders and Merrill and Fenris can essentially be whoever or whatever you want them to be, from a romance standpoint. It really weakens their characters and cheapens the romances. I don't see that it has a place in a game that strives to be an RPG. For example, lets say I play through the game as a male Hawke. I then decide to play through again as a female Hawke. I am now playing in an 'alternate universe' where my party member's sexualities have been inverted. 

It also makes it so that the romance experience is exactly the same no matter how you go through the game, which actually takes the fun out of playing through as different genders. When I played through Mass Effect, I played as a Male Shepard, and I took Kaidan with me everywhere. I really liked his character.

It was also really cool to watch my girlfriend play through as a female Shepard and begin a romance with him. Totally new perspective on his personality, as I got to see dialogue and scenes with him i had never watched before. 

In Dragon Age II, that can't happen. The gameplay experience is now identical, whether you are male or female, because your companions sexuality chanegs in tune with you.To me, that hurts replay value, cheapens the characters, and isn't really realistic.

From the responses I have read so far however, I guess it isn't as a big an issue to others as it is to me. I don't mean to mindlessly bash the game or to nitpick, it was just something I found that I thought hurt the gaming experience for me.

Bravo! This is exactly how I feel about this situation. I appreciate the fact that Bioware wanted to cater to everyone, but at the same time, the characters feel like they've been cheapened.

[DarthSliver]

Alright i read about 5-6 pages and this thread seems to be still going the same after that. So out of being tired of reading the same thing being posted in different ways I will reply now.

The problem with all being Bi wasnt that it was bad, its just one of the many features that didnt get polished due to time constraints. I am more incline to agree with Adam Sessler's review the more i play this game. It had good features but the problem was it wasnt polished. It was more slapped together, copied to a disc and sold. The EA haters, as much as i like to disagree with them, have one thing right. Dragon Age 2 is a rushed game, most likely due to EA, but as far as we know we dont know that for sure. But it is a rushed game and you can clearly see it as you play multiple playthroughs if not on the first playthrough.

Really having them all Bi was great indeed, just one of the many features not polishes.