2875 réponses à ce sujet

[JediMB]

LeBurns wrote...

I don't recall in DA:O accidentally starting a gay romance. The fact that you can in DA2 is a problem in game design, not a feature. The game was just poorly put together. Isn't it great that they can stand on a soapbox and use this excuse in this case for a poorly made game.

Then you haven't read the thread made by the guy who "got raped by Zevran".

Me, I magically ended up in a relationship with Leliana when I was actually pursuing Zevran, and had to break up with her.

Biefstukfriet wrote...

Ever seen the other option? You can
either romance her, be nice which comes down to the same thing and she
still moved in. Or the 'A-hole' option, which I would never pick. But
that's beside the point... Why did she barge into my mansion? I never -
not once - led her to believe I was interested. Yet the conversation led
me to believe I did.

So basically you ended up in a relationship because you refuse to say "no", and blame the game for it.

This isn't Mass Effect 2. The "red" dialogue options aren't all about your character being an ass/racist/psychopath.

EDIT: The key dialogue option if she turns up at your house being "(</3) You're a good friend."

Modifié par JediMB, 28 mars 2011 - 02:08 .

[Madi]

centauri2002 wrote...

RetroActiv wrote...

Oh come on that is such an absurd comparison and you know it. Simply presenting the option for everyone to choose one's sexual preferences during character creation would not be  like having a "no black people" option. The option would obviously be open to everyone so if you didn't want any standard heterosexual flirting going on you could turn that option off as well. Everyone wins.  

So you're suggesting a sexuality slider, such as a skin tone slider? I guess that would work. But that has a lot more impact than customising the looks of a character ever will and I don't think we're likely to see that implemented any time soon.

Impliminting Same sex romance options in general has a lot more impact than simply custimizing the skin tone of your character which debunks the false race comparisons being repeated in this thread. 

[Centauri2002]

Madi wrote...

Impliminting Same sex romance options in general has a lot more impact than simply custimizing the skin tone of your character which debunks the false race comparisons being repeated in this thread. 

Yes, I'm aware of that.

It took a long time to get same sex romances in games in the first place though, so I don't see adding more complications to it on the top of developers' lists. 

I don't think people are really drawing a direct comparison to race, but the discrimination of race. The impact discrimination has is the same, no matter the subject matter.

[Mlaar]

Shawn Ogg wrote...
I understand you. One cant just ditch all his education and wake up one morning with a totally different point of view. But the thing is the while that kind of "education" remains equality wont be possible. Sure making that change on the game would solve any problem right now. But then Would it be necesary to do the same on the next game? and the game after this? the next film/tv show... ? Do you see my point ?

I understand your point, and in the last 20 years we have come along way as a society that it is no longer regarded as taboo subject, where its shown openly on tv film radio and other media outlets, but same sex relations in a game is touching the player on a personal level and that means it has to change slowly or breed resentment. If it takes the next game or the one after then so be it whatever it takes in the long run, look at racism it still runs rampant to this day but far less so than 60 years ago, thrusting the issue onto a person dosnt make it right.
It may have been just one sentance but the fact is not everyone is comfortable with the issue, so its a case of babysteps are still required, one day thier will be no need but sadly that is not this day yet.

[Centauri2002]

Mlaar wrote...

I understand your point, and in the last 20 years we have come along way as a society that it is no longer regarded as taboo subject, where its shown openly on tv film radio and other media outlets, but same sex relations in a game is touching the player on a personal level and that means it has to change slowly or breed resentment. If it takes the next game or the one after then so be it whatever it takes in the long run, look at racism it still runs rampant to this day but far less so than 60 years ago, thrusting the issue onto a person dosnt make it right.
It may have been just one sentance but the fact is not everyone is comfortable with the issue, so its a case of babysteps are still required, one day thier will be no need but sadly that is not this day yet.

I can see what you're trying to say but I don't really see one line of dialogue as thrusting it in people's faces. This is just a step forward, since same sex romances have been present in games before. They've mostly been downplayed though and, in the case of DA2, they're handled on a more equal footing. If you were forced to romance only a gay character, that's another matter entirely and probably a step too far for society at the moment.

If you think about it though, homosexuality has been present in our societies for many centuries and longer than when cultural contact began to become common. It's a little sad it's taken this long to gain some acceptance (although there have been cultures that have had little problems with it, to be fair).

[Tirigon]

RetroActiv wrote...

Oh come on that is such an absurd comparison and you know it. Simply presenting the option for everyone to choose one's sexual preferences during character creation would not be  like having a "no black people" option. The option would obviously be open to everyone so if you didn't want any standard heterosexual flirting going on you could turn that option off as well. Everyone wins.  

It SEEMS ridiculous to you, yes - and, I gladly admit, to me too.

But, objectively speaking, where is the difference between not wanting to have to deal with gays and not wanting to have to deal with emancipated women or blacks?

The only real difference is that disliking people based on their gender and / or race is nowadays widely considered to be retarded, while disliking gays is, sadly, much more acceptable.

centauri2002 wrote...


I haven't had the time to get that far into the game. >.> 

damn, sorry for spoilers:unsure:

[Centauri2002]

Tirigon wrote...
damn, sorry for spoilers:unsure:

Ahaha, that's okay. The fact that I frequent these forums is spoiler for the game enough.

[Zombievarning]

centauri2002 wrote...

RetroActiv wrote...

Oh come on that is such an absurd comparison and you know it. Simply presenting the option for everyone to choose one's sexual preferences during character creation would not be  like having a "no black people" option. The option would obviously be open to everyone so if you didn't want any standard heterosexual flirting going on you could turn that option off as well. Everyone wins.  

So you're suggesting a sexuality slider, such as a skin tone slider? I guess that would work. But that has a lot more impact than customising the looks of a character ever will and I don't think we're likely to see that implemented any time soon.

Being straight doesn't exactly mean that a homosexual character would be somehow magically repelled from hitting on you, same goes for being hit on by straight people if you are gay, so I am uncertain how much sense this would make.
A sexuality slider function as such would actually be more like the skin tone slider also deciding the skin tone of all the NPCs as well. Your own sexuality wouldn't really decide any other persons behavior (with the exception of being preinformed) regarding flirting they initiate, only how you would respond to it.

Also, I do not understand the idea that the "everyone is bisexual/adapts for Hawke" detracts from the personality of an NPC. I don't think that sexuality needs to be a defining characteristic of how someones personality forms (unless we want to get into social conditioning regarding how you are treated on account of your sexuality, but that aside). I don't find it unimagineable that someone would be essentially the same person if they happened to like sleeping with men rather than women/women rather than men (or sleeping with men and women, for that matter), myself included.

So, I think the trade-off for removing fixed sexualities on characters to allow the content to be experienced by a larger crowd is more than worth it. I do not personally see any loss here, and this is speaking as a straight male gamer.

TL;DR: Your own sexuality doesn't decide whether people of other orientations will flirt with you or not. Also, sexuality does not need to be an integral part of someones personality, but is simply another preference they have.

Edit: Forgot to say, got even more respect for Mr. Gaider after reading the post.

Modifié par Zombievarning, 28 mars 2011 - 03:39 .

[Russalka]

Zombievarning wrote...
TL;DR: Your own sexuality doesn't decide whether people of other orientations will flirt with you or not. Also, sexuality does not need to be an integral part of someones personality, but is simply another preference they have.

Can I quote you with this when the need comes? 

[Centauri2002]

Zombievarning wrote...

Being straight doesn't exactly mean that a homosexual character would be somehow magically repelled from hitting on you, same goes for being hit on by straight people if you are gay, so I am uncertain how much sense this would make.
A sexuality slider function as such would actually be more like the skin tone slider also deciding the skin tone of all the NPCs as well. Your own sexuality wouldn't really decide any other persons behavior (with the exception of being preinformed) regarding flirting they initiate, only how you would respond to it.

Also, I do not understand the idea that the "everyone is bisexual/adapts for Hawke" detracts from the personality of an NPC. I don't think that sexuality needs to be a defining characteristic of how someones personality forms (unless we want to get into social conditioning regarding how you are treated on account of your sexuality, but that aside). I don't find it unimagineable that someone would be essentially the same person if they happened to like sleeping with men rather than women/women rather than men (or sleeping with men and women, for that matter), myself included.

So, I think the trade-off for removing fixed sexualities on characters to allow the content to be experienced by a larger crowd is more than worth it. I do not personally see any loss here, and this is speaking as a straight male gamer.

TL;DR: Your own sexuality doesn't decide whether people of other orientations will flirt with you or not. Also, sexuality does not need to be an integral part of someones personality, but is simply another preference they have.

Edit: Forgot to say, got even more respect for Mr. Gaider after reading the post.

I didn't say it would make sense nor would I want it. But if it'll stop people from trying to affect my gaming, then I'll put up with it. Obviously the default would be to include all sexualities because that's the realistic option. 

I'm still of the opinion that this is a non-issue but unfortunately not many people agree. >.>

[moilami]

centauri2002 wrote...

RetroActiv wrote...

Oh come on that is such an absurd comparison and you know it. Simply presenting the option for everyone to choose one's sexual preferences during character creation would not be  like having a "no black people" option. The option would obviously be open to everyone so if you didn't want any standard heterosexual flirting going on you could turn that option off as well. Everyone wins.  

So you're suggesting a sexuality slider, such as a skin tone slider? I guess that would work. But that has a lot more impact than customising the looks of a character ever will and I don't think we're likely to see that implemented any time soon.

You don't understand the concept.

Edit: Besides it is perfectly fine RPG char creation detail. 

Modifié par moilami, 28 mars 2011 - 04:08 .

[Dark83]

RetroActiv wrote...

Oh come on that is such an absurd comparison and you know it. Simply presenting the option for everyone to choose one's sexual preferences during character creation would not be  like having a "no black people" option.

Even if your character is predefined at character creation as "heterosexual", that does not stop a character of the same sex from flirting with you. I have a friend who's straight - the fact that he is heterosexual didn't stop a gay man from hitting on him. How are they supposed to know? They know when you tell them, and shut them down. Just like in the game. Such a slider or toggle would have the same effect as changing your skin tone - none at all.

The idea of this toggle being a declaration of Hawke's orientation is intellectually dishonest. That is NOT the feature being requested. Hawke declares his orientation by who he persues and who he rejects. The feature being requested is "No homosexuals exist in my world". To suggest otherwise is to intentionally misrepresent the position being taken. The idea of "my Hawke's orientation" being selected via such a switch is erroneous - your orientation is not something that's obvious. If your Hawke is gay, Fenris would never know unless you kept hitting on him. If your Hawke is straight, Anders would never know until you reject him. The switch being requested is "the existence of ******/heterosexuals in Thedas". Which is why it is as inappropriate as a toggle for "the existence of race/ethnicity/religion/etc in Thedas".

Master Shiori wrote...
Also, with the flirt lines being clearly marked as such in DA2, it's become real easy to avoid accidently starting a romance or flirting with someone.

Yeah, this is probably one of the key reasons I don't mind the options. As a straight male gamer, if I was "forced" to sexor other dudes by accident, I'd probably be really annoyed. As it was, I avoid those options like the plague and my digital stand-in remains straight as an arrow. Fenris is also (as far as the narrative is concerned) straight and banging Isabela.
Also as a straight male gamer, my fem-Hawke is a lesbian, but that's neither here nor there. :innocent:

LeBurns wrote...

I don't recall in DA:O accidentally starting a gay romance. The fact that you can in DA2 is a problem in game design, not a feature.

Thre is no indication (beyond  reading comprehension) about initiating the gay romance in DA:O. In DA2, every romance option is clearly denoted by hearts, rejection by broken  hearts. It is a far better "gay avoidance" design.

I don't know how that guy got Merrill to suddenly become a house guest, but if you don't choose a Flirt option you should never set the Romance flag and it shouldn't happen.

Edit: Dratted spacing.

Modifié par Dark83, 28 mars 2011 - 04:17 .

[moilami]

Tirigon wrote...

AngelicMachinery wrote...

centauri2002 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

If I was Merrill, I´d move in with the beard too.
I mean, it´s either that or having to dust and cook yourself. Not a hard choice, is it?

Now she has to dust and cook for two people? >.>

I have a two pet dwarves and an elven servant to that for me.

And Hawke. Merrill is  woman powerful enough to force her boyfriend into doing the housework whlie she´s jumping around on the bed.

Besides, the dude still lives with his mom, she can help out.

Rofl. For some reason I can imagine Merrill jumping around on the bed and doing all kind of other silly things and Pritney Spears ooopses.

[Madi]

Tirigon wrote...

RetroActiv wrote...

Oh come on that is such an absurd comparison and you know it. Simply presenting the option for everyone to choose one's sexual preferences during character creation would not be  like having a "no black people" option. The option would obviously be open to everyone so if you didn't want any standard heterosexual flirting going on you could turn that option off as well. Everyone wins.  

It SEEMS ridiculous to you, yes - and, I gladly admit, to me too.

But, objectively speaking, where is the difference between not wanting to have to deal with gays and not wanting to have to deal with emancipated women or blacks?

The only real difference is that disliking people based on their gender and / or race is nowadays widely considered to be retarded, while disliking gays is, sadly, much more acceptable.

centauri2002 wrote...


I haven't had the time to get that far into the game. >.> 

damn, sorry for spoilers:unsure:

It's quite possible to disagree with homosexuality without  actively disliking individuals who happen to identify themselves as homosexual. In fact I would say that's how it is most of the time. 

[Centauri2002]

moilami wrote...

You don't understand the concept.

Edit: Besides it is perfectly fine RPG char creation detail. 

The concept of what?

[JediMB]

Madi wrote...

It's quite possible to disagree with homosexuality without  actively disliking individuals who happen to identify themselves as homosexual. In fact I would say that's how it is most of the time. 

I'm still not quite sure on what "disagreeing with homosexuality" actually means.

I can disagree with theories and ideas put forth by people. I have no idea how to disagree with someone's sexuality.

[moilami]

Captain Cornhole wrote...

moilami wrote...

centauri2002 wrote...

RetroActiv wrote...

Oh come on that is such an absurd comparison and you know it. Simply presenting the option for everyone to choose one's sexual preferences during character creation would not be  like having a "no black people" option. The option would obviously be open to everyone so if you didn't want any standard heterosexual flirting going on you could turn that option off as well. Everyone wins.  

So you're suggesting a sexuality slider, such as a skin tone slider? I guess that would work. But that has a lot more impact than customising the looks of a character ever will and I don't think we're likely to see that implemented any time soon.

You don't understand the concept.

Edit: Besides it is perfectly fine RPG char creation detail. 

Personally a concept of a sexuality slider is silly and unnessicary. Just put X ammount of Hetros, X ammount of Homos and X about of Bis into your game and call it golden. To me the act of making everyone bi comes off as a cheep way of trying to appease every demographic.

You don't seem to understand much of game development and programming or RP then. Or you have some hideous political agenda.

In RP if you make a char and define it is gay then you need to RP it differently than a char who you define is a hetero. That should be understandable even to current arcade adventure gamers.

For a game dev it gives possibilities to do things like "In Pearl $hetero gets jumped by a number of gays offering services or whatever the devs come up to harass hetero player.

Alternatively it can be used to make gay companions to not begin to advance on hetero player unless the player initiates it. Or it can be used to make a situation where gay NPC keeps harassing hetero player but does not harass gay player.

Possibilities are endless.

Anyway, bye bye, I am very fed of political jerks pushing their political agendas on video games to make PEGI 18 sex, violence, strong language, narcotics, blood, gore rated games politically correct <_<

[Seifz]

Madi wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

RetroActiv wrote...

Oh come on that is such an absurd comparison and you know it. Simply presenting the option for everyone to choose one's sexual preferences during character creation would not be  like having a "no black people" option. The option would obviously be open to everyone so if you didn't want any standard heterosexual flirting going on you could turn that option off as well. Everyone wins.  

It SEEMS ridiculous to you, yes - and, I gladly admit, to me too.

But, objectively speaking, where is the difference between not wanting to have to deal with gays and not wanting to have to deal with emancipated women or blacks?

The only real difference is that disliking people based on their gender and / or race is nowadays widely considered to be retarded, while disliking gays is, sadly, much more acceptable.

centauri2002 wrote...


I haven't had the time to get that far into the game. >.> 

damn, sorry for spoilers:unsure:

It's quite possible to disagree with homosexuality without  actively disliking individuals who happen to identify themselves as homosexual. In fact I would say that's how it is most of the time.

No, it's really not.  That's a logical contradiction.

[JediMB]

I have actually never defined my character's sexuality upon creation when I've done PnP role-playing.

And seducing a same-gendered NPC for one reason or another has never been more than a Charisma roll away. No one cares about whether or not it's probable that everyone I flirt with are either gay or bi.

Modifié par JediMB, 28 mars 2011 - 04:33 .

[Seifz]

moilami wrote...

Captain Cornhole wrote...

moilami wrote...

centauri2002 wrote...

RetroActiv wrote...

Oh come on that is such an absurd comparison and you know it. Simply presenting the option for everyone to choose one's sexual preferences during character creation would not be  like having a "no black people" option. The option would obviously be open to everyone so if you didn't want any standard heterosexual flirting going on you could turn that option off as well. Everyone wins.  

So you're suggesting a sexuality slider, such as a skin tone slider? I guess that would work. But that has a lot more impact than customising the looks of a character ever will and I don't think we're likely to see that implemented any time soon.

You don't understand the concept.

Edit: Besides it is perfectly fine RPG char creation detail. 

Personally a concept of a sexuality slider is silly and unnessicary. Just put X ammount of Hetros, X ammount of Homos and X about of Bis into your game and call it golden. To me the act of making everyone bi comes off as a cheep way of trying to appease every demographic.

You don't seem to understand much of game development and programming or RP then. Or you have some hideous political agenda.

I wasn't aware that homosexuality was a political topic.  Certainly some bigots have been trying to make it one, but that doesn't mean it should be one.  Homosexuality is not a choice.  Period.

In RP if you make a char and define it is gay then you need to RP it differently than a char who you define is a hetero. That should be understandable even to current arcade adventure gamers.

Why?  Sexual orientation is only one aspect of a person.  You could have two people who are identical except for that one trait.  Why would they act different in any situation that isn't in some way sexual?

For a game dev it gives possibilities to do things like "In Pearl $hetero gets jumped by a number of gays offering services or whatever the devs come up to harass hetero player.

Are you ****ing serious?

Alternatively it can be used to make gay companions to not begin to advance on hetero player unless the player initiates it. Or it can be used to make a situation where gay NPC keeps harassing hetero player but does not harass gay player.

Well, no.  That doesn't make sense.  How would Anders know that you're straight unless you told him so?  This is no different that the other absurd sliders and toggles that I've proposed in previous posts.  It's stupid.

Anyway, bye bye, I am very fed of political jerks pushing their political agendas on video games to make PEGI 18 sex, violence, strong language, narcotics, blood, gore rated games politically correct <_<

Again, sexual orientation should not be political.

[Centauri2002]

JediMB wrote...

I have actually never defined my character's sexuality upon creation when I've done PnP role-playing.

And seducing a same-gendered NPC for one reason or another has never been more than a Charisma roll away. No one cares about whether or not it's probable that everyone I flirt with are either gay or bi.

Neither have I and if it's come up in the game, I'm not automatically inclined to pick my own either. I'm secure in my own sexuality and the fact that I'm role-playing a character that it doesn't bother me. But, the choice to pick whatever I wish to role-play is nice.

As a side note, my usual GM usually places a modifier on rolls due to good or bad role playing.

[JediMB]

Seifz wrote...

Are you ****ing serious?

He's trolling. That's pretty much all he does here.

[Dark83]

JediMB wrote...

I have actually never defined my character's sexuality upon creation when I've done PnP role-playing.

And seducing a same-gendered NPC for one reason or another has never been more than a Charisma roll away. No one cares about whether or not it's probable that everyone I flirt with are either gay or bi.

This is because playing a bisexual dwarf who carries a stepladder with him is hilarious. The world's second greatest lover - but he tries harder.