506 réponses à ce sujet

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

It (bisexuality) is the fate of humanity and no one escapes from it! (JK - lol) Just remember that the ultimate dream of all homosexuals is to make everyone bisexual for more LI options! Can someone lock down this thread ... there is no point in the discussion.

[Anathemic]

Mr.House wrote...

Anathemic wrote...
that's not ignorant at all

I hope you're joking.

That depends on what context you're going for. Sarcasm is very hard to detect on the internet. So I'll jsut say that post you quoted was entirely sarcastic to nullify further confusion.

[Mr.House]

slimgrin wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

DuckSoup wrote...

Does everyone really have to keep making this an issue?

Most straight people think they are entiled to everything and get mad because they are no lnoger being catred to. Sad truth but it's there, they act like they are forced to do it but it's not true

Nonsense. Many straight gamers have advocated for gay content on this site, I've seen it time and again. Don't get smug.

Bolded you the thing you refused to read or did read and decided to ignore it.

[jlb524]

Anathemic wrote...

1) Even though if the words don't exist, the sexual orientations still do

2)You cannot make that assumption, again refer to my in-depth post. 2/3 of the time (at the very least) people will have reserved outlooks on sexual orientation. Therefore one is bound to be offended at some point
in a relationship development. And to prevent said offense, what do people do? Oh yeah 'repress'.

3) Even so the heterosexual relationship will always, always still outnumber the other sexual orientations. This is not being sexist, this is being realistic to both societal (making a damn family) and evolutionary aspects.

4) This is weak. Fantasy must always always have parallels that derive from their RL counterpart, else it will alienate the reader.

1) No, sexual orientations are the words...the categories.  What exists naturally are just sex drives...it's like an itch that needs scratched.  In our culture, we are constantly told the appropriate ways to scratch it while other ways are forbidden and 'sexual orientations' were created to categorize it all to study it/control it. 

2)  By repress, I mean wholely repress and deny that you have any homosexual feelings.  Not, "repress desires to hit on anyone you want/jump their bones" because that applies to any orientation.   If homosexuality is no big deal, why would people have a reserved outlook on that specifically, but not heterosexuality?

3) Maybe...we really don't know what it would all be like in a perfect world.  Stll, there's plenty of heterosexuality shown in the game...more than homosexuality.

4)  Okay, but why is this one thing such a big deal to some, when it's only a small part of the game and optional? This isn't a book where the things you read are static...it's a roleplaying game with some options thrown in on how the story goes and how your character develops.  There are plenty of things that I don't find realistic or find 'alienating' but I just avoid them...I don't feel alienated b/c of an optional choice I don't have to take in a video game.

[Mr.House]

Anathemic wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Anathemic wrote...
that's not ignorant at all

I hope you're joking.

That depends on what context you're going for. Sarcasm is very hard to detect on the internet. So I'll jsut say that post you quoted was entirely sarcastic to nullify further confusion.

Oh you.

[Siansonea]

RageGT wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Ringo12 wrote...

neppakyo wrote...

AngelicMachinery wrote...

I tried this before...  it didn't end as well as I hoped.  Dragon Age Origins taught me all I had to do was give people things and they'd like me,  no matter how abrassive my personality was.  Let me tell you,  it most certainly isn't true.  

It works in RL. Give a girl diamonds/gold/emeralds and watch her legs open faster than the speed of sound.

QFT.

*wonders idly how many people who make snickering middle school jokes like this have ever even seen a female human naked in person*

Hmm... I'm 47 and I've seen this work soooo many times. Just one real case: When a sixty-yrs-old, bald, shortie and fat man keeps dating with 22 yrs old models wannabes, the only "size" that matters is the size of all the zeros in his bank account!

When we're in the 20's we ask "Who bangs all these gorgeous 20 yrs old chicks?" ... When we're 40, we discover it is we! - Old Playboy "joke"... might lose a bit in the translation.

P.S.: Seeing this thread getting this long makes me wonder if you're all just asexual beings! Go out and have some fun! And paraphrasing  "When Harry net Sally", there is no real friendship among our species. We're all out there to plough each other! Sexual preferences respected of course!

It's still a very immature joke, and it's disrespectful to women. But I've come to expect that from that quarter. Are there plenty of "gold diggers" out there? Sure. But not every woman is a slattern, as that joke implies.

I know what you're going to say, "lighten up, it's just a joke". Well, I would if it were a funny joke, but it's really just mean-spirited. And I don't doubt that those individuals probably genuinely believe that the only reason they aren't surrounded by willing females is because they're not plying said females with diamonds. It couldn't be any other reason that the ladies are staying away in droves, noooo....<_<

Modifié par Siansonea II, 04 juin 2011 - 08:19 .

[Taraberra]

Technically, they aren't all bisexual depending on your gender in the game.

[Anathemic]

jlb524 wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

1) Even though if the words don't exist, the sexual orientations still do

2)You cannot make that assumption, again refer to my in-depth post. 2/3 of the time (at the very least) people will have reserved outlooks on sexual orientation. Therefore one is bound to be offended at some point
in a relationship development. And to prevent said offense, what do people do? Oh yeah 'repress'.

3) Even so the heterosexual relationship will always, always still outnumber the other sexual orientations. This is not being sexist, this is being realistic to both societal (making a damn family) and evolutionary aspects.

4) This is weak. Fantasy must always always have parallels that derive from their RL counterpart, else it will alienate the reader.

1) No, sexual orientations are the words...the categories.  What exists naturally are just sex drives...it's like an itch that needs scratched.  In our culture, we are constantly told the appropriate ways to scratch it while other ways are forbidden and 'sexual orientations' were created to categorize it all to study it/control it. 

2)  By repress, I mean wholely repress and deny that you have any homosexual feelings.  Not, "repress desires to hit on anyone you want/jump their bones" because that applies to any orientation.   If homosexuality is no big deal, why would people have a reserved outlook on that specifically, but not heterosexuality?

3) Maybe...we really don't know what it would all be like in a perfect world.  Stll, there's plenty of heterosexuality shown in the game...more than homosexuality.

4)  Okay, but why is this one thing such a big deal to some, when it's only a small part of the game and optional? This isn't a book where the things you read are static...it's a roleplaying game with some options thrown in on how the story goes and how your character develops.  There are plenty of things that I don't find realistic or find 'alienating' but I just avoid them...I don't feel alienated b/c of an optional choice I don't have to take in a video game.

1) Okay but the sex drives are not all the same. They target different sexes and other sexes they shy away from. For the sake of the conversation it will be referred to as sexual orientation.

2) Because heterosexuality is what causes offspring, and will always be seen as the 'normal' way, doesn't matter if the society it open to it or not. People are not stupid, they catch on.

3) In a perfect world, any sexual coupling will derive natural offspring, unfortunatly that's not the case.

4) The topic of the thread is dealing with this issue, and thus people discuss it. It doesn't make sense to say "But this part of the game is unrealistic too! Why don't you argue that one and leave this unrealstic part alone?!" That's stupid.

It's not the optionality, but the realism. Again 2/3 of the time you have people with reserved sexual orienation. Making every possible LI bisexual (AKA the 1/3 open sexual orientation) is just unrealisitc. Sure it could happen, but pretty damn rarely it can. And if it happens to Hawke of all people, well then we go back to the issue of 'pandering'.

[Ryzaki]

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

DuckSoup wrote...

Does everyone really have to keep making this an issue?

I wonder the same thing.

Sexual orientation has always been such a non-issue for me. It seems very petty to restrict the romantic options of queer people simply because you dislike that the option is there.

 

This. 

It's not something that you even have to pay attention to if you don't want to. I never get the complaining. 

[Siansonea]

aduellist wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...
*snip*

Interesting, but you're not making a compelling case that a "brush-off" is a more satisfying character arc or game experience for the player. But I know what you're saying. In ME2, I really loved Samara's refusal of Shepard's advances, not because of Shepard's gender, but because of her station in life. She had "been there, done that" and she probably saw Shepard as an impossibly young person, equivalent to having a relationship with an asari Maiden. That made sense. But with Anders, Fenris and Merrill, I'm not convinced that them having a one-gender preference would improve their characters in a way that would offset the loss of gameplay possibilities. Everything is a tradeoff. In a perfect world, as I've said before, there would be more options in general, some straight, some bisexual, and some gay/lesbian. But romance is only part of the Dragon Age game, and it's probably not feasible to have 7 or 8 fully-realized and highly developed distinct characters that are open to romance with the main character. After all, characters really should be their own people first, and romance options second or third (or not at all, depending). But as much as I hate to resort to the "limited resources" thing, the fact is we don't have unlimited resources. It would be great if there were more DLC characters who were exclusively gay or exclusively straight, like Sebastian, but I don't see that happening.

I see what you mean.  A "brush off", though, can simply be an opportunity to develop a different sort of relationship.  Of course, we know as players that these are people we're going to potentially be spending a lot of time with.  That makes all our in-game relationships somewhat artificial to begin with, I suppose.

The fact is I don't fundamentally disagree with the notion that having gay, straight, AND bisexual LI options is the best way to go. I do disagree with the notion that the DA2 system is terrible. It's a compromise, sure, but I would say if anything they should have added more characters rather than limit any of the four to one gender Hawke. To me, each of the four bisexual LIs is a perfectly reasonable character in all respects, so the one character facet of their bisexual nature in no way causes me any reduced enjoyment of the game.

And I certainly did not mean to imply that the DA2 romance system is terrible.  I don't find it so.  I simply think it could be better.  I agree with your overall sentiments.

My only concern is that in the scenario where each of the four LIs is available to a single gender Hawke, let’s say one heterosexual and one homosexual per gender, then your Hawke has exactly ONE LI option if your Hawke isn’t bisexual. If you are playing a straight male Hawke, and Isabela gives you the brush-off because she’s only into women, well, you’re stuck with Merrill or nobody. Same for a gay male Hawke, Fenris turns him down, so it’s Anders or nothing (or vice versa). I would say that is a much less satisfying game experience for the player, even if the brush-off scenes are handled very well. A lot of players put a great deal of importance on the LI subplot, and if you’re shoehorned into one per gender+orientation (unless Hawke is bisexual, of course), then it’s going to feel less like an open-ended game and more like a simple yes/no choice.

[jlb524]

This is what I see happening: Bioware decided to try a different method for implementing romances in DA2...one that gave more people more options. As I mentioned before, they've done this in the past by removing racial, class, or morality checks. By going this route, people have more control over shaping their PCs story...people like that kind of stuff.

Now, some people say this makes the characters 'weak' and the narrative 'poor' and makes the romances 'unrealistic' even though all these things are still completely optional and have popped up in other games from BW, like the Origins romances (i.e, the bribes gifts, lack of realistic race/class restriction) but nobody really seems to care about these other things nor do they absolutely think it must go in order to maintain some kind of integrity.

That all seems to reek of some kind of double-standard. Anything else goes in romance (no matter how ridiculous it may be) except gender.

[Godak]

Excuse me whilst I go castrate myself. When I return, I shall declare my victory.

[Siansonea]

jlb524 wrote...

This is what I see happening: Bioware decided to try a different method for implementing romances in DA2...one that gave more people more options. As I mentioned before, they've done this in the past by removing racial, class, or morality checks. By going this route, people have more control over shaping their PCs story...people like that kind of stuff.

Now, some people say this makes the characters 'weak' and the narrative 'poor' and makes the romances 'unrealistic' even though all these things are still completely optional and have popped up in other games from BW, like the Origins romances (i.e, the bribes gifts, lack of realistic race/class restriction) but nobody really seems to care about these other things nor do they absolutely think it must go in order to maintain some kind of integrity.

That all seems to reek of some kind of double-standard. Anything else goes in romance (no matter how ridiculous it may be) except gender.

THIS!

For me, it's much more ridiculous for Fenris to have a romance with a Mage Hawke, or even a terribly mage-friendly Hawke, then for Fenris to be open to males and females. Being bisexual is believable, but ignoring your basic belief systems and romancing a character with a completely opposite world view—that seems VERY unrealistic to me. Why would Anders/Justice EVER agree to follow a pro-Templar Hawke, and why would Isabela ever be attracted to a very diplomatic do-gooder Hawke? If we want to talk about really jarring instances of character discontinuity, this is what we should be talking about, not bisexuality.

[Siansonea]

Godak wrote...

Excuse me whilst I go castrate myself. When I return, I shall declare my victory.

Darwin thanks you.

[Anathemic]

Siansonea II wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

This is what I see happening: Bioware decided to try a different method for implementing romances in DA2...one that gave more people more options. As I mentioned before, they've done this in the past by removing racial, class, or morality checks. By going this route, people have more control over shaping their PCs story...people like that kind of stuff.

Now, some people say this makes the characters 'weak' and the narrative 'poor' and makes the romances 'unrealistic' even though all these things are still completely optional and have popped up in other games from BW, like the Origins romances (i.e, the bribes gifts, lack of realistic race/class restriction) but nobody really seems to care about these other things nor do they absolutely think it must go in order to maintain some kind of integrity.

That all seems to reek of some kind of double-standard. Anything else goes in romance (no matter how ridiculous it may be) except gender.

THIS!

For me, it's much more ridiculous for Fenris to have a romance with a Mage Hawke, or even a terribly mage-friendly Hawke, then for Fenris to be open to males and females. Being bisexual is believable, but ignoring your basic belief systems and romancing a character with a completely opposite world view—that seems VERY unrealistic to me. Why would Anders/Justice EVER agree to follow a pro-Templar Hawke, and why would Isabela ever be attracted to a very diplomatic do-gooder Hawke? If we want to talk about really jarring instances of character discontinuity, this is what we should be talking about, not bisexuality.

"But this part of the game is unrealistic too! Why don't you guys instead argue this one?!"

Get off the thread then.

[aduellist]

Siansonea II wrote...

My only concern is that in the scenario where each of the four LIs is available to a single gender Hawke, let’s say one heterosexual and one homosexual per gender, then your Hawke has exactly ONE LI option if your Hawke isn’t bisexual. If you are playing a straight male Hawke, and Isabela gives you the brush-off because she’s only into women, well, you’re stuck with Merrill or nobody. Same for a gay male Hawke, Fenris turns him down, so it’s Anders or nothing (or vice versa). I would say that is a much less satisfying game experience for the player, even if the brush-off scenes are handled very well. A lot of players put a great deal of importance on the LI subplot, and if you’re shoehorned into one per gender+orientation (unless Hawke is bisexual, of course), then it’s going to feel less like an open-ended game and more like a simple yes/no choice.

jlb524 wrote...

This is what I see happening: Bioware decided to try a different method for implementing romances in DA2...one that gave more people more options. As I mentioned before, they've done this in the past by removing racial, class, or morality checks. By going this route, people have more control over shaping their PCs story...people like that kind of stuff.

Now, some people say this makes the characters 'weak' and the narrative 'poor' and makes the romances 'unrealistic' even though all these things are still completely optional and have popped up in other games from BW, like the Origins romances (i.e, the bribes gifts, lack of realistic race/class restriction) but nobody really seems to care about these other things nor do they absolutely think it must go in order to maintain some kind of integrity.

That all seems to reek of some kind of double-standard. Anything else goes in romance (no matter how ridiculous it may be) except gender.

And I certainly agree with both your concerns that the end result may be a lessening of player choice.  That would be a less than desirable outcome.

And jlb, I completely concur about the "romance-by-bribe" issue in DA:O.

Edited for spelling.

Modifié par aduellist, 04 juin 2011 - 08:40 .

[jlb524]

Anathemic wrote...

1) Okay but the sex drives are not all the same. They target different sexes and other sexes they shy away from. For the sake of the conversation it will be referred to as sexual orientation.

2) Because heterosexuality is what causes offspring, and will always be seen as the 'normal' way, doesn't matter if the society it open to it or not. People are not stupid, they catch on.

3) In a perfect world, any sexual coupling will derive natural offspring, unfortunatly that's not the case.

4) The topic of the thread is dealing with this issue, and thus people discuss it. It doesn't make sense to say "But this part of the game is unrealistic too! Why don't you argue that one and leave this unrealstic part alone?!" That's stupid.

It's not the optionality, but the realism. Again 2/3 of the time you have people with reserved sexual orienation. Making every possible LI bisexual (AKA the 1/3 open sexual orientation) is just unrealisitc. Sure it could happen, but pretty damn rarely it can. And if it happens to Hawke of all people, well then we go back to the issue of 'pandering'.

1)  Yes, okay.

2)  No, a sperm/egg happy dance causes offspring.  A 'heterosexual sex act' isn't even needed for this....

3) Why does that matter?  People in homosexual romances can both create natural offspring...they just need help from an opposite sex donor.  Romance and making babies aren't so totally married together as most think.

4)  No, I wonder why people focus so much on one thing.  You brought up realism first, and said, "this is bad b/c it's not realistic"...then I wonder, "well, tons of things aren't realistic but you ignore those....why?"  Then I start to think realism isn't all that important to you...or it's selective...and your realism argument means little at that point.

Modifié par jlb524, 04 juin 2011 - 08:36 .

[Nerdage]

jlb524 wrote...

This is what I see happening: Bioware decided to try a different method for implementing romances in DA2...one that gave more people more options. As I mentioned before, they've done this in the past by removing racial, class, or morality checks. By going this route, people have more control over shaping their PCs story...people like that kind of stuff.

Now, some people say this makes the characters 'weak' and the narrative 'poor' and makes the romances 'unrealistic' even though all these things are still completely optional and have popped up in other games from BW, like the Origins romances (i.e, the bribes gifts, lack of realistic race/class restriction) but nobody really seems to care about these other things nor do they absolutely think it must go in order to maintain some kind of integrity.

That all seems to reek of some kind of double-standard. Anything else goes in romance (no matter how ridiculous it may be) except gender.

That's a good point...

WHERE DID RACE CHECKS GO?!

Wait here, I'm going to go start a thread!

I'm not, really.. I do miss morality/alignment requirements, though.. 

[Godak]

Siansonea II wrote...

Godak wrote...

Excuse me whilst I go castrate myself. When I return, I shall declare my victory.

Darwin thanks you.

Yeah, Charlie is a great guy. He really is. Do you know him?

(Isn't the whole premise of the Dragon Age setting that sexuality is left fairly untouched by society's taint?)

[Anathemic]

jlb524 wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

1) Okay but the sex drives are not all the same. They target different sexes and other sexes they shy away from. For the sake of the conversation it will be referred to as sexual orientation.

2) Because heterosexuality is what causes offspring, and will always be seen as the 'normal' way, doesn't matter if the society it open to it or not. People are not stupid, they catch on.

3) In a perfect world, any sexual coupling will derive natural offspring, unfortunatly that's not the case.

4) The topic of the thread is dealing with this issue, and thus people discuss it. It doesn't make sense to say "But this part of the game is unrealistic too! Why don't you argue that one and leave this unrealstic part alone?!" That's stupid.

It's not the optionality, but the realism. Again 2/3 of the time you have people with reserved sexual orienation. Making every possible LI bisexual (AKA the 1/3 open sexual orientation) is just unrealisitc. Sure it could happen, but pretty damn rarely it can. And if it happens to Hawke of all people, well then we go back to the issue of 'pandering'.

1)  Yes, okay.

2)  No, a sperm/egg happy dance causes offspring.  A 'heterosexual sex act' isn't even needed for this....

3) Why does that matter?  People in homosexual romances can both create natural offspring...they just need help from an opposite sex donor.  Romance and making babies aren't so totally married together as most think.

4)  No, I wonder why people focus so much on one thing.  You brought up realism first, and said, "this is bad b/c it's not realistic"...then I wonder, "well, tons of things aren't realistic but you ignore those....why?"  Then I start to think realism isn't all that important to you...or it's selective...and your realism argument means little at that point.

2 + 3) I was simplifying it, obviously the heterosexual sexual act achieves this.  On the sex donor thing, I just what? Can you imagine what implications this can have? "You're not my real mommy/daddy!" Bloodlines will be confused and pathetic, monarchies would dissapait (obviously they don't in Thedas), etc...

4) My personal view is the game is unrealsitic in general. However, the point of the thread is to discuss the 'bisexualty of the LIs' no the 'but this part is unrealistic too!' or 'enemy waves is unrealstic' or 'wait what about this one!'

Since the point of the thread is to discuss the 'bisexuality of LIs' and only the 'bisexuality of LIs' I would greatly appreciate it if you and other people stop coming up with the weak and pathetic arguement of "but this part of the game is unrealstic too! Discuss that part instead!"

Stay on topic.

[Siansonea]

Anathemic wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

This is what I see happening: Bioware decided to try a different method for implementing romances in DA2...one that gave more people more options. As I mentioned before, they've done this in the past by removing racial, class, or morality checks. By going this route, people have more control over shaping their PCs story...people like that kind of stuff.

Now, some people say this makes the characters 'weak' and the narrative 'poor' and makes the romances 'unrealistic' even though all these things are still completely optional and have popped up in other games from BW, like the Origins romances (i.e, the bribes gifts, lack of realistic race/class restriction) but nobody really seems to care about these other things nor do they absolutely think it must go in order to maintain some kind of integrity.

That all seems to reek of some kind of double-standard. Anything else goes in romance (no matter how ridiculous it may be) except gender.

THIS!

For me, it's much more ridiculous for Fenris to have a romance with a Mage Hawke, or even a terribly mage-friendly Hawke, then for Fenris to be open to males and females. Being bisexual is believable, but ignoring your basic belief systems and romancing a character with a completely opposite world view—that seems VERY unrealistic to me. Why would Anders/Justice EVER agree to follow a pro-Templar Hawke, and why would Isabela ever be attracted to a very diplomatic do-gooder Hawke? If we want to talk about really jarring instances of character discontinuity, this is what we should be talking about, not bisexuality.

"But this part of the game is unrealistic too! Why don't you guys instead argue this one?!"

Get off the thread then.

That's not what I'm saying at all, and "get off the thread" is douchetacular behavior, FYI.

I'm saying that Anders willingness to romance a pro-Templar Hawke, Fenris romancing a mage Hawke, and such things are MUCH more jarring than a group of four bisexuals.

And it's also a very metagame problem that people are having. Becuase they know from their dealings outside the game that Hawke can romance either Anders, Fenris, Isabela or Merrill regardless of Hawke's gender, they have a problem. Without that outside knowledge, they just see a bunch of heart icons when talking to various squad characters. But you also see heart icons when talking to other characters too, even Aveline. If your Hawke flirts with everybody, THEN you have a situation where you discover that you have four LI options you can pursue, and thus four bisexual characters in your 8-person squad. A flirtatious Hawke SHOULD have a lot of options though, don't you think? But if your Hawke only flirts with the LI of choice, then all you know is that Hawke has a lot of flirting opportunities along with a lot of questioning, Diplomatic, Aggressive, Humorous, Charming, Direct, and other types of conversation options based on the icons. But what matters is the in-game environment. I'd prefer they not announce who is an LI and who isn't before the game ships, so that people are left to wonder if they can get anywhere with a given character. Sure, they'll see heart icons, but as we see with Aveline that doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot.

[ipgd]

I really do not understand this "it's not realistic" argument. I have more than four bisexual friends. Am I supposed to build my social circles around some arbitrary statistical quota? Must I cut all contact off with my queer friends if I don't first make 20 other straight friends to balance them out? If Hawke had a million companions, I might understand, but he has four love interests. That is such a small sample that it represents absolutely nothing. It is not a commentary on the sexual practices of Thedas. Having four bisexual people in the same place is not anywhere near impossible or even really unlikely.

[Anathemic]

Siansonea II wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

This is what I see happening: Bioware decided to try a different method for implementing romances in DA2...one that gave more people more options. As I mentioned before, they've done this in the past by removing racial, class, or morality checks. By going this route, people have more control over shaping their PCs story...people like that kind of stuff.

Now, some people say this makes the characters 'weak' and the narrative 'poor' and makes the romances 'unrealistic' even though all these things are still completely optional and have popped up in other games from BW, like the Origins romances (i.e, the bribes gifts, lack of realistic race/class restriction) but nobody really seems to care about these other things nor do they absolutely think it must go in order to maintain some kind of integrity.

That all seems to reek of some kind of double-standard. Anything else goes in romance (no matter how ridiculous it may be) except gender.

THIS!

For me, it's much more ridiculous for Fenris to have a romance with a Mage Hawke, or even a terribly mage-friendly Hawke, then for Fenris to be open to males and females. Being bisexual is believable, but ignoring your basic belief systems and romancing a character with a completely opposite world view—that seems VERY unrealistic to me. Why would Anders/Justice EVER agree to follow a pro-Templar Hawke, and why would Isabela ever be attracted to a very diplomatic do-gooder Hawke? If we want to talk about really jarring instances of character discontinuity, this is what we should be talking about, not bisexuality.

"But this part of the game is unrealistic too! Why don't you guys instead argue this one?!"

Get off the thread then.

That's not what I'm saying at all, and "get off the thread" is douchetacular behavior, FYI.

I'm saying that Anders willingness to romance a pro-Templar Hawke, Fenris romancing a mage Hawke, and such things are MUCH more jarring than a group of four bisexuals.

-snip-

It was supposed to be douchey, for the point of the thread is to discuss the LI's bisexuality, not the LI's faction stance. If you want to discuss LI's faction stance then make a thread about it, this thread it to discuss the LI's bisexuality and only that.

[Anathemic]

ipgd wrote...

I really do not understand this "it's not realistic" argument. I have more than four bisexual friends. Am I supposed to build my social circles around some arbitrary statistical quota? Must I cut all contact off with my queer friends if I don't first make 20 other straight friends to balance them out? If Hawke had a million companions, I might understand, but he has four love interests. That is such a small sample that it represents absolutely nothing. It is not a commentary on the sexual practices of Thedas. Having four bisexual people in the same place is not anywhere near impossible or even really unlikely.

Because you have the luxury of having bisexual friends, doesn't mean the rest of the world has the luxury. I'm simply basing it off of the simple statistic that 2/3 times you will have people having 'reserved outlooks' on sexuality AKA ******/heterosexual people where the 1/3 is bisexual.

And even from then if you include the evolutionary aspect of real life into the equation then the 2/3 is actually greater.

[ipgd]

Anathemic wrote...

Because you have the luxury of having bisexual friends, doesn't mean the rest of the world has the luxury. I'm simply basing it off of the simple statistic that 2/3 times you will have people having 'reserved outlooks' on sexuality AKA ******/heterosexual people where the 1/3 is bisexual.

And even from then if you include the evolutionary aspect of real life into the equation then the 2/3 is actually greater.

And why exactly can Hawke not share this same "luxury"? Having four bisexual love interests is not an implication that all of Thedas is bisexual, because that is four people out of millions. Four people out of millions is not a stastically relevant sample size.