506 réponses à ce sujet

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

It happened in Origins (achievements tied to romances) and Dragon Age 2 also has an achievement for romancing a character.

[Harid]

mrcrusty wrote...

It happened in Origins (achievements tied to romances) and Dragon Age 2 also has an achievement for romancing a character.

I know.  I want those trophies removed so I can disregard romances all together.  I think I made that clear.

[jlb524]

I'm still confused by what people mean when they say 'Hawkesexual'.

Is it:

1) That the LIs have never been interested sexually/romantically in another person other than Hawke and will never be/could never be.

2) That the LIs will go for a Hawke regardless of gender/morality/whatever, but it's still possible that they have had or could have sexual/romantic encounters with others.

I always thought it was '2'?

[Anathemic]

jlb524 wrote...

I'm still confused by what people mean when they say 'Hawkesexual'.

Is it:

1) That the LIs have never been interested sexually/romantically in another person other than Hawke and will never be/could never be.

2) That the LIs will go for a Hawke regardless of gender/morality/whatever, but it's still possible that they have had or could have sexual/romantic encounters with others.

I always thought it was '2'?

There's only one sexuality you need to be concerned with, and this is Ioverthsexual

Modifié par Anathemic, 04 juin 2011 - 05:25 .

[Harid]

jlb524 wrote...

I'm still confused by what people mean when they say 'Hawkesexual'.

Is it:

1) That the LIs have never been interested sexually/romantically in another person other than Hawke and will never be/could never be.

2) That the LIs will go for a Hawke regardless of gender/morality/whatever, but it's still possible that they have had or could have sexual/romantic encounters with others.

I always thought it was '2'?

It's neither of those by my definition, but it'd be closer to one than to two.

Note that Aveline doesn't really count, given that there's no chance at romancing her int eh first place, it'd be like quoting Wynne or something.

Modifié par Harid, 04 juin 2011 - 05:27 .

[Loain]

jlb524 wrote...

I'm still confused by what people mean when they say 'Hawkesexual'.

Is it:

1) That the LIs have never been interested sexually/romantically in another person other than Hawke and will never be/could never be.

2) That the LIs will go for a Hawke regardless of gender/morality/whatever, but it's still possible that they have had or could have sexual/romantic encounters with others.

I always thought it was '2'?

It's '2'. Fenris and Isabela hook up. Anders clearly had other partners.

[jussyr]

I don't see what the problem is with trophies; if you think of a companion as being gay or straight, only romance them with characters of the appropriate sex. Likewise, if you want to think of the relationship between a companion and your character as being purely platonic because they're not attracted to you... do that, too. It's certainly not at all a problem with Fenris and Merrill, it only comes up in some games with Anders (and the devs I believe said they wouldn't do the 'character hits on player first' thing anymore), and Isabela.... well. Not so much, but not flirting with anyone reasonably attractive and/or capable would be outside her character. Point is, if you're roleplaying and can imagine all kinds of different personalities and motivations for Hawke which change game to game, is it that much harder to extend that to the companions? Unless you always play basically the same character, I guess, but if you do... try it differently sometime, it's fun!



Also what's so weird about a group of 8 people with 4 bisexuals in it? I don't know about the rest of you, but I often find myself in groups with a much higher proportion than that (by chance, with the group getting together for unrelated purposes, that is). And that's only the people whose orientation I'm actually aware of. In a society where sexual orientation is looked upon as a non-issue, I don't think it's at all strange.

[jlb524]

Harid wrote...
It's neither of those by my definition, but it'd be closer to one than to two.

What is it, then?

[Harid]

jussyr wrote...

Also what's so weird about a group of 8 people with 4 bisexuals in it? I don't know about the rest of you, but I often find myself in groups with a much higher proportion than that (by chance, with the group getting together for unrelated purposes, that is). And that's only the people whose orientation I'm actually aware of. In a society where sexual orientation is looked upon as a non-issue, I don't think it's at all strange.

Bisexuals aren't a large enough amount of the common population (in game or in real life)for it to be feasible.

It comes across as pandering.

It'd be simpler to make non battle npc's gay or bi or straight or asexual so people can get their romance fix without making the whole party bisexual, without coming across as pandering, imo.

Modifié par Harid, 04 juin 2011 - 05:42 .

[jlb524]

Harid wrote...
Bisexuals aren't a large enough amount of the common population (in game or in real life)for it to be feasible.

I don't think you can make that assumption.

Harid wrote...
It comes across as pandering.

So what?  There's pandering everywhere, like...pandering to people that like playing 'evil'.  Most players go the more heroic route, but they add in the options to play other moralities even when not popular.

Harid wrote...
It'd be simpler to make non battle npc's gay or bi or straight or asexual so people can get their romance fix without making the whole party bisexual, without coming across as pandering, imo.

The whole party isn't bisexual.

Modifié par jlb524, 04 juin 2011 - 05:48 .

[Anathemic]

jlb524 wrote...

Harid wrote...
It comes across as pandering.

So what? There's pandering everywhere, like...pandering to people that like playing 'evil'. Most players go the more heroic route, but they add in the options to play other moralities even when not popular.

I... what? How did you make that assumption of most people going the 'heroic' route? I have the experience of many players going the 'evil' route.

More to the point, pandering in video games is not a good thing. It shows bias and most of all simplicity. If devs are always going to pander to specific elements be it moral routes (good/evil) or sexuality, then there's a unnessacary use of resources going to 'pander' the specific side chosen leaving the other side little to no depth at all.

[Harid]

jlb524 wrote...

Harid wrote...
Bisexuals aren't a large enough amount of the common population (in game or in real life)for it to be feasible.

I don't think you can make that assumption.

Harid wrote...
It comes across as pandering.

So what?  There's pandering everywhere, like...pandering to people that like playing 'evil'.  Most players go the more heroic route, but they add in the options to play other moralities even when not popular.

Harid wrote...
It'd be simpler to make non battle npc's gay or bi or straight or asexual so people can get their romance fix without making the whole party bisexual, without coming across as pandering, imo.

The whole party isn't bisexual.

1)  Pretty sure it was mentioned for homesexuality/bisexuality rates to be similar to real life back when DA:O came out, but that might have been just about Fereldan, or I may be misremembering.

2)  That's roleplaying that has existed since D&D came out in the 70's versus pandering to Politcal Correctness.  I'd love more Black people in the game, but even I would be like "Come the **** on" if the vast majority of my party were black, heck, I would not even expect in in a black part of the world, wherever it may be.

3) Hyperbole.  Learn it.

Anathemic wrote...

I... what? How did you make that
assumption of most people going the 'heroic' route? I have the
experience of many players going the 'evil' route.

More to the
point, pandering in video games is not a good thing. It shows bias and
most of all simplicity. If devs are always going to pander to specific
elements be it moral routes (good/evil) or sexuality, then there's a
unnessacary use of resources going to 'pander' the specific side chosen
leaving the other side little to no depth at all.

Bioware already panders to the 'good' players, they always have since day one.  Let's not act like the 'evil' choices in Bioware games are deep.  But I digress.

Modifié par Harid, 04 juin 2011 - 05:59 .

[jussyr]

Can't make that assumption for real life either, given the level of prejudice that still exists about bi/homosexuality. But even if you *could* and even if you're unable to think of some characters as being gay or straight even when they're not having any relationships, that would make it at worst improbable. Also, make that 4/9 since I forgot Sebastian (hey look, straight romance option there), or 4/10 if you count Bethany and Carver separately, which I think is fair enough.

Also, yes, so what if they're pandering? God forbid everyone should have equal access to multiple interesting romance options, whatever their orientation might be.

[Harid]

jussyr wrote...

Can't make that assumption for real life either, given the level of prejudice that still exists about bi/homosexuality. But even if you *could* and even if you're unable to think of some characters as being gay or straight even when they're not having any relationships, that would make it at worst improbable. Also, make that 4/9 since I forgot Sebastian (hey look, straight romance option there), or 4/10 if you count Bethany and Carver separately, which I think is fair enough.

Also, yes, so what if they're pandering? God forbid everyone should have equal access to multiple interesting romance options, whatever their orientation might be.

Pretty sure I can, sorry.  I don't want to bring couldas and shouldas and what if?s into conversation.  And I don't know how you can have the gall to count people who aren't even romanceable.  Come on.

I already addressed your second point, and I think people should feel insulted when they are pandered to, sorry.

Modifié par Harid, 04 juin 2011 - 06:05 .

[Anathemic]

Harid wrote...

jussyr wrote...

Can't make that assumption for real life either, given the level of prejudice that still exists about bi/homosexuality. But even if you *could* and even if you're unable to think of some characters as being gay or straight even when they're not having any relationships, that would make it at worst improbable. Also, make that 4/9 since I forgot Sebastian (hey look, straight romance option there), or 4/10 if you count Bethany and Carver separately, which I think is fair enough.

Also, yes, so what if they're pandering? God forbid everyone should have equal access to multiple interesting romance options, whatever their orientation might be.

Pretty sure I can, sorry.  I don't want to bring couldas and shouldas and what if?s into conversation.  And I don't know hwo you can have the gall to count people who aren't even romanceable.  Come on.

I already addressed your second point, and I think people should feel insulted when they are pandered too, sorry.

You put the pandering issue in better words than I could myself.

[jussyr]

Personally, I'm not insulted when someone acknowledges I actually exist and might like the same number of relationship options I can identify with available to me as straight people have. If you want to talk about pandering, let's look at the entire history of games where for the most part, all design decisions have been made to reinforce the idea that gay people either straight up don't exist or are so abnormal they're not worth even acknowledging. Going a little bit too far in the other direction rather than pandering to homophobes? I'll take it. And as a gamer who likes more choice in my RPGs, not less, I'd be willing to sacrifice a bit of realism to have it. As has been mentioned, Fenris getting together with Bloodmage Hawke or Anders with Templar Hawke is so much of a bigger problem that I've no idea why this one is even being discussed.


Well, that's not quite true, I do know why. Just don't think much of it.

[Loain]

It's odd when I was younger I desperately wanted to play as a female but once games started offering the option I found I enjoyed playing as a guy more. Even though I'd love to see the whole Alistair romance thing my female Warden feels like a chore. I love that I can play DA2 exactly how and as who I want and can still get all the game has to offer.

@Anathemic
I fail to see how giving people loads of choices is pandering or wastes resources. RPGs are all about having choices it makes my experience unique and gives me plenty of fulfilling replays.

Modifié par Loain, 04 juin 2011 - 06:18 .

[Anathemic]

jussyr wrote...

Personally, I'm not insulted when someone acknowledges I actually exist and might like the same number of relationship options I can identify with available to me as straight people have. If you want to talk about pandering, let's look at the entire history of games where for the most part, all design decisions have been made to reinforce the idea that gay people either straight up don't exist or are so abnormal they're not worth even acknowledging. Going a little bit too far in the other direction rather than pandering to homophobes? I'll take it. And as a gamer who likes more choice in my RPGs, not less, I'd be willing to sacrifice a bit of realism to have it. As has been mentioned, Fenris getting together with Bloodmage Hawke or Anders with Templar Hawke is so much of a bigger problem that I've no idea why this one is even being discussed.


Well, that's not quite true, I do know why. Just don't think much of it.

The issue is not choice here, the issue is realism. Realisitcally having all the LI's bisexual is stupid. Don't pull the 'game world' crap here either. In DA:O homosexuality/bisexuality still has a stigma (though not as much compared to RL) to it, case in point the character of Zevran.

Said character of Zevran was a bisexual and still carried personal conversation with the PC as if held down by the stigma of his sexuality, where in a conversation he 'admits' his sexuality and 'asks' the PC if he/she is 'reasonable' with it.

Loain wrote...

It's odd when I was younger I desperately
wanted to play as a female but once games started offering the option I
found I enjoyed playing as a guy more. Even though I'd love to see the
whole Alistair romance thing my female Warden feels like a chore. I love
that I can play DA2 exactly how and as who I want and can still get all
the game has to offer.

@Anathemic
I fail to see how giving
people loads of choices is pandering or wastes resources. RPGs are all
about having choices it makes my experience unique and gives me plenty
of fulfilling replays.

Read my statement above.

Modifié par Anathemic, 04 juin 2011 - 06:20 .

[Harid]

jussyr wrote...

Personally, I'm not insulted when someone acknowledges I actually exist and might like the same number of relationship options I can identify with available to me as straight people have. If you want to talk about pandering, let's look at the entire history of games where for the most part, all design decisions have been made to reinforce the idea that gay people either straight up don't exist or are so abnormal they're not worth even acknowledging. Going a little bit too far in the other direction rather than pandering to homophobes? I'll take it. And as a gamer who likes more choice in my RPGs, not less, I'd be willing to sacrifice a bit of realism to have it. As has been mentioned, Fenris getting together with Bloodmage Hawke or Anders with Templar Hawke is so much of a bigger problem that I've no idea why this one is even being discussed.


Well, that's not quite true, I do know why. Just don't think much of it.

I addressed this in a prior post.

Look, you can act like Bioware is doing this for you, but the fact of the matter is Bioware is doing this for them.  Instead of creating 10 or so plausible party members 4 gay 4 straight 2 bi that you have to create plot threads for, companion quests for, gear archetypes for, personalities for, etc,so everyone can be happy (though everyone will never be happy) they just make all of your romancable companions bi.  Keep in mind they aren't even really bi.  Just Bi for Hawke, because you are apparently, that awesome.  It's a pandering cop out that cuts out a lot of work they would have to do to actually make multiple interesting romances, and it allows them to just turn on/off a few dialogue trees based on gender/sexuality.  But worse so (for me) it's completely implausible.

You should be insulted that this is the best they can do in terms of creating interesting romances for you, and whatever your sexuality/gender is, because I would be.  And as far as I am concerned, if that's the path they are choosing I am done with romances.  I do not enjoy my immersion being crushed that way.

Modifié par Harid, 04 juin 2011 - 06:29 .

[jussyr]

IIRC, the conversation said that that stigma was mostly a Fereldan thing. Zevran seemed a little suprised initially. And realism-wise, there are so many more unambiguously contextually unrealistic things in DA2; why is it *this* one you're taking issue with, when it's one of the few that actually has real-life consequences for how included other people feel?

[Nightdragon8]

Yea every LI being bi was strange. Anders for me at least always thought was bi anyway. Isabela we knew was bi in DAO. And the seemingly only non bi woman was Avaline but she wasn't a LI. Oh right tehre is another one but you have to pay for that one and can't get nookie

[Siansonea]

In a perfect game there would be gay, bisexual and straight romance options. In an even more perfect game those options would still be closed to you if your personality or beliefs didn't mesh with theirs properly (i.e. someone like Fenris rejecting a mage). As compromises go, I think two bisexual LIs of each gender is the best way to go, it is better than only having one straight and one gay option, or one straight and one bisexual option, or one gay and one bisexual option. Until we have more options, the tradeoff of sexuality-related storytelling limitations vs. player options, definitely favors player options. But again, in a perfect game...

Personally, I think more friendship paths (and rival/enemy/frenemy paths) should be developed regardless of sexuality concerns. A bisexual NPC doesn't automatically have the hots for the player character after all, there could still be a rich friendship story to explore or a satisfying clash of personalities. The potential love interest characters' interest in the player character should be much more difficult to unlock in a lot of cases, because some people just don't fall in love as easily as other people do.

It would also be cool if there were lots of "red herring" LI options—characters that might flirt with the PC, but ultimately aren't interested in him/her. And plenty of people that the PC could make overtures toward who are simply not interested in the PC romantically (like Mordin and Samara in ME2).

Modifié par Siansonea II, 04 juin 2011 - 06:34 .

[Harid]

jussyr wrote...

IIRC, the conversation said that that stigma was mostly a Fereldan thing. Zevran seemed a little suprised initially. And realism-wise, there are so many more unambiguously contextually unrealistic things in DA2; why is it *this* one you're taking issue with, when it's one of the few that actually has real-life consequences for how included other people feel?

I was under the impression the stigma was a "not Antivan" thing.  But as far this issue goes, it's because this is the question brought up from the topic?

I complain about other things all of the time.

Modifié par Harid, 04 juin 2011 - 06:34 .

[Oopsieoops]

Bejos_ wrote...

yaw wrote...

Zjarcal wrote...

Bejos_ wrote...

This came up tangentially in another thread ...
My answer is that the characters aren't really all bisexual-- each play-through is a world-state of its own, and, depending on who you end up with and how you got to them, you can assume/surmise which of the remaining characters have what sexuality.

And you would be wrong.

David Gaider wrote...

I will say that one element of the reaction to this I find interesting is the idea that so many people believe a character's sexuality actually changes because their exposure to it changes.

Anders isn't any different a person in a game with a male PC or a female PC, for instance, yet some people seem to think that because he doesn't mention his relationship with Karl to a female player it must never have happened... and he is therefore 100% straight as opposed to being 100% gay if it is mentioned. While the point of that is indeed to leave it free for the player to interpret for themselves, the part I find interesting is the assumption that the characters' personalities are somehow written differently based on the circumstance. I suspect that says a lot about how some people actually think about sexuality, which is if anything an interesting behavior to observe in the community.

Oh, well, then I retract my previous post and we're back to square one.

I maintain my opinion that sexuality is a, small or large, part of someone's character, of their personality. And situations can differ depending on someone's sexuality, especially when strong relationships are concerned.

Saying that a person would be absolutely no different whether they were gay, straight, bi or whatever is just stupid. Whether or not someone likes cake changes who they are. Whether or not someone is racist changes who they are. And whether or not someone finds you attractive, and could be romantically interested, also changes who they are to you.

Hm, no, no, my point still stands. I wasn't saying that the characters are different in each playthrough. I'm saying that, due to the world being a "blank" world each time you play it, it's easy to interpret the cast differently in each playthrough. You know that there is a possibility for each of them to be bi, but if you don't pursue that direction (with the exception of Anders), they may as well not be. Trees falling in forests, and such. It's a bit like going to "Spiderman the Musical". You might be sitting so far back that you can't see the pulley wires, but that doesn't mean they're not there.

By the way, I assure you that your sexuality is a very strongly defining characteristic of your entire personality. At least in this day and age it is. When a person's every social interaction comments on that person's sexuality (hidden or not) and what that apparently says about them as a person and their worth, that person begins to be shaped by that social commentary. All because they are straight, bi, or gay.

I'll get off my high horse while I still can. Goodnight.

Way to move the goalpost there, dude.

[Anathemic]

jussyr wrote...

IIRC, the conversation said that that stigma was mostly a Fereldan thing. Zevran seemed a little suprised initially. And realism-wise, there are so many more unambiguously contextually unrealistic things in DA2; why is it *this* one you're taking issue with, when it's one of the few that actually has real-life consequences for how included other people feel?

I take issue with the game's existance in general. It's this point of taking issue it, because well, I don't know, it's the point of this thread?

Again, the point of this thread is to discuss "Does [all the LI's in DA2] really have to be bisexual?" Putting up a defense that states "but this part of the game is unrealistic too! Why don't you discuss this instead?" is stupid.