368 réponses à ce sujet

[Sidney]

[quote]Bryy_Miller wrote...
I'm not sure making everyone bisexual is "progress" more like pandering.[/quote]

Yes. Having gay subplots in a genre that has tip-toed around the issue is progress.

Just like the breaking of ANY pointless taboo.
[/quote]

Having everyone be up for anything means being bi,-straight, gay is meaningless. It just dissolves into nothingness. I had no issue with not being able to "romance" Veronica in NV.  RPG'ers always want "choice" but they don't do so well with "consequence".

[Twizz089]

I hated how the characters in Dragon Age 2 were all bisexual and changed their sexual appetite based on the player. I think there needs to be more depth to all romances in both Mass Effect and DA. The romances were to easy, and having every character romanceable doesnt help this problem. Character should refuse to romance with you based on your actions during missions and the generally personallity of your character and refuse romances based on your characters sex. Also I think all romances should work out somthing like the loyalty quest with Morinth( Mass Effect2)  in which you actually had to know something about the character and appeal to her personallity to spark her interest.

I dont mind same-sex relationships, as long a gay character will be stay gay no matter what sex my character is. Rejection because of a "Sorry Im not into your gender" would be a good thing for both ME and DA

Modifié par Twizz089, 15 juillet 2011 - 10:56 .

[whykikyouwhy]

Twizz089 wrote...

I hated how the characters in Dragon Age 2 were all bisexual and changed their sexual appetite based on the player. I think there needs to be more depth to all romances in both Mass Effect and DA. The romances were to easy, and having every character romanceable doesnt help this problem. Character should refuse to romance with you based on your actions during missions and the generally personallity of your character and refuse romances based on your characters sex. Also I think all romances should work out somthing like the loyalty quest with Morinth( Mass Effect2)  in which you actually had to know something about the character and appeal to her personallity to spark her interest.

I dont mind same-sex relationships, as long a gay character will be stay gay no matter what sex my character is. Rejection because of a "Sorry Im not into your gender" would be a good thing for both ME and DA

The issue that arises from having solely "gay" or solely "straight" romanceable characters is that inevitably someone will lose out. If a player is vying for a gay LI and doesn't care for the gay LI options, but instead feels some interest toward one of the straight options, what then? Sure, that player could role-play their PC as straight, but that then denies the player the ability and opportunity to have a gay PC. The PC should be fluid, malliable to how the player wishes to role-play, from class selection to demeanor to romance options.

Several pages back in this thread, some people argued for and against the companions' sexuality being contingent upon Hawke, but I personally cannot see another way to do it without denying folks options. Personally, I would have been quite disappointed had, playing a female Hawke, I would not have been able to romance Isabela. She's just too incredibly cool. So I was pleased to have that option.

I do think that having rejection options would put a nice spin on things. Had Aveline been able to flat out state "Um, no thanks Hawke" when you used the heart dialogue options on her, that would have added a nice flair to the game. She's not an available LI, we all know that, but to be able to flirt and have it ignored seemed incongruant. Perhaps we'll see some rejection in DA3, who knows.

[TheBlackBaron]

whykikyouwhy wrote...
The issue that arises from having solely "gay" or solely "straight" romanceable characters is that inevitably someone will lose out. If a player is vying for a gay LI and doesn't care for the gay LI options, but instead feels some interest toward one of the straight options, what then? Sure, that player could role-play their PC as straight, but that then denies the player the ability and opportunity to have a gay PC. The PC should be fluid, malliable to how the player wishes to role-play, from class selection to demeanor to romance options.

Well, then that person isn't a homosexual and isn't intereted in them, even if the PC is? It happens - heck, one of the more loud (if silly) complaints about DA2 is how you gain rivalry with Anders if you're playing Garret Hawke and turn down his advances. The PC is an important part of the game universe, sure, but imo having everything it in flow and conform to match them and their desires exactly takes away from the feel of it being a distinct universe, with distinct characters and distinct personalities. 

As I've said before, having a mix of heterosexual/bisexual/homosexual LIs would seem to work best. And if somebody turns you down, well...*points at avatar*. There's always the New Game button, so you can play it a different way.

To put it another way, should we get rid of classes so anybody can use any skills and abilities they feel like? 

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 15 juillet 2011 - 11:53 .

[whykikyouwhy]

I don't know how deep I want to get into this topic considering how quickly it could become a quagmire, but I already stuck a foot in, so...

I see classes as different from sexuality or perceived sexuality in a game. A class is something that can be learned - a skillset, something acquired from training and study and time spent honing the (martial or magical) art. Whereas sexuality can be akin to gender - it's a part of your identity that you are born with (whether you may realize it or not). It doesn't so much change as mature, or rather, your feelings towards your sexuality may change, your realization of self. Completely independent to how classes are handled.

I'm not disagreeing with having a mix, but I can see where the developers/writers may be faced with a quandary on how to approach the sexuality of their characters in order to make them 1) believable, 2) inclusive, and 3) approachable. I agree that yes, there should be a distinct universe and distinct characters, and this has been approached and handled with many NPCs. Companions and party members who may be LIs are on a fine line to tread.

Therein is where balance becomes tricky and could become an issue. Do you keep everyone Hawke-sexual, as it were, and make it so that in a single-playthrough, without metagaming, the characters are who they say they are, or seem to be (since few of them actually discuss their past lovers), or do you create static personalities, strict sexualities and deny a player a chance at a sweet blissful romance with the LI of their choice? I know the real world doesn't work to allow for everyone to be available to us - there are conflicts, there are people who think, feel and love opposite to how we do, but in a fantasy game, I don't mind the blurring of those lines. For me, the game doesn't lose anything. Rather, it embraces me, my lifestyle and how I may want to play my character.

[jlb524]

They will not make strictly homosexual LIs and people know this.

So it's easy to sit back and say, 'hey, they should add strictly gay characters too!' when you know they won't and you will never be denied the option to romance your fave opposite sex LI with your hetero PC.

[Drasanil]

whykikyouwhy wrote...
Therein is where balance becomes tricky and could become an issue. Do you keep everyone Hawke-sexual, as it were, and make it so that in a single-playthrough, without metagaming, the characters are who they say they are, or seem to be (since few of them actually discuss their past lovers), or do you create static personalities, strict sexualities and deny a player a chance at a sweet blissful romance with the LI of their choice? I know the real world doesn't work to allow for everyone to be available to us - there are conflicts, there are people who think, feel and love opposite to how we do, but in a fantasy game, I don't mind the blurring of those lines. For me, the game doesn't lose anything. Rather, it embraces me, my lifestyle and how I may want to play my character.

I'd rather have 1 Gay and 1 Straight LI than two Bi ones. Sexuality is as much a part of a character's character as anything else and having them be 'Hawkesexual' takes part of who they are away from them and leaves it up to the PC, which just deminishes their credibility as independant agents in the narrative.  

If you don't like the option(s) presented, it can suck, but no more so than for say straight/bi/gay people who liked neither Isabella nor Merill, they had to chug along regardless. It's not like being a romantic relationship is, or will ever be, something that's required to complete the game.

[Huntress]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...
The issue that arises from having solely "gay" or solely "straight" romanceable characters is that inevitably someone will lose out. If a player is vying for a gay LI and doesn't care for the gay LI options, but instead feels some interest toward one of the straight options, what then? Sure, that player could role-play their PC as straight, but that then denies the player the ability and opportunity to have a gay PC. The PC should be fluid, malliable to how the player wishes to role-play, from class selection to demeanor to romance options.

Well, then that person isn't a homosexual and isn't intereted in them, even if the PC is? It happens - heck, one of the more loud (if silly) complaints about DA2 is how you gain rivalry with Anders if you're playing Garret Hawke and turn down his advances. The PC is an important part of the game universe, sure, but imo having everything it in flow and conform to match them and their desires exactly takes away from the feel of it being a distinct universe, with distinct characters and distinct personalities. 

As I've said before, having a mix of heterosexual/bisexual/homosexual LIs would seem to work best. And if somebody turns you down, well...*points at avatar*. There's always the New Game button, so you can play it a different way.

To put it another way, should we get rid of classes so anybody can use any skills and abilities they feel like? 

I for one love the option of having companions bi, why? I don't want to be forced playing a male character. I am not gay, bi or anything also you want to think of me, am a woman , my husband is a man, and I see the bi option nothing more than GREAT.

Is a game, many of you think that bi people came to exist in the 1900 well you are WRONG, there is always have been bi people is nothing new, stop making this a problem because it isn't, is a great option and i'll defend it.

[TheBlackBaron]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

I don't know how deep I want to get into this topic considering how quickly it could become a quagmire, but I already stuck a foot in, so...

I see classes as different from sexuality or perceived sexuality in a game. A class is something that can be learned - a skillset, something acquired from training and study and time spent honing the (martial or magical) art. Whereas sexuality can be akin to gender - it's a part of your identity that you are born with (whether you may realize it or not). It doesn't so much change as mature, or rather, your feelings towards your sexuality may change, your realization of self. Completely independent to how classes are handled.

I agree with the bolded, but as far as games in general and in particular RPGs go, I feel like classes are just as central to characters as their gender and sexuality. Not as much in DA as in, say, DnD (where being a Paladin or a Druid can shape every single thing about a character), but still significant. So much of the game's plot revolves around the plight of mages, for instance, and it's a very central part of the entire character of some NPCs, most importantly Anders and Bethany. 

I'm not disagreeing with having a mix, but I can see where the developers/writers may be faced with a quandary on how to approach the sexuality of their characters in order to make them 1) believable, 2) inclusive, and 3) approachable. I agree that yes, there should be a distinct universe and distinct characters, and this has been approached and handled with many NPCs. Companions and party members who may be LIs are on a fine line to tread.

Therein is where balance becomes tricky and could become an issue. Do you keep everyone Hawke-sexual, as it were, and make it so that in a single-playthrough, without metagaming, the characters are who they say they are, or seem to be (since few of them actually discuss their past lovers), or do you create static personalities, strict sexualities and deny a player a chance at a sweet blissful romance with the LI of their choice? I know the real world doesn't work to allow for everyone to be available to us - there are conflicts, there are people who think, feel and love opposite to how we do, but in a fantasy game, I don't mind the blurring of those lines. For me, the game doesn't lose anything. Rather, it embraces me, my lifestyle and how I may want to play my character.

Well, this is just me, but personally I prefer characters who are who they are, with defining characters that will stay the same across multiple playthroughs. It helps tremendously from a world-building and immersion perspective. Shifting around significant parts of a character to accomodate the PC (and you can argue that their sexuality shouldn't be a major part, and I would agree, but such is the lot of the LI's to be defined entirely by their romanceability) so that no matter who or what I'm playing they'll react in a similar way isn't as interesting to me.

Part of the very reason I loved Morrigan so very very much is that, even while romancing her, you could still butt heads and have big differences in personality and world view. And I don't think the very nice friendship you can devlop with her a female character would have gotten the same depth or attention were she also available for female PCs. 

Additionally, from a developers perspective, putting in multiple paths enhances a game's replayability and lifetime, especially for singe-player only titles. Again, just imo, but I like starting up multiple playthroughs instead of just seeing and experiencing everything in one go. 

EDIT: Drasanil up there makes a good point - what if you feel like playing a lesbian PC but don't like Isabela or Merrill? Or, for that matter, a straight PC? I mean, sure, it can be annoying, but the only way to fix that would be to make every character you can possibly imagine a romance option for everybody. That'll put a serious strain on both credability and the writer's resources, which might be put to better use elsewhere. 

jlb524 wrote...

They will not make strictly homosexual LIs and people know this. 

So it's easy to sit back and say, 'hey, they should add strictly gay characters too!' when you know they won't and you will never be denied the option to romance your fave opposite sex LI with your hetero PC.

Really? 'Cause I know a bunch of people that seemed to really like Aveline and would have really liked to have romanced her, but that wasn't an option. Not precisely the same situation, but close.

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 16 juillet 2011 - 12:35 .

[whykikyouwhy]

Drasanil wrote...

I'd rather have 1 Gay and 1 Straight LI than two Bi ones. Sexuality is as much a part of a character's character as anything else and having them be 'Hawkesexual' takes part of who they are away from them and leaves it up to the PC, which just deminishes their credibility as independant agents in the narrative.  

If you don't like the option(s) presented, it can suck, but no more so than for say straight/bi/gay people who liked neither Isabella nor Merill, they had to chug along regardless. It's not like being a romantic relationship is, or will ever be, something that's required to complete the game.

No, the romance is not required, and doesn't have to be partaken of for the game to be great (which I think it was). But with the romance options there, and with the ability to go down that path in the game should I so desire (and I did, because it was fun), it's nice to have a bit of fluidity.

I have seen the argument raised for 1 gay, 1 straight, 2 bi, or a similar combination, and I think that could work, yes. I'm not denying that it wouldn't be accepted decently (maybe not with loud cheers from all) - I just think that an all bisexual (or bisexual-perceived) group of LIs may have been the easiest way to offer choices to all players, no matter how they choose to play the game.

Here's how I see it - Isabela is still Isabela no matter who she beds. She will still be a pirate, a duelist, someone who could probably drink Oghren under the table and someone who flings innuendo like a sharpened dagger. Merrill will still be Merrill no matter who she beds. She will still be naive to an extent, she will still be sweet and dear to her friends, she will still have her dreams of bringing lore back to her people. The romance aspect of the game, and the love lives of the characters do not change the characters - their qualities or faults. The romance aspect would only minimally change their backstories (as we know them now).

Because I see the romance as a perk, an added bonus to the game, I'm not overly invested in it. I want to be able to get to know the characters and who they are, how they feel about things, how they feel about each other. I don't need the romance to do that. But...the romance gives all of that an added hue and nuance. And yet in so doing, it does not, imo, cause the narrative to lose its strength.

[jlb524]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Really? 'Cause I know a bunch of people that seemed to really like Aveline and would have really liked to have romanced her, but that wasn't an option. Not precisely the same situation, but close.

It isn't the same thing as Aveline wasn't intended to be an LI at all...she doesn't have romance dialog recorded or romance scenes in the game.

It's not as if they only thing stopping you from completing the romance is a gender check....there is no romance.

I think it's dumb that the only criteria placed on starting romances included in the game already is gender check.

No check on race/class/morality/etc....just gender.

[TheBlackBaron]

jlb524 wrote...

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Really? 'Cause I know a bunch of people that seemed to really like Aveline and would have really liked to have romanced her, but that wasn't an option. Not precisely the same situation, but close.

It isn't the same thing as Aveline wasn't intended to be an LI at all...she doesn't have romance dialog recorded or romance scenes in the game.

It's not as if they only thing stopping you from completing the romance is a gender check....there is no romance.

I think it's dumb that the only criteria placed on starting romances included in the game already is gender check.

No check on race/class/morality/etc....just gender.

Not exactly the same thing, no, but if you really liked Aveline and wanted to romance her I doubt it's much consolation to think "well, at least female PCs can't romance her either".

And I would be for all of those, frankly, if it fits the character. You couldn't romance Viconia in BG2 if you were playing an elf, IIRC. 

EDIT: Goddamn, I need to proofread better. 

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 16 juillet 2011 - 12:45 .

[Twizz089]

Sexuallity is as much of a characters personality as anything else. Having ever character be bi makes the personality less belivable.

[jlb524]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Not exactly the same thing, no, but if you really liked Aveline and wanted to romance her I doubt it's much consolation to think "well, at least female PCs can't romance her either".

And I would be for all of those, fankly, if it fits the character. You couldn't romance Viconia in BG2 if you were playing an elf, IIRC. 

Right...BG2 had checks based on race and morality....if Viconia didn't like your goody-two-shoe ways, she'd leave and you'd have no romance.

I believe they removed these to give people more options while it's also easier on them.  Given that romances are a tiny portion of the content and the majority of players don't even play them, it seems a bit silly to limit this content based on race/class/etc....I say the same about gender.

RE:  Aveline. 

Avenline wasn't revealed as a romance character though.  We knew who the 4 options were before the game came out and those that play as heterosexual PCs know for a fact that they will have the option to go for the opposite sex NPC of their choice within those options.  They will never ever ever make one gay only and you will never be disappointed that 'romance option X' isn't available to you.  That was my point.  The same can't be said for those that want to do a same sex romance.  We usually have our designated 'one s/s LI' for each gender and that's it.  I have a feeling that those that push for this 'oh, make it fair by adding in 1 gay/1 straight/1 bisexual LI' are actually pushing for the DA:O method of '1 straight/1 bisexual LI' b/c, as I said, we know they will not make strictly gay NPCs.

Using Morrigan as an example, I know of quite a few people that were disappointed she wasn't an f/f option.  I've played the romance with a female and it pretty much 'fits' minus a few pronoun mishaps.  They could have made her available females to pretty easily. 

Of course, you'll say, 'well, Morrigan's just straight so it makes sense' then you'll talk about realism or 'staying true to character' but then I could say that it probably makes no sense for Morrigan to date a dwarf (given the rarity of human/dwarf relations) and the fact that she'll go for 'the nice guy' is ridiculous...but she will as long as you gift the crap out of her after doing some good deed that she disapproves.  I don't think that's very true to character, but that's a potential dynamic in the romance.

Modifié par jlb524, 16 juillet 2011 - 01:07 .

[whykikyouwhy]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

*a wee bit snipped here*

Well, this is just me, but personally I prefer characters who are who they are, with defining characters that will stay the same across multiple playthroughs. It helps tremendously from a world-building and immersion perspective. Shifting around significant parts of a character to accomodate the PC (and you can argue that their sexuality shouldn't be a major part, and I would agree, but such is the lot of the LI's to be defined entirely by their romanceability) so that no matter who or what I'm playing they'll react in a similar way isn't as interesting to me.

Part of the very reason I loved Morrigan so very very much is that, even while romancing her, you could still butt heads and have big differences in personality and world view. And I don't think the very nice friendship you can devlop with her a female character would have gotten the same depth or attention were she also available for female PCs. 

Additionally, from a developers perspective, putting in multiple paths enhances a game's replayability and lifetime, especially for singe-player only titles. Again, just imo, but I like starting up multiple playthroughs instead of just seeing and experiencing everything in one go. 

EDIT: Drasanil up there makes a good point - what if you feel like playing a lesbian PC but don't like Isabela or Merrill? Or, for that matter, a straight PC? I mean, sure, it can be annoying, but the only way to fix that would be to make every character you can possibly imagine a romance option for everybody. That'll put a serious strain on both credability and the writer's resources, which might be put to better use elsewhere. 

Let me ask you this - if Morrigan had not been a romance option for you, say, she was only available as a LI for a female character and not a male one, would you have been disappointed? Throughout the game, you get to see what a delightful character she is, and that just makes for a perfect combo with your Warden. You want to have little magelings and a white picket fence or what have you. But she's not a LI for men. I don't think you'd yank the disc out of your PC in disgust or anything like that, but wouldn't it rankle, even if just for a bit?

I had that disappointment when I played DA:O because I played a female Warden, and Morrigan was not available (nothing against Leliana, because she is pure awesome, mind you). It didn't stop me from enjoying the game, it didn't make me swear off of BW games, but it made me pause and think "what if? well, that would have been nice."

I think that's what BW was attempting to address - to try to make it so that players didn't have to emit that sad little sigh (yes, I sighed) and could play out a PC story arc of their choice. It may not have been a perfect attempt, it may have faltered in the execution, but this is probably an area where they won't be able to please everyone.

I understand your point about immersion and world-building, and I agree. To an extent. I just didn't lose any of that by doing mutiple playthroughs and by seeing the characters as being who aren't defined by their sexuality, or who may have a shift in their perceived sexuality based on how I was playing. But maybe this is just something that is different per player. To go in a completely different direction as far as comparisons go (because I'm tired and the example-retraction tool in my brain is slowing down), you can look at the exploding bodies. Some people loved it, whereas others thought it was so over the top that it broke the immersion. Depends on the player, and how they dive into the game. Neither side is wrong, neither is right - it's boils down to different expectations and needs.

The underlying story of DA2, the foundation of adventure and drama - none of that was marred or dismantled, for me, by having characters who were not static in their sexuality.

[whykikyouwhy]

Twizz089 wrote...

Sexuallity is as much of a characters personality as anything else. Having ever character be bi makes the personality less belivable.

I concur with the first statement, however, not with the second.

I don't know the sexuality of the people I work with, or chat with in the coffee shop. I suppose the general assumption is that they are straight - that's society talking though. The fact is, when I meet people or talk with them, unless I am actively considering making a move, I don't really think about their sexuality. They could be gay, straight, bi, what have you. It doesn't come into the picture or into play, and yet, that is a part of them. It's just not relevant to the situation - unless of course we're going to talk about it over cappuccinos and biscotti.

Not knowing their sexuality, or making assumptions about it, doesn't make those individuals less believable or credibly. I base credibility on other things - being true to their word, paying their way, helping old ladies across the street - that sort of thing. If they were all bisexual, ok...cool. It wouldn't bother me, and it wouldn't take away anything from the person I am getting to know. It's just one more part of them.

So even if I went into Starbucks and everyone sitting there announced to me that they were bisexual (to parallel the insular world of Hawke), I wouldn't stand there and think "holy crap! this is unbelievable! I'm walking out - this is just too crazy." No. I'd think "huh. go figure" and then order my drink.

**Note and disclaimer - my analogies are not at their prime best.

[hoorayforicecream]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

I agree with the bolded, but as far as games in general and in particular RPGs go, I feel like classes are just as central to characters as their gender and sexuality. Not as much in DA as in, say, DnD (where being a Paladin or a Druid can shape every single thing about a character), but still significant. So much of the game's plot revolves around the plight of mages, for instance, and it's a very central part of the entire character of some NPCs, most importantly Anders and Bethany.

From a design perspective, class is gameplay-relevant. Gender and sexuality are not. They may have smaller effects story-wise but the bulk of story in either DA game is unisex.

Well, this is just me, but personally I prefer characters who are who they are, with defining characters that will stay the same across multiple playthroughs. It helps tremendously from a world-building and immersion perspective. Shifting around significant parts of a character to accomodate the PC (and you can argue that their sexuality shouldn't be a major part, and I would agree, but such is the lot of the LI's to be defined entirely by their romanceability) so that no matter who or what I'm playing they'll react in a similar way isn't as interesting to me.

Part of the very reason I loved Morrigan so very very much is that, even while romancing her, you could still butt heads and have big differences in personality and world view. And I don't think the very nice friendship you can devlop with her a female character would have gotten the same depth or attention were she also available for female PCs. 

Additionally, from a developers perspective, putting in multiple paths enhances a game's replayability and lifetime, especially for singe-player only titles. Again, just imo, but I like starting up multiple playthroughs instead of just seeing and experiencing everything in one go.

The main reason that they decided to make everyone bisexual in DA2 was because there wasn't enough time to create more romances, but they wanted to give more options than they did in DAO, where same-sex players were given one choice of either gender. It was either Zev, Leliana, or nothing. The biggest issue is that romances just don't rank very highly on the priority list for gameplay. The metrics they have show that not many people complete the romance content, despite the passion of its fans. So it only has a certain amount of development time to get done, and they purposely chose to provide *more* option than less.

I agree that, if they had enough time to do it, we should totally have a spread of sexualities. That's something that would be nice to have. But the biggest issue isn't what we want, but how much development time they have. They've gone on record saying that they won't make strictly homosexual characters, which means that the very best that same-sex players have to hope for is equal options to the heterosexual players. At worst, they get nothing. And both the designers *and* the players don't like that.

It's a really tough situation, because, given the constraints, the "best" option ends up with the same-sex players will always end up with less than or equal to the hetero options. You can't design in a vacuum, you can't create in a vacuum, and you will always be a slave to the schedule and to the rules laid down by the higher-ups. So until the 'no strictly gay characters' ban is lifted, I'd be much happier with more inclusive than less even though it may "help" the story's believability otherwise for others. If they ever lift the ban I'll be the first to say "Go for it", but until then I'd rather have the available ones be bi. 

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 16 juillet 2011 - 01:06 .

[TheBlackBaron]

jlb524 wrote...

RE:  Aveline. 

Avenline wasn't revealed as a romance character though.  We knew who the 4 options were before the game came out and those that play as heterosexual PCs know for a fact that they will have the option to go for the opposite sex NPC of their choice within those options.  They will never ever ever make one gay only and you will never be disappointed that 'romance option X' isn't available to you.

I get the point you're making here, but I don't see much of a difference between it and being dissapointed that "character X isn't a romance option". There's still dissappointment all around at somebody not being a choice. 

 That was my point.  The same can't be said for those that want to do a same sex romance.  We usually have our designated 'one s/s LI' for each gender and that's it.  I have a feeling that those that push for this 'oh, make it fair by adding in 1 gay/1 straight/1 bisexual LI' are actually pushing for the DA:O method of '1 straight/1 bisexual LI' b/c, as I said, we know they will not make strictly gay NPCs.

Actually, it means I'm pushing for "oh, make it fair by adding in 1 gay/1 straight/1 bisexual LI", but it's not a secret that I prefer the DA:O method to the DA2 method. In Leliana and Zevran's case their bisexuality actually a part of their backstory and gets referenced outside of the context of the Warden (Leliana's relationship with Marjorlaine, and Zevran's childhood and general upbringing), so I've got no problems with it there. Anders, on the other hand? Sure, he brings up his relationship with Karl, but he does it exactly once, only does so for male PCs, and is overall inconsequential to his character arc. That's what makes his whole bisexuality feel tacked on and Hawkesexual. 

Using Morrigan as an example, I know of quite a few people that were disappointed she wasn't an f/f option.  I've played the romance with a female and it pretty much 'fits' minus a few pronoun mishaps.  They could have made her available females to pretty easily.

Considering how much of the progression and conflict of the romance comes from Morrigan wrestling with her feelings and knowing that in the end she's going to have to ask the PC to impregnate her and then leave forever, I fail to see how there aren't significant parts of that lost when attempting it with a female PC. You're basically left with her friendship path with sex tacked on. 

Of course, you'll say, 'well, Morrigan's just straight so it makes sense' then you'll talk about realism or 'staying true to character' but then I could say that it probably makes no sense for Morrigan to date a dwarf (given the rarity of human/dwarf relations) and the fact that she'll go for 'the nice guy' is ridiculous...but she will as long as you gift the crap out of her after doing some good deed that she disapproves.  I don't think that's very true to character, but that's a potential dynamic in the romance.

I disliked the whole gift-giving mechanic as well. That's one area where DA2 was an improvement over DA:O. And no, sans that, she won't go for the Paragonish-type person who white knights it up and disparages her world view at every opportunity. There's a difference between that, and "being a nice guy" that also talks to her, respects her, and generally works at getting her to open up (didn't play that either, of course - my HNM was more a Renegonish type so they meshed pretty well). Given how most of her own character progression revolves around her relationship with her mother and how the "real world" contrasts with what she was brought up to believe, I find that entirely consistent. 

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 16 juillet 2011 - 02:42 .

[MonkeyKaboom]

Gays, straight, whatever. Just don't make it a walking orgy. Give me a neutral out in conversations that won't mess up my friendship/rivalry. And for pete's sake please make Anders stop giving me the hungry eyes.

[Twizz089]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Twizz089 wrote...

Sexuallity is as much of a characters personality as anything else. Having ever character be bi makes the personality less belivable.

I concur with the first statement, however, not with the second.

I don't know the sexuality of the people I work with, or chat with in the coffee shop. I suppose the general assumption is that they are straight - that's society talking though. The fact is, when I meet people or talk with them, unless I am actively considering making a move, I don't really think about their sexuality. They could be gay, straight, bi, what have you. It doesn't come into the picture or into play, and yet, that is a part of them. It's just not relevant to the situation - unless of course we're going to talk about it over cappuccinos and biscotti.

Not knowing their sexuality, or making assumptions about it, doesn't make those individuals less believable or credibly. I base credibility on other things - being true to their word, paying their way, helping old ladies across the street - that sort of thing. If they were all bisexual, ok...cool. It wouldn't bother me, and it wouldn't take away anything from the person I am getting to know. It's just one more part of them.

So even if I went into Starbucks and everyone sitting there announced to me that they were bisexual (to parallel the insular world of Hawke), I wouldn't stand there and think "holy crap! this is unbelievable! I'm walking out - this is just too crazy." No. I'd think "huh. go figure" and then order my drink.

**Note and disclaimer - my analogies are not at their prime best.

I understand what you are saying.  The problem I have isnt a character's sexuality making them unbelievable,  rather a sexuality that changes based on the gender of my character that makes them seem unbelievable.  On my first playthrough I played a male Hawk and "knew" Anders was gay. I could feel it.  He reminded me so much of a close friend who also happens to be gay.  Anders' sexuallity made his actions at the end of the game that much more powerful, that much more passionate and that much more believable.  However much to my dismay during my wife's playthrough with a female hawk, Anders was magically a straight male?  This almost ruins the character for me.  It takes away from the the world immersion and believability, if all the characters mold their sexual preferences to cater to your character.  Anders should have been a "gay only" character.  If you want to romance him as a female, oh well... life does'nt work like that.  All characters should have personalities independent of the players' character, this includes sexuality, it takes away from the depth of the characters otherwise.

[whykikyouwhy]

MonkeyKaboom wrote...

Gays, straight, whatever. Just don't make it a walking orgy. Give me a neutral out in conversations that won't mess up my friendship/rivalry. And for pete's sake please make Anders stop giving me the hungry eyes.

I must have missed the "walking orgy" setting. Is it in the Options menu? Is this on PC or console?

You can gain friendship or rivalry without going down the romance path(s).

Anders only makes one remark to Hawke early on, if memory serves. Anything else is initiated by Hawke - by you selecting the heart icons in the dialogue wheel. Maybe Hawke is just a fine-looking guy/girl in the mage's eyes. I would recommend just taking the compliment, and then moving on with the game. Don't flirt back.

[Blansten]

MonkeyKaboom wrote...

Gays, straight, whatever. Just don't make it a walking orgy. Give me a neutral out in conversations that won't mess up my friendship/rivalry. And for pete's sake please make Anders stop giving me the hungry eyes.

I agree that you should have all of those things as an option. I have to say though that I would offer my last Jos. Louis on the alter of the game god to just once experience a walking orgy in a game ... it sounds like zany good times.

[whykikyouwhy]

Twizz089 wrote...

I understand what you are saying.  The problem I have isnt a character's sexuality making them unbelievable,  rather a sexuality that changes based on the gender of my character that makes them seem unbelievable.  On my first playthrough I played a male Hawk and "knew" Anders was gay. I could feel it.  He reminded me so much of a close friend who also happens to be gay.  Anders' sexuallity made his actions at the end of the game that much more powerful, that much more passionate and that much more believable.  However much to my dismay during my wife's playthrough with a female hawk, Anders was magically a straight male?  This almost ruins the character for me.  It takes away from the the world immersion and believability, if all the characters mold their sexual preferences to cater to your character.  Anders should have been a "gay only" character.  If you want to romance him as a female, oh well... life does'nt work like that.  All characters should have personalities independent of the players' character, this includes sexuality, it takes away from the depth of the characters otherwise.

Such a scenario lends itself to the argument that the (LI) companions are bi. If Anders were bisexual, and as a male Hawke you romanced him, and your wife (playing a female Hawke) romanced him, would that take away the credibility or believability of him as an individual? Would he be ruined for you in that regard? Would his story be any less compelling on multiple playthroughs, or in the playthrough of your spouse? 

In a perfect world, we wouldn't need labels. We would just love who we love. I have friends who identify as simply "queer" - they have been with men and with women, have married and broken up, etc. Some people have regarded them in a negative light because they seem to vascillate, or they seem indecisive - they're not fitting into a mold.

The same goes with the characters, at least for me. There is no mold. None of them makes any direct declaration about their sexuality other than some backstory - we determine Isabela is bisexual because she has had male and female lovers (although she does not call herself that); we declare Anders bisexual because of his flirtation with the female Warden in Awakening (and some dialogue bits) and because of his relationship with Karl. But that doesn't take away from their depth - or rather, it didn't for me. I still found both of them to have moving story arcs, and I still raged and/or cheered where the game took them.

[MonkeyKaboom]

whykikyouwhy wrote...
I must have missed the "walking orgy" setting. Is it in the Options menu? Is this on PC or console?

Preemptive statement.  In ME2, if you played it right, you could romance every possible LI in a single playthrough.  DA2 seems to be making it even more mindless, making everything a possibility.  It removes the realism.  Its instant gratification almost.  Some people say everyone should be a potential LI to account for all players particular interests.  I say romancing should be hard, it should be an emotional investment.  Otherwise its hollow.  One of the best things about DA:O was that the warden had to die (unless you did the DR).  Why?  Because it evoked an emotional response.  Even if it was sadness.  A denied love is one of the most emotional experiences you can have as a human being.  That's a good thing for a game.  I don't buy this mess that a game has to be happy to be good.  A sad game is every bit as immersing (more so really).  I want a romance to have meaning to it, even if its a few pixels.  Otherwise its just a hollow exercise based on your taste of the day.  Like picking out ice cream at cold stone.  Hey I think today I'll choose chocolate and browny crumbs....

Part of the fun in RL romance is the chase.  That should be in the game, but they are trending to be easy.  Its emotionless and lacks gratification.  And yes, some people should be denied.  Emotions are good things, don't cheapen it.

I think all orientations should have an option or two.  But having everyone swinging both ways, its just hollow.