Ryzaki wrote...
It was intended but they decided against it because the lines didn't fit. I'm guessing they got to the stage where Meer was recording and went "nah" because Sabarge(however the hell you spell his name) doesn't have any m/m exclusive lines.
The dude talking about time constraints didn't work on the actual game. The guy talking about the discussion did. I take dude who worked on game word higher than dude who didn't. Just sayin'.
The quote is accurate, but it's problematic, because it's
very hard to believe BioWare had any consistent plan here. It seems like they're reacting first, and rationalizing later. So I believe Patrick when he says they decided to stop recording, but I don't believe him when he says that there was "never" any intention to use them. I believe he's overstating/rationalizing a position.
Another example of BioWare inconsistency/rationalizing came with ME2, where they cut out F/F romances as well as M/M ones, only leaving Kelly in as a quasi-Romance for either gender.
BioWare reps, including the head of BioWare, explained this was about being "true to the character of Shepard" and went on and on and on and on and on about how Shepard had an existing personality and thus they couldn't do certain things. It was patently nonsense, given Shepard can alternate being being an angelic do-gooder and an alien-kicking thug (especially in ME1), but they said it.
Then in ME3, they've indicated the F/F and M/M relationships are in, again, suddenly, presumably because they've realized that it's 2011 and they get more sales by putting them in than leaving them out (as with the Dragon Ages, for example), which clearly illustrates the whole deal with "Shepard's existing personality" (which was apparently not gay or something? Makes no sense, of course, given
nothing about Shepard's personality is incompatible with homosexuality - for example he never mentions kids to anyone but Liara, who can mate with either gender, and then only jokingly) was just BioWare engaging in damage-control and after-the-fact rationalization.
I would put the stuff with claiming they "never" intended to use those lines in the same box, frankly. Assumption, yeah, it is, but not exactly an extreme one.