240 réponses à ce sujet

[Lucky Thirteen]

But the entire game you can go unknowing about who is bi unless you enter a relationship with them all for kicks. At least that is how my gameplay went with Dragon Age 2. Yeah they all had hearts showing a flirtation option, but even non-romancable characters had that. If I hadn't known before hand, I wouldn't have known all the romancables were bisexual. I would have thought you can play a very flirtatious Hawke.

Also, it's more about love than it is about sex. For people, yeah sexual attraction is the first thing in a relationship. For other people though, it's feelings that develop for a person first and sexual attraction comes later. That is something I've seen people claim with their femSheps being in love with Liara, and saying their femShep is not a lesbian. That is how I view the relationship between Thane and my femShep. 

Feelings first, sexual attraction later.

All of the characters could technically still be straight with no sexual attraction in the same sex, expect the one that falls in love with Shepard.

Modifié par Lucky Thirteen, 30 septembre 2011 - 02:23 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

jlb524 wrote...

*has deja vu*

Speaking of...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

And my reasoning is twisted? Xili, please, I like you, but it becomes more difficult to take you seriously by the day.

You say this every day.

It's only the second time I've said that. I should actually do it everyday, but that would get boring after a while.

Athayniel wrote...

By the way, did you miss my post on the previous page? Easy enough to do since it ended up being the last comment on the page.

Guess so, but I simply like to assume the worst, and so far BioWare hasn't given me a reason to do otherwise.

[Athayniel]

General User wrote...

The problem with using the "but they never explicitly said their sexual orientation" argument to make a previously heterosexual romance option available to both sexes is that it's only good for one use, tops. 

What I mean is, while that argument could be used to provide a rationale (in the cases of some characters, a paper thin rationale) for making any romance option available to both sexes, using that argument for more than one character quickly descends into absurdity.  Cheapening characters and players alike.

Why? Since it would be true in any of those cases. It's not a nuclear option that can only be used once. And in any case, even if all LIs were available for romancing by both genders, in any given playthrough there would be one LI, possibly two or three if your Shep is a playah, who could be potentially bisexual. The rest would be of indeterminate sexuality. Any player who claims that a character being s/s in someone else's game detracted from their own experience in their own game is going to have to justify their position with concrete examples of where the story broke down or wasn't coherent.

[jlb524]

NICKjnp wrote...

It is the writers job to show us what the characters are and not what they are not. In ME1&2 the only bisexual squadmates are Liara and Kelly. The other characters were shown to pursue only relationships with members of the opposite sex and therefore are heterosexual. Using information that isn't there as your evidence doesn'taim any way or form add to the argument. Trying to use the absence of evidence as evidence doesn't exactly work. The absence of evidence is simply the absence of evidence. It should not be used in the argument.

You don't understand the argument.

It's not that 'X is bisexual' but 'X could be bisexual' or 'We don't know for sure if X is heterosexual'.

People are claiming that 'X is heterosexual' and the obvious counter is 'We don't know if they are from the evidence we have now, but they could be (or not).' 

[Athayniel]

NICKjnp wrote...

It is the writers job to show us what the characters are and not what they are not. In ME1&2 the only bisexual squadmates are Liara and Kelly. The other characters were shown to pursue only relationships with members of the opposite sex and therefore are heterosexual. Using information that isn't there as your evidence doesn'taim any way or form add to the argument. Trying to use the absence of evidence as evidence doesn't exactly work. The absence of evidence is simply the absence of evidence. It should not be used in the argument.

Samara was that close to going for my femShep... I *knew* beforehand she was gonna turn my Shep down but I never realised just how close it gets... man... it was a powerful moment.

[Athayniel]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

By the way, did you miss my post on the previous page? Easy enough to do since it ended up being the last comment on the page.

Guess so, but I simply like to assume the worst, and so far BioWare hasn't given me a reason to do otherwise.

Right. But my post was in response to your assumptions about the s/s supporting playerbase, not BioWare.

[SnowHeart1]

General User wrote...

The problem with using the "but they never explicitly said their sexual orientation" argument to make a previously heterosexual romance option available to both sexes is that it's only good for one use, tops. 

What I mean is, while that argument could be used to provide a rationale (in the cases of some characters, a paper thin rationale) for making any romance option available to both sexes, using that argument for more than one character quickly descends into absurdity.  Cheapening characters and players alike.

This is just about the only thing in this thread I agree with. It can be used, but only once. As for the rest of it, people are overstating both evidence and the significance of any ambiguity. I've got my hopes (as evident in my sig) but ultimately it's up to Bioware and the ME2 dev team and they can do pretty much whatever they want.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Xilizhra wrote...

However, I don't believe that it cheapens anyone in any case.

Of course it cheapens everyone, even if nothing were to established before; just take a look at DA2.

Athayniel wrote...

Right. But my post was in response to your assumptions about the s/s supporting playerbase, not BioWare.

Ah, in that case I still stand by what I said.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 30 septembre 2011 - 02:32 .

[snfonseka]

CptData wrote...

Actually, you're missing one single idea in your analysis.

Every new Shepard (either fresh or imported) means another alternative universe. So in one universe Ashley isn't homosexual because she fells in love with M!Shep, in another she could be lesbian because she has a thing for F!Shep.

Depends on the universe. Every Shepard is "canon", every alternate universe is "canon", therefore, it's also "canon" all romanceable characters are heterosexual or homosexual depending on Shepards sexual interests.

Don't mix up your own imagination with games' storyline.... Alternative universe has nothing to do with this. But I am not saying that OP is right on this....

BW made Ashley as a bi character in ME1, and later they removed that part. So there is a possibillity...........

[Xilizhra]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

However, I don't believe that it cheapens anyone in any case.

Of course it cheapens everyone, even if nothing were to established before; just take a look at DA2.

DA2's system was awesome. I hope it finds repetition, as I suspect that the number of people who need their precious "wholly straight" fix is rather smaller than those who enjoy this. In any case, you got that with Sebastian.

[Athayniel]

SnowHeart1 wrote...

General User wrote...

The problem with using the "but they never explicitly said their sexual orientation" argument to make a previously heterosexual romance option available to both sexes is that it's only good for one use, tops. 

What I mean is, while that argument could be used to provide a rationale (in the cases of some characters, a paper thin rationale) for making any romance option available to both sexes, using that argument for more than one character quickly descends into absurdity.  Cheapening characters and players alike.

This is just about the only thing in this thread I agree with. It can be used, but only once. As for the rest of it, people are overstating both evidence and the significance of any ambiguity. I've got my hopes (as evident in my sig) but ultimately it's up to Bioware and the ME2 dev team and they can do pretty much whatever they want.

Again... why only once? Is it a single-shot Derringer? I don't understand. Why does it cheapen the character? Why is who they're willing to sleep with at all important to a character's worth?

I think there should be a specific reason for *not* making an LI available to both genders.

[Athayniel]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Athayniel wrote...

Right. But my post was in response to your assumptions about the s/s supporting playerbase, not BioWare.

Ah, in that case I still stand by what I said.

Without reading my post or responding to my argument? Okay. That tells me a great deal about you.

[jlb524]

General User wrote...

The problem with using the "but they never explicitly said their sexual orientation" argument to make a previously heterosexual romance option available to both sexes is that it's only good for one use, tops. 

What I mean is, while that argument could be used to provide a rationale (in the cases of some characters, a paper thin rationale) for making any romance option available to both sexes, using that argument for more than one character quickly descends into absurdity.  Cheapening characters and players alike.

Do you mean in-universe rationale or meta-game rationale?

The thing is, in-universe, an explanation isn't even required, which makes this point moot.

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

However, I don't believe that it cheapens anyone in any case.

Of course it cheapens everyone, even if nothing were to established before; just take a look at DA2..

That's like...just your opinion (that I've never seen you even try to justify).

Modifié par jlb524, 30 septembre 2011 - 02:39 .

[ElitePinecone]

General User wrote...

The problem with using the "but they never explicitly said their sexual orientation" argument to make a previously heterosexual romance option available to both sexes is that it's only good for one use, tops. 

What I mean is, while that argument could be used to provide a rationale (in the cases of some characters, a paper thin rationale) for making any romance option available to both sexes, using that argument for more than one character quickly descends into absurdity.  Cheapening characters and players alike.

Yep.

Which is why it'll be used probably twice in ME3. For an m/m and f/f romance. 

A combination of Mac Walters and Casey Hudson's tweet have hinted at some (but not all) ME/ME2 characters being available for re-romancing in ME3. Other evidence says it's the Virmire Survivor. There's no evidence of anybody else. 

The other options will presumably be new characters, who don't suffer from that problem. 

[Kaiser Shepard]

Xilizhra wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

However, I don't believe that it cheapens anyone in any case.

Of course it cheapens everyone, even if nothing were to established before; just take a look at DA2.

DA2's system was awesome. I hope it finds repetition, as I suspect that the number of people who need their precious "wholly straight" fix is rather smaller than those who enjoy this. In any case, you got that with Sebastian.

DA2's characters failed wherever they could, because few of them were truly unique.

"Oh look, another bi squaddie. Oh look, another crazy blood mage. Oh look, another strong female warrior, whoopdidoo!"

Characters' strengths only go as far as their uncommonness, hence why DAO's system was superior.

[Xilizhra]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

However, I don't believe that it cheapens anyone in any case.

Of course it cheapens everyone, even if nothing were to established before; just take a look at DA2.

DA2's system was awesome. I hope it finds repetition, as I suspect that the number of people who need their precious "wholly straight" fix is rather smaller than those who enjoy this. In any case, you got that with Sebastian.

DA2's characters failed wherever they could, because few of them were truly unique.

"Oh look, another bi squaddie. Oh look, another crazy blood mage. Oh look, another strong female warrior, whoopdidoo!"

Characters' strengths only go as far as their uncommonness, hence why DAO's system was superior.

That's your own neurosis, not a weakness of the system.

[SnowHeart1]

Athayniel wrote...
Again... why only once? Is it a single-shot Derringer? I don't understand. Why does it cheapen the character? Why is who they're willing to sleep with at all important to a character's worth?

I think there should be a specific reason for *not* making an LI available to both genders.

My opinion only, but I happen to think sexual orientation is a pretty important part of an individual's personality. It has certainly shaped how I view the world and how I interact with people. Is it a sole defining characteristic? No. But is it important? Yes. You may disagree. But, with this underlying belief, I feel that once you start changing this, you wind up with a weaker, more plastic and less believable character. I think you can do it once, but if you do it more than that you wind up with the "everyone is bi" silliness that was DA2. For that game and as an experiment in game design, and with completely new characters, I was absolutely in favor of it. But ME3 will have pre-established characters that you're going to be tinkering with. And if, all of a sudden, everyone who was ambiguous is now bi... I find that not very credible and to be a sign of weak design. Again, my opinion only.

[jlb524]

I suppose all the ME2 and DA:O squad mates were soooo unique.

'Oh look, another hetero LI!'

'Oh look, another apparently frigid woman only the right man can 'warm up'!'

[Athayniel]

Xilizhra wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

However, I don't believe that it cheapens anyone in any case.

Of course it cheapens everyone, even if nothing were to established before; just take a look at DA2.

DA2's system was awesome. I hope it finds repetition, as I suspect that the number of people who need their precious "wholly straight" fix is rather smaller than those who enjoy this. In any case, you got that with Sebastian.

DA2's characters failed wherever they could, because few of them were truly unique.

"Oh look, another bi squaddie. Oh look, another crazy blood mage. Oh look, another strong female warrior, whoopdidoo!"

Characters' strengths only go as far as their uncommonness, hence why DAO's system was superior.

That's your own neurosis, not a weakness of the system.

Can you imagine the story possibilities and drama inherent in Morrigan asking her femWarden lover to find her a man to impregnate her? Or in Alistair telling his gay lover that he has to marry Anora and become King of Ferelden?

How is that cheapening the characters or story?

[NICKjnp]

@jlb524

You are failing to understand my argument. They were NOT bisexual in the previous games. If they were going to be bisexual then they would have been presented as bisexual (which didn't happen). If the writers make them bisexual in ME3 then they will have changed their sexual orientation in the third game. That is no longer the same character. Remember how frustrated people were with how Liara was changed between ME1&2? The same will be for whomever they retcon in ME3.

[Jjilatt12]

Athayniel wrote...

SnowHeart1 wrote...

General User wrote...

The problem with using the "but they never explicitly said their sexual orientation" argument to make a previously heterosexual romance option available to both sexes is that it's only good for one use, tops. 

What I mean is, while that argument could be used to provide a rationale (in the cases of some characters, a paper thin rationale) for making any romance option available to both sexes, using that argument for more than one character quickly descends into absurdity.  Cheapening characters and players alike.

This is just about the only thing in this thread I agree with. It can be used, but only once. As for the rest of it, people are overstating both evidence and the significance of any ambiguity. I've got my hopes (as evident in my sig) but ultimately it's up to Bioware and the ME2 dev team and they can do pretty much whatever they want.

Again... why only once? Is it a single-shot Derringer? I don't understand. Why does it cheapen the character? Why is who they're willing to sleep with at all important to a character's worth?

I think there should be a specific reason for *not* making an LI available to both genders.

It comes down to the fact that most people don't want everyone to be openly bisexual. This was probably my biggest grief with Dragon Age 2. Yeah from a fanservice perspective it's good, but from a story and analytical point it's awkward, unlikely, and for some people very uncomfortable. It simply doesn't work to have everybody bisexual with little to no explanation.

[Xilizhra]

You are failing to understand my argument. They were NOT bisexual in the previous games. If they were going to be bisexual then they would have been presented as bisexual (which didn't happen). If the writers make them bisexual in ME3 then they will have changed their sexual orientation in the third game. That is no longer the same character. Remember how frustrated people were with how Liara was changed between ME1&2? The same will be for whomever they retcon in ME3.

That was called character development. If people stay the same way throughout the whole series, it's boring; that's why plenty of people criticized Garrus. As for sexual orientation, it's only a problem if it breaks established character traits, which it won't.

[happy_daiz]

As long as I can continue my straight romance with Kaidan in ME3, I'm happy. 

And by that, I'm saying that I don't mind sharing Kaidan with everyone. If it comes to light that he has an interest in men too, well, that's his right. Free will is a wonderful thing. My femSheps won't know, and won't care.

My god, how did I get sucked in to one of these debates?

Modifié par happy_daiz, 30 septembre 2011 - 02:51 .

[Xilizhra]

It comes down to the fact that most people don't want everyone to be openly bisexual. This was probably my biggest grief with Dragon Age 2. Yeah from a fanservice perspective it's good, but from a story and analytical point it's awkward, unlikely, and for some people very uncomfortable. It simply doesn't work to have everybody bisexual with little to no explanation.

So we're having biphobia as a valid reason now?

Modifié par Xilizhra, 30 septembre 2011 - 02:48 .

[NICKjnp]

It does break traits. They are hetero in both games.