922 réponses à ce sujet

[Flashing Steel]

jlb524 wrote... 
I understand that they don't like it...I just don't understand the 'why'.  If I knew the 'why' I can decide if it's less important or not.

 

fair enough.

jlb524 wrote...  
Now if they won't do a more robust system, then what should they do in regards to gender?

 

Well gender is such a basic component of relationships, too basic to ignore. Other factors whilst  important are more extraneous due to the fact they are not immutable. If other factors which are condusive to creating reactive relationships are left out i believe gender should be incorporated and the other factors should at the very least be acknowledged. 

Modifié par Flashing Steel, 31 décembre 2011 - 11:45 .

[In Exile]

jlb524 wrote...

I thought you were saying that you want unique romances for male/female and male/male given a single male LI?  Like, saying that Anders should have had a completely different romance path for FemHawke vs. MaleHawke.

Well, no. Originally, I was saying that characters should be made and fixed, and then whatever romances worked be designed around that. To not penalize players that would be excluded from an exclusion from content, I said there should be alternative friendship paths avaialble for those clases responsive to the circumstance of those clases, or genders, or whatever. But you said I should try to stick to the confines of Bioware's design.

So then I suggest that there be variation instead, based on the features of the player within a  narrow scope. The idea I had in mind was a conversation about "The Future" which in one case could be about having children and in the other case would be about adopting, with a serious look to the circumstances that the game is set in, e.g. is adoption even something possible. Not to say that all couples should have children or that this woud be per se appropriate, but this is what I was meant.

Essentially, that the game (as I tried saying above) shouldn't try to hide the fact that the player may be in an same-sex relationship without reducing that relationship to just being about the fact there are two inviduals of the same gender in it.

In Exile wrote... My point is that most haven't had issues with how these romances have been structured...they were completely fine with the 'BW way' in games past.  However, now all of a sudden some are not okay with it because the final restriction (gender) was removed.

If you don't fall into this category (and you are saying that you don't), then that comment isn't directed at you.

Well, you kept throwing me into that category.

I was speaking in general and you replied...if this doesn't reply to you..that's fine.

I thought the thread was about game design. I thought your comments were about game design. Hence my going off and talking about reactivity.

My original point still stands that in general:

1)  Most players were fine with the 'BW way' and never complained when restrictions on race/class/morality were lifted.

2)  Removing gender restrictions has resulted in an increase in complaining about things that have always been an issue in BW games.

If this doesn't apply to you then...I'm obviously not referring to you specifically.  I thought you took issue with the general comment and trying to pretend that there was no difference in the general fanbases reaction.

You should have been here when the game launched. Ignoring all the vitrol directed at other parts of the game, the comments made about the removal of gender restrictions were.. not good. Not good at all.

If what you want to say is that there is some uncomfortable sexist undertone to this, I think you're fighting a losing battle.

Again, that's fine...but I wasn't ever talking about you specifically.   You can be the exception to the rule.

You say that so sarcastically. If you want to prove a point, it's important to be aware of who you're arguing against.

[jlb524]

Flashing Steel wrote...
Well gender is such a basic component of relationships, too basic to ignore. Other factors whilst  important are more extraneous due to the fact they are not immutable. If other factors which are condusive to creating reactive relationships are left out i believe gender should be incorporated and the other factors should at the very least be acknowledged. 

Race isn't immutable?

[In Exile]

Get Magna Carter wrote...
If you read I did say it could be rationalised.  
I just find it disconcerting when someone who was constantly talking about his liking for girls suddenly declares an interest in guys

Why? He happened to be around a pretty girl. Beyond that, we had 1) a corpse, 2) Oghren 3) the Warden (assuming your PC was male). Maybe he just wasn't into the guys around him.

I just don't see why someone talking about pretty girls all the time could or wouldn't also like pretty boys.

[jlb524]

@In Exile

The OP states this:

Blacklash93 wrote...
I've heard a lot of different opinions regarding the, as most say, "All Bi" romances.  I'm interested in seeing whether or not people would like Bioware to continue this style of implementation with the romances (at least with DA). So... what's your opinion? I'd also like to hear your reasons to why you hold that opinion. Debates are welcome, but not heated arguments.

and I take this to mean, discuss the 'al bi' thing in the confines of how BW romances tend to work.  It seems the target keeps moving if you wish to critique the BW romances in general and that's a separate issue entirely.  I don't necessarily agree or disagree with some of the issues you've brought up, I just don't really care about them in this particular discussion which involves taking BW romance structure one step further and remove gender restrictions.

We are talking around each other...I've only discussed general forum attitudes and I assumed you fell into that category because you took issue with my original statement that people typically didn't care about these same issue in DA:O but now it's a big deal in DA2.

[Flashing Steel]

jlb524 wrote...

Flashing Steel wrote...
Well gender is such a basic component of relationships, too basic to ignore. Other factors whilst  important are more extraneous due to the fact they are not immutable. If other factors which are condusive to creating reactive relationships are left out i believe gender should be incorporated and the other factors should at the very least be acknowledged. 

Race isn't immutable?

I should have been more specific, by gender i mean sexual orientation. it seems far-fetched for a character to change that preference. In terms of race it is much more probable that a companion could see past my characters race, yet acknowledge romancing *insert race* is something they have never thought about before.

[jlb524]

Flashing Steel wrote...
I should have been more specific, by gender i mean sexual orientation. it seems far-fetched for a character to change that preference. In terms of race it is much more probable that a companion could see past my characters race, yet acknowledge romancing *insert race* is something they have never thought about before.

Not necessarily...how many human/dwarf pairings do you see in the universe?

Also, sexual orientation can change in individuals over time...it's not all that far-fetched.

[Flashing Steel]

jlb524 wrote...

Flashing Steel wrote...
I should have been more specific, by gender i mean sexual orientation. it seems far-fetched for a character to change that preference. In terms of race it is much more probable that a companion could see past my characters race, yet acknowledge romancing *insert race* is something they have never thought about before.

Not necessarily...how many human/dwarf pairings do you see in the universe?

Also, sexual orientation can change in individuals over time...it's not all that far-fetched.

Conversely, how many elf/human pairings do you see? quite a few. Just because there have been no examples of dwarf/human pairings I do not see why it would not happen. 

Yes it can change over time, but for the majority of people it is fixed. Having a companions sexual orientation change over time is going to require explicit explanation, I cannot even fathom how random a conversation that would be. Like I have said, race is much easier to look past compared to gender.

[jlb524]

Flashing Steel wrote...
Conversely, how many elf/human pairings do you see? quite a few. Just because there have been no examples of dwarf/human pairings I do not see why it would not happen. 

I wouldn't say quite a few considering it's taboo.  There are far more human/human and elf/elf pairings.

Still, I find it odd that a dwarven male could possibly romance both human females in DA:O considering how often we do see those type of pairings.  Let's say, it's believable that one could look past it but am I to believe that both would?

I mean, people think it's okay that one female could possibly go with another female (Leliana) but add in the second one (Morrigan) and now we have entered the realm of the unbelievable.

Flashing Steel wrote... 
Yes it can change over time, but for the majority of people it is fixed. Having a companions sexual orientation change over time is going to require explicit explanation, I cannot even fathom how random a conversation that would be. Like I have said, race is much easier to look past compared to gender.

Not for everyone.

Or, do you believe that it's possible for any heterosexual man and heterosexual woman to fall in love if they can just get past their individual preferences for a mate (beyond gender)?

Race is one example...but then there's morality, appearance, etc.

Modifié par jlb524, 01 janvier 2012 - 12:56 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

It's doubtful Bioware will ever have the resources to give every sexual orientation and every player who cares about such things a romance selection they are happy with. Even if every base is covered for species, gender, orientation and physical features (insomuch as polygons can be beautiful), the NPC still has to be the type of character the player('s PC) wants to romance.

It's easier if they make characters PC-sexual. Theoretically they're making more people happy.

Dwarf-lovers will be forever alone though, because sex with short people is apparently wrong.

[tmp7704]

jlb524 wrote...

Right...but I'd prefer honest answers as to 'why' this is such a big change...which is all I've asked for.

From what i've seen, you were provided answers to that, and they revolved around this change making character less defined and/or less believable in the eyes of the player. By demanding a "honest" answer despite being given those explanations you create an impression that you aren't actually interested in hearing one, but already have your own theory and any answer which doesn't conform to it is treated as a lie. Which, well, would make the discussion pretty much pointless.
 

I have to accept that it is their point of view but I don't have to respect their opinion if they cannot justify it to me rationally.  My problem is that the reasons given seem nothing but B.S., quite frankly.

See above. If you can't accept the explanations given, if just for the sake of discussion, then there's no point in engaging in it -- as you aren't as much interested in hearing the "whys" but rather just what you want to hear (if that's the only explanation you're willing to accept as "rational" one)

Again, my problem is that there were never complaints about this 'imperfect' thing before.

X was never an issue in general.

X + 1 is an issue.

To use an analogy again, your problem is akin to "Why are you complaining about your rent raise when you never complained about having to pay the rent in the first place before?"

It's not that "X + 1" is an issue and "X" isn't.

It's "+ 1" that's an issue all of its own.

The X itself can be an issue too, for some. But you don't have to complain about X to gain some sort of 'right' to complain about the +1. And odds are, there may even be people who don't mind X itself since they never experienced anything different (say, those who played DAO but not BG), but they do mind that X being changed into what they view as something worse.

Modifié par tmp7704, 01 janvier 2012 - 01:43 .

[Catriana]

Blacklash93 wrote...

I've heard a lot of different opinions regarding the, as most say, "All Bi" romances.  I'm interested in seeing whether or not people would like Bioware to continue this style of implementation with the romances (at least with DA). So... what's your opinion? I'd also like to hear your reasons to why you hold that opinion. Debates are welcome, but not heated arguments.

Any blatant attacks on anyone or any group of people will be reported. Just because someone wants this style of romances doesn't mean they want to cheapen your game experience and just because someone doesn't want this style of romances doesn't mean they're homophobic. Try to see others' perspectives and most importantly be respectful. So play nice.

Just quoting the OP for my reference, since it's so many threads back and I get the feeling the topic has shifted a few times.

I didn't mind having the LI's be bisexual, it was a nice change of pace. There were very subtle differences in some of the responses you received depending on if you were male or female. There were things Anders didn't reveal to a f!Hawke that he did to a m!Hawke, and given with what we've seen with Anders in Awakening, one could argue that maybe he wasn't comfortable with being open about having a male lover. Once you decide to pursue the romance, however, he decides to forget about the gender issue, because he's more worried about how Hawke would be seen with having a mage for a lover.

Anders was the only LI I can think of who 'pushed' himself on you regardless. The other LI's, as long as you didn't flirt with them, were perfectly content to remain friends. So the statement that all the LI's 'fling' themselves all over Hawke seems a bit exaggerated to me, especially in the case of Fenris, where you receive more Friendship points initially if you don't try and romance him in Act II.

As for Merrill, she's just special all around. She's always been an outcast, so I could see her falling for Hawke regardless of gender since no one has ever really tried to get that close to her before. And once again, you have to actively flirt with Merrill and pursue the relationship, otherwise she will assume you only want to be friends.

I do feel that perhaps the relationships could be worked out differently depending on if you're a guy or a girl. For the most part I agree that the romances were pretty cut/paste, but then if BW did make it more gender specific, certain folks would simply complain about how one romance was 'cooler' than the other and how BW is sexist because of it. There really is no pleasing everyone.

However, if they do have characters who are strictly heterosexual in the future, I'd like for there to be a strictly gay and lesbian LI as well. But trying to go for 'LI realism' in a fantasy game seems....well unrealistic to me. 

Personally, I would prefer all the characters to be optional to both sexes game-wise, but their sexuality in-game isn't necessilarily broadcasted. Fenris and Merrill are perfect examples of this, where their sexuality is rather ambigious, and what matters to them is how they feel about Hawke. That way, even though we as the player know they're optional, in game they could be straight, bi, or gay.  If you don't romance them, then it hardly matters either way.

The only thing that makes me uncomfortable is when an LI assumes I'm trying to mack on them when I'm not. This was a huge problem for me in ME2, so I'm very happy DA2 clearly marked flirtation dialogue.

I would also be unopposed to the idea of a potential polyamorous relationship. I mean in DA:O, you could have a threesome with Isabela and in DA:II the option was there again. It would have been interesting to have an actual standing relationship with Isabela and one other and it not be for sex. Of course, that goes into a whole slew of emotional and social repercussions, so I doubt it would ever be implimented. 

[jlb524]

People have the right to complain about whatever they wish. I still think it's hypocritical to complain about this. I'm not sure that I like the rent analogy because it's not that simple....I don't think each piece of 'money' is viewed equally.

If,

A: romances ignore race
B: romances ignore class
C: romances ignore appearance
D: romances ignore gender
E: romances ignore morality

and A - E are bad

but people are fine with A + B + C + E.

Whoever, people are not fine with A + B + C + D + E.

Now, what about the situation B + C + D? I ask: is that better than A + B + C + E?

Well, the thread asks...is D good or bad? So...should it depend on if we have A, B, C, and E also?

I ask this, what if the only romance freedom was gender and race while the others were restricted?  Isn't that better than the DA:O system?

Modifié par jlb524, 01 janvier 2012 - 02:09 .

[Flashing Steel]

jlb524 wrote...
I wouldn't say quite a few considering it's taboo.  There are far more human/human and elf/elf pairings.

Still, I find it odd that a dwarven male could possibly romance both human females in DA:O considering how often we do see those type of pairings.  Let's say, it's believable that one could look past it but am I to believe that both would?

 

I never played a dwarf in DAO, but why is it unbelievable? I remember Morrigan flirting with the warden talking about how the taint enhances their sexual prowess, making it clear she is interested in sleeping with a warden (no mention of race preference). 

jlb524 wrote... 
I mean, people think it's okay that one female could possibly go with another female (Leliana) but add in the second one (Morrigan) and now we have entered the realm of the unbelievable.

 

Well thats just part of her character, it is who she is. Like I have said its harder to change sexual orientation than preference for race. Does it mean its believable? that depends on the player. DAO's romance system is lacking to say the least though, we could pick a plethora of holes in it. 

jlb524 wrote... 
Not for everyone.

Or, do you believe that it's possible for any heterosexual man and heterosexual woman to fall in love if they can just get past their individual preferences for a mate (beyond gender)?

Race is one example...but then there's morality, appearance, etc.

Fall in love? no, but what I am saying is race is certainly easier to look beyond than gender. We could probably thrash out another few pages talking about the other factors, but I can sense we could be going round in circles for quite some time about this, so lets agree to disagree.

[jlb524]

Flashing Steel wrote...
I never played a dwarf in DAO, but why is it unbelievable? I remember Morrigan flirting with the warden talking about how the taint enhances their sexual prowess, making it clear she is interested in sleeping with a warden (no mention of race preference). 

The taint can enhance a females prowess in bed as well 

I'm saying it's unbelievable because we don't see any dwarf/human pairings...we actually see more s/s pairings.  Which tells me dwarves and humans tend to not hook up for some reason.

Flashing Steel wrote... 
Well thats just part of her character, it is who she is. Like I have said its harder to change sexual orientation than preference for race.

Not in every case.  You are generalizing.

Flashing Steel wrote...  
Does it mean its believable? that depends on the player. DAO's romance system is lacking to say the least though, we could pick a plethora of holes in it. 

Definitely...all BW's romance systems are lacking in this regard (which is a point I keep bringing up).  I don't think it's fair to dismiss what DA2 did with gender considering how BW romances work (i.e., they have always been PC-sexual/generic).

Flashing Steel wrote...   
Fall in love? no, but what I am saying is race is certainly easier to look beyond than gender. We could probably thrash out another few pages talking about the other factors, but I can sense we could be going round in circles for quite some time about this, so lets agree to disagree.

Even if race was easier to look past in general, it's still an issue and there still should be some limitiations on it...but there are none...race is a non-issue entirely.

Modifié par jlb524, 01 janvier 2012 - 02:19 .

[Sylvianus]

jlb524 wrote...
 I still think it's hypocritical to complain about this.

So ? They lie, and so, actually, they are against this system, only because ?

Me, I think you pretend not to understand, I think you're not interested at all in the discussion, I think you're just paranoid and you see everything in dark.

From the moment you say, "I expect an honest opinion", you are worth nothing in a debate, and all your questions are only an attempt to present the alleged dishonesty of all people who disagree with your precious opinion. ( yes because everything needs to turn around you, your agenda and your preferences, otherwise it's hypocrytical, there is something wrong, other can't have their own preferences, and what they feel important )

This is exactly what I said about the wall that you raised around you. It desserves no purpose to talk with you since, there is only one reason obvious. Everybody isn't honest, No matter what you'll read, you are desesperate to think that those who disagree with your precious opinion,  have something wrong.

So, when you are saying, but why, but why, but why ? I just want to understand whyyyyyyy, each time someone give his answer in this topic, that's what is totally Hypocritical.

You don't need answers. I'm still amazed that people didn't notice that, what I saw immediately. You just need to deal with it at this point. Because you aren't going anywhere.

You pretend to claim that you just want to understand ? Who is lying ? You understood. But the truth is that you do not like the opinions of others, and you can't stand it, that's all. So Lalala, not listening, I just pretend I want to understand. Yeah.

But honey, deal with, get over it.

Your hypocrisy about your claim of wanting to understand honestly, is more amusing than the alleged hypocrisy of those you denounce.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 01 janvier 2012 - 02:39 .

[LinksOcarina]

jlb524 wrote...

People have the right to complain about whatever they wish. I still think it's hypocritical to complain about this. I'm not sure that I like the rent analogy because it's not that simple....I don't think each piece of 'money' is viewed equally.

If,

A: romances ignore race
B: romances ignore class
C: romances ignore appearance
D: romances ignore gender
E: romances ignore morality

and A - E are bad

but people are fine with A + B + C + E.

Whoever, people are not fine with A + B + C + D + E.

Now, what about the situation B + C + D? I ask: is that better than A + B + C + E?

Well, the thread asks...is D good or bad? So...should it depend on if we have A, B, C, and E also?

I ask this, what if the only romance freedom was gender and race while the others were restricted?  Isn't that better than the DA:O system?

Jib...just give it up. People won't answer, and you won't give them the chance to either.

[Ryzaki]

Yeah this debate is going around in circles.

I hope the devs go with the most resource friendly solution. All bi or no romances at all. [Yes I'm a horrible selfish person. If we can't share the toys the toys should be taken away from everyone. ]

I will gladly sacrifice all romances if being a bloodmage was *finally* seriously acknowledged in a DA game.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 01 janvier 2012 - 02:40 .

[jlb524]

I'm being told to shut up again.

Oh, and I'm getting called 'honey' on top of that!

If you don't wish to discuss this issue anymore then stop reading/posting in the thread.

Ryzaki wrote...

I hope the devs go with the most resource friendly solution. All bi or no romances at all. [Yes I'm a horrible selfish person. If we can't share the toys the toys should be taken away from everyone. ]

I will gladly sacrifice all romances if being a bloodmage was *finally* seriously acknowledged in a DA game.

Haha, yes!

It will take a small miracle for that to happen.

Modifié par jlb524, 01 janvier 2012 - 02:44 .

[Sylvianus]

you allow yourself to say that people are selfish, have necessarily a problem, they are hypocrites, and other things, i do not respect that. You allow yourself to judge others ? I give my opinion on it. Deal with it, eveybody is free on this forum.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 01 janvier 2012 - 02:49 .

[deatharmonic]

jlb524 wrote...

I'm being told to shut up again.

Oh, and I'm getting called 'honey' on top of that!

If you don't wish to discuss this issue anymore then stop reading/posting in the thread.

Having been following this thread i find it hillarious you would tell others to get out if they dont wish to discuss the issue when you've hardly been disscussing anything at all. All ive seen is you dismiss others opinions as B.S and call them hypocritical. Its hypocritical to say you accept and understand peoples opinions then turn around and call 'em B.S. Its quite blatant you don't want to hear what others say.

[jlb524]

People are selfish...I'm selfish even.

I wouldn't be debating in this thread if not for selfish reasons (i.e., I want the same amount of options for romance as others typically enjoy because they play it straight).

If I weren't being selfish, I'd be perfectly fine getting the short end of the stick, so to speak.

deatharmonic wrote...
Having been following this thread i find it hillarious you would tell others to get out if they dont wish to discuss the issue when you've hardly been disscussing anything at all. All ive seen is you dismiss others opinions as B.S and call them hypocritical. Its hypocritical to say you accept and understand peoples opinions then turn around and call 'em B.S. Its quite blatant you don't want to hear what others say.

I've read what they've said...it just doesn't make sense to me.

No one is helping me to make sense out of it.

Modifié par jlb524, 01 janvier 2012 - 02:56 .

[Youknow]

Ryzaki wrote...

Yeah this debate is going around in circles.

I hope the devs go with the most resource friendly solution. All bi or no romances at all. [Yes I'm a horrible selfish person. If we can't share the toys the toys should be taken away from everyone. ]

I will gladly sacrifice all romances if being a bloodmage was *finally* seriously acknowledged in a DA game.

Resource friendly would be having be having no romances. I'm cool with that too. But I do like you because you're at least willing to admit that you are selfish. It's funny that you have a Persona 3 avatar though, because it does remind me of Persona 2 how the author pretty much intended Tatsuya to be gay canonically. 

And heck yeah, I agree with you about the bloodmages. I usually avoid being on just so I feel better. Although, I do like the idea that a lot of people don't mention it, because the last thing you want to do is anger a blood mage... 

[Youknow]

jlb524 wrote...

People are selfish...I'm selfish even.

I wouldn't be debating in this thread if not for selfish reasons (i.e., I want the same amount of options for romance as others typically enjoy because they play it straight).

If I weren't being selfish, I'd be perfectly fine getting the short end of the stick, so to speak.

deatharmonic wrote...
Having been following this thread i find it hillarious you would tell others to get out if they dont wish to discuss the issue when you've hardly been disscussing anything at all. All ive seen is you dismiss others opinions as B.S and call them hypocritical. Its hypocritical to say you accept and understand peoples opinions then turn around and call 'em B.S. Its quite blatant you don't want to hear what others say.

I've read what they've said...it just doesn't make sense to me.

No one is helping me to make sense out of it.

That's because you don't wish to make sense of it. You simply charge forward yammering at everyone else, shooting down their opinions and acting like yours are the only ones with merit. You even bring in analogies that are incomparible to the situation at hand which further derails the discussion at hand.