922 réponses à ce sujet

[Atakuma]

Rawgrim wrote...

Every love interest in a game being bisexual, is unrealistic. Its not homophobic to want some realism in a game.

The alternative of exactly two Bi sexual LIs and two heterosexual LI's of each gender is not any more realistic.

[CuriousArtemis]

jlb524 wrote...


So is every LI ignoring race, class, morality and jumping in bed with the PC regardlesss.

Exactly!  Let's have some LI refuse to bed a PC because of her race or religion.  That would be more "realistic" wouldn't it?  

People who are afraid and/or disgusted by LGBT people will come up with all kinds of seeming logical explanations so as not to admit to themselves or anyone else that they just don't feel comfortable around gay folks.

[jlb524]

Rawgrim wrote...
Yup. And this wasn`t the case in BG2. You couldn`t romance Viconia, as an elven character. It wasn`t possible to romance Jaheira as a dwarf either. If your character was Lawful Good, Viconia was out of the picture. If you were evil, Aerie was out of the picture. Kind of what i have been saying all along.

You've only talked about gender restrictions so far.

They've moved away from limiting romances in order to provide more roleplaying possibilities...considering only a minority of players even complete  a romance subplot, I can understand why.

So why stop at gender?

[CuriousArtemis]

I'm just curious if anyone, anyone at all, has ever heard of anyone protesting the fact that Isabela hits on a female Hawke.

Yeah, me either.

[Rawgrim]

motomotogirl wrote...

jlb524 wrote...


So is every LI ignoring race, class, morality and jumping in bed with the PC regardlesss.

Exactly!  Let's have some LI refuse to bed a PC because of her race or religion.  That would be more "realistic" wouldn't it?  

People who are afraid and/or disgusted by LGBT people will come up with all kinds of seeming logical explanations so as not to admit to themselves or anyone else that they just don't feel comfortable around gay folks.

As I said: In BG2, aligment, gender, and race are all factors when it comes to who you can or can not romance. It made it more realistic. Wanting realism isn`t the same as not wanting to be around someone thats gay. If one of my companions is a gay necromancer, I would have no trouble using him in my party. Nor would i have any problems with a lesbian half-orc barbarian either. What I would have a problem with is every single one being bisexual or gay. It ruins the immersion of the gaming experience. It ruins replayability value, and it leaves me with a feeling that the game has been rushed. Corners have been cut to save time etc.

[Rawgrim]

jlb524 wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
Yup. And this wasn`t the case in BG2. You couldn`t romance Viconia, as an elven character. It wasn`t possible to romance Jaheira as a dwarf either. If your character was Lawful Good, Viconia was out of the picture. If you were evil, Aerie was out of the picture. Kind of what i have been saying all along.

You've only talked about gender restrictions so far.

They've moved away from limiting romances in order to provide more roleplaying possibilities...considering only a minority of players even complete  a romance subplot, I can understand why.

So why stop at gender?

When every romance is exactly the same no matter what race or gender your PC is, it removes roleplaying possebilities, it doesn`t add any.

[naledgeborn]

Brockololly wrote...

Not really, no. I prefer having more exclusivity in the romances and other aspects of the game and having the writers write more defined NPCs that react more to the PC. So instead of having everyone nebulously bisexual or Hawkesexual, just have defined straight, bi and homosexual characters. Like New Vegas had characters that were straight, bi and homosexual.

In DA2 it felt too much like ego stroking the PC in how everyone was jumping all over Hawke. I'd say thats a problem in all BioWare romances really, not just DA2 and I'd prefer it if there was more reactivity and maybe actual difficulty in starting romances based on who your PC was. I liked it when somebody like Aveline turned you down or when Samara turned you down or when as a male Warden, Alistair can be your best bro or as a female Warden, Morrigan can be your BFF. Those instances of the NPC having more set preferences and personalities makes for more interesting RP with defining your own PC, I think, as opposed to always getting your way.

This. 

[yusuf060297]

i dont like it that gay romances have the same reactions/dialogues as the normal ones,i myself find it unrealistic. I would like it, when you flirt with someone the first time, him to be confused for you to be gay or him to be blushed or something, it would also be more realistic to make just some bi options, like they did with jack in me2, she said there something , when you wanted to romance her as a female, i would even love it when they would introduce a gay npc which isnt bi but, i dont think that will ever happen

[LinksOcarina]

And yet, each romance is different because of the context you are in. Agressive Fenris vs Friendly Fenris, Isabelas Lust and sexual deviance vs her personal feelings, Sebastian and his chaste relationship, all of this brings context differently because of how the romances are portrayed, not if you have a penis or a vagina.

[Rawgrim]

yusuf060297 wrote...

i dont like it that gay romances have the same reactions/dialogues as the normal ones,i myself find it unrealistic. I would like it, when you flirt with someone the first time, him to be confused for you to be gay or him to be blushed or something, it would also be more realistic to make just some bi options, like they did with jack in me2, she said there something , when you wanted to romance her as a female, i would even love it when they would introduce a gay npc which isnt bi but, i dont think that will ever happen

I agree. It would be great to have a character thats 100 percent gay. Alot better than everyone being bisexual.

[CuriousArtemis]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Does she? I don't recall that. She hits on anything that moves anyway, so if she did it wouldn't be a big deal. Kind of like how Zevran hitting on Male Warden wasn't a big deal to me in DA:O.

Mhmm.  She says, "And I have a room at the Hanged Man" if you're looking for company... *wink* or some such thing.

When Zevran hit on the Warden it was more amusing than anything.  I read a critique of Zevran on a gay gamer's blog who said Zevran was more a caricature of a gay man than an accurate depiction.  (Of course, Zev is bi, not gay, but that wasn't his point).

When Anders hits on Hawke, it's very sincere and ... realistic?  It's awkward.  It makes homophobic male gamers feel awkward, so they protest.

[Atakuma]

Rawgrim wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
Yup. And this wasn`t the case in BG2. You couldn`t romance Viconia, as an elven character. It wasn`t possible to romance Jaheira as a dwarf either. If your character was Lawful Good, Viconia was out of the picture. If you were evil, Aerie was out of the picture. Kind of what i have been saying all along.

You've only talked about gender restrictions so far.

They've moved away from limiting romances in order to provide more roleplaying possibilities...considering only a minority of players even complete  a romance subplot, I can understand why.

So why stop at gender?

When every romance is exactly the same no matter what race or gender your PC is, it removes roleplaying possebilities, it doesn`t add any.

No it adds oportunities for others but it removes nothing.

[jlb524]

Rawgrim wrote...
When every romance is exactly the same no matter what race or gender your PC is, it removes roleplaying possebilities, it doesn`t add any.

The only game that had any restrictions (besides gender) was BG2.

They've removed race restrictions a long long time ago...no one complained.

Finally, they remove gender restrictions and OH NOES!

I would argue that removing gender restrictions does increase roleplaying possibilities for those that like to play s/s romances...just as removing race restrictions increases roleplaying for those that like to play dwarves.

LinksOcarina wrote...

And yet, each romance is different because of the context you are in. Agressive Fenris vs Friendly Fenris, Isabelas Lust and sexual deviance vs her personal feelings, Sebastian and his chaste relationship, all of this brings context differently because of how the romances are portrayed, not if you have a penis or a vagina.

Absolutely....I'd rather the romances vary based on those kind of things vs. gender.  It's more interesting (as it pertains to the characters) and avoids the possibility of gender stereotyping.

Modifié par jlb524, 29 décembre 2011 - 07:17 .

[Rawgrim]

Atakuma wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
Yup. And this wasn`t the case in BG2. You couldn`t romance Viconia, as an elven character. It wasn`t possible to romance Jaheira as a dwarf either. If your character was Lawful Good, Viconia was out of the picture. If you were evil, Aerie was out of the picture. Kind of what i have been saying all along.

You've only talked about gender restrictions so far.

They've moved away from limiting romances in order to provide more roleplaying possibilities...considering only a minority of players even complete  a romance subplot, I can understand why.

So why stop at gender?

When every romance is exactly the same no matter what race or gender your PC is, it removes roleplaying possebilities, it doesn`t add any.

No it adds oportunities for others but it removes nothing.

Really? So if I want to romance a character that is evil, and I can`t play a goodguy to do that....That would make me have to play an evil character in the next playthrough. Meaning it adds another oppertunity. Or if I want to romance an efl, that is only into elves - I would have to play an elf to achive this. Having all those possebilities removed, doesn`t remove anything? It only adds?

[Terraforming]

I liked it a lot. It is rare for me to get a s/s female romance while gaming, let alone two options. It was pleasant surprise when I realized that Merrill was a romanceable, because I really thought they were going the DAO route where the one female character I wanted to romance was not going to be available.

I guess can understand people who don't like it because it isn't realistic, but for me personally, I'm not looking for realism in video games. The reason I play is to escape for a little while and it is nice to have a bit of wish fufillment now and again.

[Rawgrim]

jlb524 wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
When every romance is exactly the same no matter what race or gender your PC is, it removes roleplaying possebilities, it doesn`t add any.

The only game that had any restrictions (besides gender) was BG2.

They've removed race restrictions a long long time ago...no one complained.

Finally, they remove gender restrictions and OH NOES!

I would argue that removing gender restrictions does increase roleplaying possibilities for those that like to play s/s romances...just as removing race restrictions increases roleplaying for those that like to play dwarves.

LinksOcarina wrote...

And yet, each romance is different because of the context you are in. Agressive Fenris vs Friendly Fenris, Isabelas Lust and sexual deviance vs her personal feelings, Sebastian and his chaste relationship, all of this brings context differently because of how the romances are portrayed, not if you have a penis or a vagina.

Absolutely....I'd rather the romances vary based on those kind of things vs. gender.  It's more interesting (as it pertains to the characters) and avoids the possibility of gender stereotyping.

It doesn`t increase anything when every romance is exactly the same in each playthrough, no matter what race\\gender you are playing.

[Atakuma]

Rawgrim wrote...

Really? So if I want to romance a character that is evil, and I can`t play a goodguy to do that....That would make me have to play an evil character in the next playthrough. Meaning it adds another oppertunity. Or if I want to romance an efl, that is only into elves - I would have to play an elf to achive this. Having all those possebilities removed, doesn`t remove anything? It only adds?

Yes, less restriction equals more possibilities. Forcing you to do something in a certain way doesn't enhance roleplaying in any way.

[Zjarcal]

Rawgrim wrote...

It doesn`t increase anything when every romance is exactly the same in each playthrough, no matter what racegender you are playing.

Because the romances changed according to race/gender? If one or two lines constitute "change", eh... yeah, whatevz.

[twincast]

jlb524 wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
Not really, no. I prefer having more exclusivity in the romances and other aspects of the game and having the writers write more defined NPCs that react more to the PC. So instead of having everyone nebulously bisexual or Hawkesexual, just have defined straight, bi and homosexual characters. Like New Vegas had characters that were straight, bi and homosexual.

They say they won't do homosexual characters, so the only people benefitting from this 'exclusivity' are those that play heterosexual characters...funny how that works.

Brockololly wrote... 
In DA2 it felt too much like ego stroking the PC in how everyone was jumping all over Hawke. I'd say thats a problem in all BioWare romances really, not just DA2 and I'd prefer it if there was more reactivity and maybe actual difficulty in starting romances based on who your PC was.

It is a problem in all BW romances, including DA:O...honestly, everyone was jumping all over the Warden regardless of anything about that character besides gender.

Brockololly wrote...  
I liked it when somebody like Aveline turned you down or when Samara turned you down or when as a male Warden, Alistair can be your best bro or as a female Warden, Morrigan can be your BFF. Those instances of the NPC having more set preferences and personalities makes for more interesting RP with defining your own PC, I think, as opposed to always getting your way.

What, Zevran can't be your bro or Leliana can't be your BFF b/c they are open to both genders?

If you RP a heterosexual PC you will always get your own way because you can romance any LI of the opposite sex pretty easily.   But I guess it would be bad if homosexual PCs also got to do this...

Don't go around putting words into other people's mouths. Seriously.

Anyway, another New Vegas mention, there've been a lot lately. *swoon* <3 And despite my best attempts at not letting optimism get the better of me, I think I've come to expect hetero-, bi- and homosexual romance options of both sexes in ME3 and will be sorely disappointed if BioWare goes back to any of their old ways. That said, if we can't have all three, I'd rather have all romance options be bisexual than some heterosexual and some bisexual, let alone have only heterosexual ones. I do seriously want them to be more choosy about what kind of person(ality) they go for instead of just going all "PC is nice to me, so I love him/her".

[Ineffable Igor]

I am still somewhat conflicted on this issue.  I didn't much care for the idea before DA2 came out, but after playing the game, I don't mind anymore.  My objection before the game came out was that all the LIs being bisexual wasn't realistic and I still think this is true, but I don't really interpret what BioWare did with the romances that way.  I believe someone once used the term "subjective sexuality", which is a good way to put it.  I am inclined to believe that Anders and Isabela are bisexual as part of their characters, but it's far more ambiguous with Merrill and Fenris and their sexuality pretty much depends on the player.  My Fenris and Merrill are staight (MerrillxCarver = cutest thing in the history of ever), other people's Fenris and Merrill are gay or bisexual.  

I like this method, as it makes it so anyone can romance anyone and they don't have to be stuck with the Gay Option when the one they really want can only be romanced by an opposite gender character.  On the other hand, I still can't get rid of the idea that it sort of cheapens the effect one's sexuality can have on their character development.  What I would like is for there to be characters that are strictly homosexual as well as characters that are strictly heterosexual and characters who are bisexual.  The issue there is that you'd end up with A LOT of people following you around if you wanted to give everyone multiple romance options, so as much as I'd like this, it's not especially practicle.  I think what BioWare did in DA2 was the right decision, it kept everyone's options open and it kept the party relatively small.  They should continue to do this in future games, I think.    

[Jaulen]

I wouldn't mind if they put race AND gender restrictions in....but I do see where that would cause scripting voice acting and animating issues....and money could be better spent elseqhere in the game.

I'm playing through a DAO f!DwarfNoble and wondering..."Why would Alistair (or Leliana or Morrigan) get into a romance with a dwarf? Zevran I could see...." So I'm conflicted.....do I romance someone while thinking the whole time "I'm the right gender, but racially it seems weird?"

I did like that in DA2 there were no gender restrictions.....I could head cannon that a certain character was gay....and if they weren't, just don't flirt with them or turn them down...problem solved.

[esper]

Exept it is not the same. There is a subtle difference in dialog for Fenris/Merrill/Isabella and a major one for Anders in fact Anders treats male and female Hawke very differently. And most importantly it invovles the steoro type of the bi LI being the rouge of questionable past and an 'excuse' to be bi like Leliana and Zevran and allowed for more roleplay for me.

Modifié par esper, 29 décembre 2011 - 07:24 .

[Rawgrim]

Atakuma wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Really? So if I want to romance a character that is evil, and I can`t play a goodguy to do that....That would make me have to play an evil character in the next playthrough. Meaning it adds another oppertunity. Or if I want to romance an efl, that is only into elves - I would have to play an elf to achive this. Having all those possebilities removed, doesn`t remove anything? It only adds?

Yes, less restriction equals more possibilities. Forcing you to do something in a certain way doesn't enhance roleplaying in any way.

No it doesn`t. It makes each playthrough different, depending on what kind of character you play. Having Adolf Hitler being able to romance Anne Frank isn`t enhancing roleplaying in any way. its game breaking. This being a possebility just to add a possibility, is just dumb.

[jlb524]

Rawgrim wrote...
It doesn`t increase anything when every romance is exactly the same in each playthrough, no matter what racegender you are playing.

What are you talking about?

In BG2, you romance Jaheira with an elf.

You then romance her with a human...it's the same.

If you play a gnome, you can't even romance her.

The issue you are raising is that the romances don't react to race/gender all that much.  This is a separate issue from "Should the romances be open to all PCs regardless of race/gender?".    The latter does add more roleplaying and replayability.  For example, my DA:O replayability was limited (as far as making different characters to try out different romances) b/c I was limited to Leliana as a gay female.

twincast wrote...
Don't go around putting words into other people's mouths. Seriously.

I was asking for clarification.

Rawgrim wrote...
No it doesn`t. It makes each playthrough different, depending on what kind of character you play. Having Adolf Hitler being able to romance Anne Frank isn`t enhancing roleplaying in any way. its game breaking. This being a possebility just to add a possibility, is just dumb.

I don't understand the logic...

Adding in 'more' possible choices doesn't potentially allow for different playthroughs?

Like I said, I want to do f/f romances.

In DA:O, all my pts were the same in that regard b/c I only had Leliana.

If I had Leliana and Morrigan....then I'd potentially have two different playthroughs. 

Modifié par jlb524, 29 décembre 2011 - 07:30 .