922 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

Momiji.mii wrote...

I've seen the same arguments as in this thread in discussions like this over and over again, and when people state that having all their romanceable companions being bisexual breaks their immersion in the game or whatever, it strikes me as odd since this is roleplaying.

Immersion affects the player, not the character (who, being part of the game world and not realizing it is a game is always "immersed" no matter what) While some particular Hawke may be oblivious as result of his/her interactions or lack thereof, the player knows much more than any individual Hawke does, and his/her immersion can and will be affected by this knowledge.

It's the same mechanics like say, knowing that all offered choices lead to the same outcome can make the player feel the choice they're given is 'worthless' or just an illusion.

[Realmzmaster]

jlb524 wrote...

The game could easily add in a system that discriminates based on looks in some way.   If you use a certain preset, the Morrigan romance is locked out...etc.

It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction as far as 'realism' goes...which is what people want, right?

No the game cannot easily discriminate based on looks. Not when full customization of the character apperance is allowed. If you limit the appearance to a limited number of presets, the possibility exists. Full customization of appearance allows for to many combinations in facial features alone.The game would have to define what is beautiful, average and ugly. That brings you back to the subjective view of beauty. Everyone does not have the same concept of beauty or look at it the same way.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 01 janvier 2012 - 11:53 .

[jlb524]

The game doesn't have to define what is good/average/ugly just the LI...it's their preference. You may find your Warden beautiful and Zevran might agree with you but Alistair doesn't.

If that's too difficult, adding in 'realistic' restrictions to romance in other areas isn't (race/class/morality/past decisions).  But they don't do that for sake of having open options and no one seems to be up in arms over that.

Modifié par jlb524, 01 janvier 2012 - 11:58 .

[ArtsyCookie]

tmp7704 wrote...

Momiji.mii wrote...

I've seen the same arguments as in this thread in discussions like this over and over again, and when people state that having all their romanceable companions being bisexual breaks their immersion in the game or whatever, it strikes me as odd since this is roleplaying.

Immersion affects the player, not the character (who, being part of the game world and not realizing it is a game is always "immersed" no matter what) While some particular Hawke may be oblivious as result of his/her interactions or lack thereof, the player knows much more than any individual Hawke does, and his/her immersion can and will be affected by this knowledge.

It's the same mechanics like say, knowing that all offered choices lead to the same outcome can make the player feel the choice they're given is 'worthless' or just an illusion.

Yes, but the player should have a form of imagination that would allow him to immerse himself into the fact that a certain companion is only hetero/******. kind of like "ignoring" the option so to speak

Modifié par ArtsyCookie, 01 janvier 2012 - 11:57 .

[tmp7704]

jlb524 wrote...

So is race/class/morality/appearance but they don't add in checks for that.  My question has been...why just gender?

I've answered your question in the very post you reply to. If you choose to ignore that part in favour of just repeating your question over and over it is no longer my concern.

The game could easily add in a system that discriminates based on looks in some way.   If you use a certain preset, the Morrigan romance is locked out...etc.

Like mentioned already, it's not something that can be done "easily" when the game allows customization that goes beyond presets. Like also mentioned yes, limiting the appearance customization to just preset(s) could address it, but it'd come at cost of limiting character customization to large degree. Which without doubt wouldn't be a popular move.

I've also seen plenty of women dating women.

Yes, and these women weren't heterosexual but either bisexual or gay. So their behaviour has little relevance to actions of character whose sexual orientation is set to be different.

Just because some women date unattractive men doesn't mean all women would.

Just because some women date women doesn't mean all women would.

And Morrigan isn't "all women". She's specific character who happens to be heterosexual. Which happens to answer your "how silly it is she'd date such ugly guy over my gorgeous female PC" question.

In contrast, Leliana is defined as bisexual and she'll date either "your gorgeous female PC" or the ugly male PC if that gorgeous female PC isn't available. Or a handsome male PC, or ugly female PC, for that matter.

In other words, i'm not sure what exactly is a problem here that warrants reposting that picture over and over -- the characters will date those who they view as eligible romance partners, based on their defined sexual orientation. Their individual sexual orientations happen to be different. That seems as simple as it gets.

[tmp7704]

ArtsyCookie wrote...

Yes, but the player should have a form of imagination that would allow him to immerse himself into the fact that a certain companion is only hetero/******. kind of like "ignoring" the option so to speak

I don't think immersion works like this -- i.e. it's not something that you can force yourself into, but rather an opposite; something that when broken can make the player (too) keenly aware this is just a meaningless make-believe with virtual puppets. "Ignoring" what you know isn't likely to work at this point because even if you actively ignore something, you remain aware that it is something you're ignoring.

[Momiji.mii]

Not really replying to anyone per se, but rather expanding on what I was touching upon in my previous post, here's what I'd like to add to the discussion.

I feel that some people may perhaps not completely understand the importance of represantation and wish fullfillment in roleplaying games. To phrase the problem with examples from recent Bioware games:

Let's say I'm a woman or a man intrested in the oposite sex in real life. I roleplay Dragon Age Origins and decide to hit on a companion that personally appeals to me. All is well and I'll probably experience a very fulfilling in-game romance. As a gay man or woman, there's a 50% risk that I'll be turned down. Straight players playing straight characters won't have that risk.

Let's instead say that I am a woman who's interested in women in real life, and roleplay, say, Mass Effect 2. I feel an attraction to Jack and decide to persue a relationship with her. Our conversation finally ends with her practically screaming at me that she's not into women anymore, and after that refusing to even speak with me. Perhaps I, the player, have been spurned before by women and the in-game conversation brings back those memories. Actually, nowhere in the game (except for a rather dull and colourless "relationship" with shipmate Kelly) can a gay player expect to experience a full romance catering to their interests and expectations. Male gay players don't even have a "Kelly" to turn to.

The way recent Bioware games are constructed, only in DA2 can all roleplayers actually expect to be able to experience all aspects of the emotional parts of the game on the same level as players in the majority. That's a wonderful, very rare thing and something that I wish gamers would value, if not for their own sake, then for their fellow players' sake. This is what the DA-team was trying to say with the way they constructed the romance paths, I think.

That's also why hearing people tearing this wonderful and progressive aspect of the game always fills me with sadness. I struggle to understand why some player put their personal preferations and immersion above other players (in some case desperate) need for representation and inclusion. If I'm a person who regularly experiences oppressive behaviour in real life, than I'd like more than anything to be able to escape that by playing a game where I'm for once accepted the way I am.

I know many players, gay as well as straight, want more acknowledment from NPC and companions about race, sexuality and gender, and that is also fine. I'd like that too. I'm hoping that this is something that the DA-team will look into when they work on new material for upcoming games. But I'm personally not looking for oppression linked to those aspects of me or the character I'm roleplaying (unless it's well written and preferrably tied into the story, like Hawke and privilage was explored in DA2 or elves and oppression has been explored in both DA games).

Modifié par Momiji.mii, 02 janvier 2012 - 12:39 .

[ArtsyCookie]

tmp7704 wrote...

ArtsyCookie wrote...

Yes, but the player should have a form of imagination that would allow him to immerse himself into the fact that a certain companion is only hetero/******. kind of like "ignoring" the option so to speak

I don't think immersion works like this -- i.e. it's not something that you can force yourself into, but rather an opposite; something that when broken can make the player (too) keenly aware this is just a meaningless make-believe with virtual puppets. "Ignoring" what you know isn't likely to work at this point because even if you actively ignore something, you remain aware that it is something you're ignoring.

Im well aware of the definition of immersion, but I think I mis-interpreted it. I was just trying to say that in an RPing experience, a person believes what he wants to believe about a character. although not very immersive.

For a more immersive experience wouldnt it be better to have some companions who are heterosexual while others being bi or homosexual? Although they would need to provide a good number of characters so that the player who decides his character is homosexual does not get stuck with only one or two choices.

[tmp7704]

Momiji.mii wrote...

I feel that some people may perhaps not completely understand the importance of represantation and wish fullfillment in roleplaying games. To phrase the problem with examples from recent Bioware games:

Let's say I'm a woman or a man intrested in the oposite sex in real life. I roleplay Dragon Age Origins and decide to hit on a companion that personally appeals to me. All is well and I'll probably experience a very fulfilling in-game romance. As a gay man or woman, there's a 50% risk that I'll be turned down. Straight players playing straight characters won't have that risk.

I think that's not as much not understanding the desire some may have for wish fullfillment, but rather having a different preference, for the kind of story where the wish fullfillment isn't the main force shaping the entire experience. One which makes the player part of a larger world instead of making it revolve fully about them.

At least that's why i personally rather dislike the fact players playing straight characters in DAO don't run into that risk of getting turned down, similarly how i dislike seeing it expanded even further in DA2. Although at least in DA2 there's Aveline.

(it's also why Leliana happens to be my favourite NPC in DA games so far -- because the way her scripting is bugged in DAO could lead to her acting like someone with own will, a person who'd ignore what the player told her in favour of what she personally "wanted")

This isn't to say that having preference for one of these ways to approach the subject is better than the other, just that it's what the split comes down to, imo. With no need to presume that if there's disagreement then it's because these who don't agree 'just don't get it'.

Modifié par tmp7704, 02 janvier 2012 - 12:58 .

[jlb524]

tmp7704 wrote...
I've answered your question in the very post you reply to. If you choose to ignore that part in favour of just repeating your question over and over it is no longer my concern.

You keep zeroing on gender.

tmp7704 wrote...
Like mentioned already, it's not something that can be done "easily" when the game allows customization that goes beyond presets. Like also mentioned yes, limiting the appearance customization to just preset(s) could address it, but it'd come at cost of limiting character customization to large degree. Which without doubt wouldn't be a popular move.

It still could be done and it's for the sake of having having LIs that have more input into whether there should be a romance or not....which is why we need gender restrictions, right?

As BW romances stand, the PC decides who they want to romance and the LI has no input...they go with it.  They are waiting there to be romanced by you the PC.

Limiting this system based on just gender seems like an unfair double-standard.  You aren't making the LIs anymore like 'real people who are reactive' to the PC (which is what In Exile ultimately wants with NPCs in general) all you are doing is limiting the homosexual PCs options to pick a romance from those available in game while heterosexuals are free to pick from any opposite sex LI that they want.  Only the PC's desires matter.

If you want more reactive LIs then that's another story and an argument for another thread.  However, I don't see BW changing how they do romances anytime soon b/c they know people like freedom for their PC to choose from whoever is available.  They've finally extended that same courtesy to a PC roleplayed as a homosexual.

tmp7704 wrote...
Yes, and these women weren't heterosexual but either bisexual or gay. So their behaviour has little relevance to actions of character whose sexual orientation is set to be different.

I'm not talking about having heterosexual female LIs that will still date the female PC...I'm talking about having bisexual female LIs.

tmp7704 wrote... 
And Morrigan isn't "all women". She's specific character who happens to be heterosexual. Which happens to answer your "how silly it is she'd date such ugly guy over my gorgeous female PC" question.

I'm arguing that she should have been bisexual.

tmp7704 wrote...  
In other words, i'm not sure what exactly is a problem here that warrants reposting that picture over and over -- the characters will date those who they view as eligible romance partners, based on their defined sexual orientation. Their individual sexual orientations happen to be different. That seems as simple as it gets.

And that's unfair to those roleplaying homosexual PCs considering they don't incorporate other 'realistic' preferences...because, as I've mentioned above...that's not how BW romances work.  It's a buffet and you can pick whichever one you want and it's quite easy to activate the romance.  The LIs themselves have no input into the romance...if the PC wants the LI, the PC gets the LI.   The LIs are unreactive...it's unrealistic, but that's how it works.  Again, adding in checks only for gender is a double-standard.

Modifié par jlb524, 02 janvier 2012 - 01:51 .

[Frek]

Not reading 20+ pages, just input on the OP's question.

I did not care for the way DA II handled romances. Here's the major problem. When I met Fenris and helped him get the mansion he then hit on me and the game showed me a choice of either hitting the "love" symbol or the "break heart" symbol. In my mind Fenris is gay. Then after I helped Anders the same thing happens.

Here's my problem, the way the game mechanics work in DA II that every single LI that is the same sex as you are will come off as gay.

So I ended up never using Fenris or Anders. DA II's problems run much deeper than this so I only did 1 playthrough, Had I have done a female playthrough I would have had the same problem.

So I disagree that making all LI's bi adds to the game and takes nothing away from others. That's not true, The way they implemented it makes every character of the same sex come off as gay as you have to click the "break heart" icon when they hit on you.

A very simple option at the beginning of the game could avoid this, that or find a better way to initiate the romances.

[SeanMurphy2]

I don't like them all being bisexual. I remember playing the game thinking how ridiculous it was. And how every future DA love interest is going to be bisexual (despite not even being created yet).

You don't have to make the characters so malleable. If Alistair is not interested in guys. You don't force him to romance guys just because people on the forums were complaining about it.

Likewise if Varric is not interested in a relationship with Hawke. Don't make him a romanceable character just because people on the forums are demanding it. You have to leave the characters with some backbone. Sometimes there is more value in leaving something unatainable. Rather than knowing you just have to press a few heart icons and you are in.


I also hated the dialogue wheel and tone icons. In DAO you had the nuances of choosing full sentences and conversation. But here it is like some sims game where you repeatedly press the heart icon to flirt.

[tmp7704]

jlb524 wrote...

You keep zeroing on gender.

Uh, yes because:

My question has been...why just gender?

So, obviously, an attempt to answer your question "why just gender?" is going to "zero on gender".

I think this just about hit my tolerance threshold so calling it quits.

[Zanallen]

tmp7704 wrote...

I think this just about hit my tolerance threshold so calling it quits.

But what do you think of my compromise on the previous page?

[Mark of the Dragon]

I think that making all the characters bi is a trait that should continue.

I mean its not fair that straight gamers got to choose who the want to romance but the others get stuck with one option. I think it adds to the game and lets others get the playthrough they want. I actually thin the way they handled Anders in DA2 would work great if they toned down his attitude some towards male Hawke. Some people got made when he made "a move" on them. However the way they changed weather he was straight or bi depending on sex made him open and I think added a bit.

The one thing I have to add is that while i'm ok with them continuing the trend I dont want it to affect the characters. I wasnt as attached to my DA2 characters as I was with the ones in DAO. I honestly think this had to do with the fact that I did not like the way the party interaction was handled in DA2 (something I hear they are adjusting for the next game). My point is like many people the companions really add to the story and while there sexuality doesnt bug me I dont want it to take away from the characters.

I would also be ok if Bioware did something like Mass Effect. You know, add three LI's for each sex and then make two of them for each sex bi and the other straight. That would cater to both groups and make things a bit more open I guess. Honestly though this stuff just isnt that huge a deal to me. I was honestly surprised (in a good way) when I found out that Branka was cheating with another female in Origins and that if you were male in DA2 Anders was gay. I think it adds to the characters and the story. I mean we arent suppose to like or agree with everything about a person or every choice they make so it really makes the game more believable for me.

In the end as long as the characters attitudes and personalities arent effected to much I say keep it. Power to the Player right? 

[Riffuel_Raffit]

I too think that the romances in general could be handled better - the LI´s shouldn´t ignore morality, decisions and gender of the PC, but I do think making romances open to both sexes is the right thing to do.
In short - I want more reactivity.

Like others wrote before, the PC always has free pick, regardless if s/he´s an ***hole or a goody two shoes, no matter what the beliefs and moral compass of the LI´s entail.
I´d like to see romances beeing affected (or cut off) depending on the PC´s actions and dialogue choices, maybe even race.
In that regard I think the Friend/Rival system is a step in the right direction.

Gender should be more acknowledged, it would be nice if the romances would play out differenty depending if you´re playing a man or a woman - this way it wouldn´t fell like gender doesn´t matter.
But I don´t see the point in simply reducing the romances to the PC´s sex - I don´t understand why people would want that.

Choice in RPG´s is a good thing, as long as it´s fleshed out enough to have impact.
There are a lot of ways to improve and better implement the romances, so why  focusing solely on restricting the gender, which would cut many people off the romances completely?

Modifié par Valaun, 02 janvier 2012 - 12:15 .

[Momiji.mii]

Mark of the Dragon wrote...

I would also be ok if Bioware did something like Mass Effect. You know, add three LI's for each sex and then make two of them for each sex bi and the other straight. That would cater to both groups and make things a bit more open I guess.

This depends on whether having more LI would still give the gamer a deep experience. I found the ME2 LI options mostly very shallow, and comparing them to eachother, fan favourites like Tali and Liara had a lot more dialogue, camerawork and longer cut scenes once Shep got together with them than, say, Jack or Thane. I'd rather keep the amount of LI the way it is, just like I think ME2 should have kept the amount of romancable companions to 3-4. Using the DA2 Friend/rival system makes the romance paths different enough for replay ability imo.

On another note, as others said here, I also wish there'd be more reactivity to the PC's gender, etc. But as I stressed before, putting restrictions into the game, like not being able to romance som characters because of gender, race or whatnot, is NOT the way to go. Instead, I think that the in-game dialogue between PC and LI, or perhaps even conversations with other companions could reflect this in different ways. Like in DAO, when Leliana commented on my male Warden hooking up with Zev, or in DA2 when Varric comments on Hawke's relationship. All these conversations were an enjoyable surprise for me, even Wynne's negative (and later positive) comments in DAO were great imo, because she came around and started rooting for me when she'd initially thought it a bad idea for my mage warden to hook up with Al.

So, in short, mixing negative and positive (and preferrably neutral comments as well) reactions from companion's and LI, but staying clear of oppression and keeping the game interaction inclusive to gamers, would be my preferred method of tweaking an already great system. And keeping the LI few but intense.

[whykikyouwhy]

Frek wrote...

Not reading 20+ pages, just input on the OP's question.

I did not care for the way DA II handled romances. Here's the major problem. When I met Fenris and helped him get the mansion he then hit on me and the game showed me a choice of either hitting the "love" symbol or the "break heart" symbol. In my mind Fenris is gay. Then after I helped Anders the same thing happens.

Here's my problem, the way the game mechanics work in DA II that every single LI that is the same sex as you are will come off as gay.

So I ended up never using Fenris or Anders. DA II's problems run much deeper than this so I only did 1 playthrough, Had I have done a female playthrough I would have had the same problem.

So I disagree that making all LI's bi adds to the game and takes nothing away from others. That's not true, The way they implemented it makes every character of the same sex come off as gay as you have to click the "break heart" icon when they hit on you.

A very simple option at the beginning of the game could avoid this, that or find a better way to initiate the romances.

I know you didn't delve into the bulk of the 20 pages, but someone commented earlier on Fenris and his potential flirty comment. If it's the same remark/scene, the comment is about Hawke's skill (in battle). Now yes, that could be a lead in, but I didn't find the remark itself to be overtly flirtatious. It's up to player interpretation to decide that it is. And as such, you get a heart icon - if you, the player, want your Hawke to take that comment to be flirty, you can then respond in kind and see where it goes. At that point, in a single playthrough, you don't know whether or not Fenris is gay or bi, or even remotely interested in a romance (other than the fact that he is listed as a romanceable character). You get the broken heart icon in that conversation because you can actually initiate a romance. So, you make one heart icon choice, then decide you don't want the romance - you can then choose the broken heart to stop the potential romance from going further.

The existence of a heart icon does not dictate the sexuality or proclivities of a companion. You'll see heart icons for Aveline during her main quest, but she will never be romancable. I don't recall there being a broken heart icon for her, but that may be due to the fact that she doesn't make a weighted comment in return - anything that could possibly be construed as a flirtation. She's pretty focused on what romance path she wants to pursue. But being able to flirt with her is not indicative of how she (Aveline) may define or regard herself. It's an option available for the player, for how you want to role-play that scene.

[deatharmonic]

tmp7704 wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

You keep zeroing on gender.

Uh, yes because:

My question has been...why just gender?

So, obviously, an attempt to answer your question "why just gender?" is going to "zero on gender".

I think this just about hit my tolerance threshold so calling it quits.

I solute you for carrying on as long as you did tmp. I genuinely believe jlb524 has a lack of theory of mind.

[nightscrawl]

tmp7704 wrote...

When it's a trait possibly affecting companion's behaviour rather than some random NPC's (and usually one you get opportunity to kill for it to boot) i can definitely see why devs could be hesitant about using it -- it's difficult enough to create interesting companions who are widely likable, even without saddling them with extra negative baggage.

It really depends on how developed and dynamic they want to make a character. Extra "negative baggage" can really be informative about a person's motivations -- two powerful examples from DA2 alone are Isabela and Fenris, and their romances not being fulfilled until everything is resolved (with their characters) in Act 3. However, unless it's a non-romancable NPC antagonist, I don't see them going for this either. While Bioware does do character development really well, they have said that these are not "relationship games," and that the overall plot needs to be the focus.

ArtisticOreo wrote...

How will having an "all bi LI" effect your immersion if you ar RPing as a heterosexual male/female. You simply do not click the heart dialogue.

Agree 100%.

jlb524 wrote...

I would imagine by adulthood most would have a set personality and set preferences for mates beyond orientation. Those don't change 'at the whim of the PC'.

Personality and opinions (note that I did not mention preferences here, so let's not turn this into a discussion about "switching sides") can change over time depending on a person's life experiences. Regarding racism, it's perfectly reasonable that someone might want to RP an elf-racist human noble, or a shem-racist dalish elf, who then has their opinion changed over time through the course of the story via interacting with persons of that race. It's a common story device, as well as something that can happen in real life.

jlb524 wrote...

The game doesn't have to define what is good/average/ugly just the LI...it's their preference. You may find your Warden beautiful and Zevran might agree with you but Alistair doesn't.

In order for the LI to have some sort of appearance preference it would have to be determined by the game in the first place. The LIs are a function of the game world. The game world is developed by humans, and every one of them will have their own standards, and all of those will be different from each player's. Something like this cannot be developed in an objective way in any capacity. What standards would they program into the game? Those of society? Which society? Different cultures around the world each have their own standards of attractiveness, and those will also have differed over time.

Also, these comparisons over a lesbian jumping a broodmother and turning down Alistair just because the broodmother is female are absurd. Just like a gay man jumping a genlock because it's male and refusing Leliana would be absurd. I think there might, possibly, maybe be other factors in those situations that would preclude that sort of preference. However, if you're going to insist on following through with the absurd comparison, then you must apply it to straight characters as well (Alistair: man that broodmother is hot, sorry maleWarden, you're icky.)

In addition, just because a person is gay doesn't mean they can't recognize beauty in someone of the opposite gender, it just might not be appealing to them in a sexual sense. And a person very well might pick attractiveness over preference if they are given a choice depending on how vain they are, straight or gay.

It's all extremely subjective.



@ Momiji.mii: nicely said.

[ScotGaymer]

@Frek.

Then you are plonker who wasnt paying attention.

Fenris NEVER hits on Hawke. Never, not without Hawke having done something to warrant it. So if he hit on ur male Hawke then its your idiot fault not Bioware's or the fault of the romances.

As for the Anders being flirty thing, thats in keeping with his character because he is an outrageous flirt. The male version of Isabela.

I dont see you complaining about Bela hitting on your Hawke unsolicited which leads me to think that you have a problem either with Gay/Bisexual people or are exceptionally insecure about your own sexuality that anyone remotely "gay" (which they arent they are both bisexual males) threatens and disturbs you.

As near as I can tell.

And the bit where you have to hit the love icons or break heart icon with Anders to knock him back, that only comes up in one specific situation that is COMPLETELY avoidable if you pay attention to more than just the dialogue icons; and I am pretty sure its actually an example of a bug not something thats WAD.

In "real life" you are going to encounter situations where you "being nice" is misconstrued as interest by someone you arent interested in and that ur going to have to gently let down. It happens "in real life" so why cant it happen in the DA universe? Why is suddenly "unrealistic" and a big problem?

I dont get it. And I dont agree with you at all. You arguement is invalid as far as I am concerned.

[nightscrawl]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

And the bit where you have to hit the love icons or break heart icon with Anders to knock him back, that only comes up in one specific situation that is COMPLETELY avoidable if you pay attention to more than just the dialogue icons; and I am pretty sure its actually an example of a bug not something thats WAD.

I can attest to this regarding Anders. I decided recently to make a maleHawke and go the full purple/sarcastic route simply because it would be new for me. If you don't respond to Anders with the diplomatic (green/blue) option in the post Tranquility scene, he does not flirt with you at all. In fact, with the dialogue choices, he never even explained his relationship with Karl to me, which I was surprised by, having played a male Hawke once before and seeing that exchange.

It should be noted that if you first respond with a nice comment to Anders, he flirts, you can then diffuse the situation by responding in a humorous way and not initiate a romance, just like you can in real life. You have a similar option when you give him the Tivinter Chantry Amulet gift and he remarks about kittens and virgins: you can openly flirt, make a nice comment that is regarded as interested by him, respond humorously which is neutral, or be an ass.

For Fenris, you can certainly go the 100% guy-pal friendship route without ever having hinted at a romance with him. The game gives you plenty of options.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 02 janvier 2012 - 03:07 .

[tmp7704]

Zanallen wrote...

But what do you think of my compromise on the previous page?

Oh; i kind of glanced over it... thinking quickly about it now, i'm not sure if it really changes things from the "everyone is bisexual" approach since, well, they are?   I.e. if someone hopes for experience/rp opportunity where their character simply gets turned down (as result of the NPC having different preferences) then this approach won't really provide it.

On the other hand, having some sort of quick/long romance paths depending on whether the PC matches the companion's tastes closely or not, it feels interesting. Would definitely prefer if the criteria for that extended to more than gender -- the approval/disapproval mechanics does something in that regard, but it's not quite the thing.

[tmp7704]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

In "real life" you are going to encounter situations where you "being nice" is misconstrued as interest by someone you arent interested in and that ur going to have to gently let down. It happens "in real life" so why cant it happen in the DA universe? Why is suddenly "unrealistic" and a big problem?

The main problem for me with that particular situation was there was no actual way to turn Anders down gently. That option was associated with a red icon, and delivered in the aggressive/forceful tone normally used for the red icons, making Hawke sound like a homophobic douche if you went for it. There was no blue tone equivalent -- the blue route was instead along the lines of "oh? do go on..."

Modifié par tmp7704, 02 janvier 2012 - 03:56 .

[LarryDavid]

jlb524 wrote...

The game could easily add in a system that discriminates based on looks in some way. If you use a certain preset, the Morrigan romance is locked out...etc.

It's a little strange that you keep going on and on about 'how unfair it is for people to complain about gender restrictions and not about ugliness recognition' whereas you answered the question already :

jlb524 wrote...
But gender is sooo important.

This is why all lesbians would sleep with some chick that looks like the brood mother over Alistair. Cuz, female!

jlb524 wrote...
If that's too difficult [game recognizing ugliness], adding in 'realistic' restrictions to romance in other areas isn't (race/class/morality/past decisions). But they don't do that for sake of having open options and no one seems to be up in arms over that.

As stated before (and 2 times ignored by you ), the difference with gender is that nobody is born with partner preferences regarding (race/class/morality/past decisions). It seems to me that people are not that happy with the game ignoring (r/c/m/p d) but as these preferences are a function of education, friends, life experiences, ... I guess people can imagine that, by means of high levels of exposure to their PC, LIs are able to overcome these preferences just for you.

jlb524 wrote...

LarryDavid wrote...
Basically, everybody is born with a set of characteristics like {race, sxual preferences, physical appearance, ...}. These characteristics are a part of who you are at each moment in time. So if we have someone with personality P1 -> something (possible awesome) happens -> you end up with personality P2; where P2 is a function of P1 (which includes your sxual preferences) and the thing that happend. Hence, you can not say that someone has personality P AND that his sxual preference is X, because they are intertwined. So, in my opinion making all LIs BI is a bad move as the range of possible personalities reduces dramatically.

I would imagine by adulthood most would have a set personality and set preferences for mates beyond orientation. Those don't change 'at the whim of the PC'.

Apologies if I have not expressed myself clearly; so here I go again

* Your personality is determined by the characteristics you are born with and the sequence of events leading up to now. If you would change the input, you end up with a different personality. This is not the place to talk biology, but changing the sxual preferences has a rather large effect, i.e. the biological mechanism behind sxual preferences does not restrict itself to sxual preferences. So, you can not decouple personality and sxual preferences because they are intertwined.

Now, you want all LIs to be BI but this means they ARE BI. When playing a male character, LIs do not turn straight or gay, they stay BI but respond to me being male. So your response to the fact that a lot of possible personalities are already excluded, as Bioware will not implement same gender only relationships, is demanding to exclude even a lot more. Well, this is not what I call enrichment.

* You are of course right when you state that personality does not change 'at the whim of the PC'. What I meant is that the PC can be an unimaginable exception regarding (r/c/m/p d). E.g. the opinion of Sten about women being warriors does not change. But, when playing a female character, Sten accept you being a warrior at the end because you are exceptional skilled.