922 réponses à ce sujet

[Nejeli]

KylieDog wrote...

Bioware are the ones who will not add gay LIs, I already said twice complain to them about that, if they will not add gay LIs then a mix of straight and Bi LIs is the next best option to please as many groups as possible.  As was shown.

You seem to want to completely ignore straights who want straight LIs and gays who want gay LIs as existing to suit your argument and claim Bi gives more options, it doesn't.   It isn't just and issue of "their LI might *gasp shock and horror!* romance a s/s LI in another game" like you try and put it, because the character is always Bi, even if in your game they act upon opposite sex only.  Zevran is Bi whether he sleeps with a male or female Warden, he is isn't straight or gay for one playthrough.

Origins system was the way to go, though an increase in LI numbers would be welcomed.

If BW can't, or won't, add gay LIs then the way they handled it in DA2 is the best way to please the majority of people, imo, because anyone can romance whoever they want. No one is stuck with, maybe, one LI and if they don't like that LI then they're screwed. Let me use Merrill as an example. Say she were the designated bi LI. Now, I love Merrill but I can't see myself ever romancing her. She's cute and adorable and naive and sheltered, and I can't help going the 'protective older sibling Hawke who really just wishes she'd see what she was doing' route with her. If I decided to play a lesbian Hawke and she was my only option, I'd be incredibly disappointed. Not to mention, if they'd went with the DA:O system, most of my dialogue with her would have likely revolved around romancing her. I couldn't have even just friended her. So not only would I have been out a romance, I would have been cut off from much of my interaction with her. As it is I'm still out a romance, but I don't mind because not only do I have other options, but I can still have a relationship with her.

There are only two characters in DA2 that have real in game support for being bisexual - Isabela and Anders. The other two only show interest in Hawke (though I hear that Fenris gets in a thing with Isabela if you don't romance either, but I haven't gotten that yet so I can't be sure.) There's absolutely no reason you can't play Fenris and Merrill as straight. In fact, even Anders only shows interest in Hawke and if you play a male Hawke then outside of a short banter with Isabela you might not even get, the only reason you'd know he liked women too was if you had knowledge of Awakening. Similar with a female Hawke, if you never played a male Hawke then you'd never get his confession about being in a relationship with Karl and the subsequent conversation. If he says it for one gender and not another does that it make it canon? (For me it does, but other players? Maybe not so much.) Couldn't someone playing a female Hawke play Anders as straight?

hawat333 wrote...

The All Bisexual approach simply does
not work for all the characters. Some are just meant to be straight.
There are certain characteristic that come with sexual interest, and
they don't fit.

Like what?

[Ryzaki]

tmp7704 wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

Is it the feeling of exclusivity?
Is it insecurity?
Or is it distaste or just plain disgust?

I just want to understand peoples' reasons for their opinions.

Desire for variety. There's no question why people could prefer their companions to be more mixed bunch than just say, white dark-haired human males with "lawful good" view of the world. This simply extends to sexual orientation.

edit: to clarify, variety in the sense of wider range of resulting interactions, and exposition to more diverse views and experiences.

My issue with this is that many of these people don't speak out when there's nothing but straight LIs though.

If they truly desire variety why not plea for anything more than straight (and the two token bi LIs?).

Just rings hollow to me.

[Kmead15]

Nurot wrote...
To those that claim that it is unrealistic for Hawke to have four bi companions I would like to say: not really. If you know statistics you will also know that if 1 in 10 people are bisexual (totally made up number, I do not know the real number), this doesn’t mean that only every tenth person you meet is bisexual. Subpopulations in a population are generally not evenly distributed. This is why a very large sample is needed (at least a thousand, preferably more) to get a correct statistical value. On top of that, your sample needs to be representative of the population you are studying, like the correct distribution of gender and age (Which Hawkes group is not.). This is why you cannot really say that four bisexuals in a group of six are unrealistic. Statistical values apply to large groups, not small samples like Hawkes companions. And it is reasonable to believe that certain types of people are drawn to Hawke (probably not cowards as an example). This was probably very boring to read and I probably convinced no one, but there it is.

Actually, there are some statistics you can do on small groups. For instance, binomial statistics can be used when there are two possible outcomes to an experiment (true/false, heads/tails, male/female, bi/not-bi, you get the picture). I'm not going to get into the complexities, but this sort of test measures the likelihood of a certain number of trials producing a certain a certain number of successes, given that you know the likelihood of success for any one trial. For instance, if you flip a fair coin 5 times, the likelihood of getting exactly 4 heads is 15.6% and the likelihood of getting 4 or more heads is 18.8%.

However, we'd have to decide what exactly to declare our trials if we used this method. If you just use the companions in the base game that Hawke can romance, then 4 out of 4 trials were successful. However, if your sample set is all the companions that aren't related to him, then it's only 4 of 6. If we really felt like abusing statistics, we could do the number of bi companions out of the 9 companions total, but then I'd have to cry myself to sleep at night. Personally, I'd choose the number of bisexual companions out of the number of companions Hawke can romance at all which gives us 4 successes out of 5 companions.

You are right that the distribution of bisexuals is unlikely to be evenly distributed among the population, though I can't think of anything that would cause Hawke to have a greater than average concentration around him. The biggest issue with using this approach is that we don't know the proportion of bisexuals in Kirkwall, which makes getting an exact number impossible. However, you still can use the test to show that if you start out thinking the chances of any of Hawke's companion being a bisexual is somewhat unlikely, then it is fairly understandable to think that all four of the companions with in-depth romances being bisexual is very unlikely.

Honestly though, likelihood has never been an issue for me with the all-bi romances. I'd just like to see choosier companions.

[tmp7704]

Blacklash93 wrote...

There are certain characteristic that come with sexual interest.

No.

I'd say it's a "yes" actually, unless i'm misreading the argument -- it's common to behave differently around people who are perceived as desirable sexual partners and those who aren't. Common to the point where you have these generalizations/stereotypes how "only a gay man can be really woman's friend" (and its mirror equivalent)

For a character with sexual interest there's always going to be question it that interest isn't driving or contributing to the interaction. So they'll be perceived different than characters who lack this potential motive.

[tmp7704]

Ryzaki wrote...

My issue with this is that many of these people don't speak out when there's nothing but straight LIs though.

If they truly desire variety why not plea for anything more than straight (and the two token bi LIs?).

Just rings hollow to me.

Speaking purely for myself, i don't really start "plea threads", period.

If the subject is brought up i may contribute. Like, in this very thread, i've said i'd prefer to see all orientations covered.

[Ryzaki]

tmp7704 wrote...
Speaking purely for myself, i don't really start "plea threads", period.

If the subject is brought up i may contribute. Like, in this very thread, i've said i'd prefer to see all orientations covered.

I'm not even speaking of starting a thread merely contributing support.

Thus why I don't really buy the "variety of sexualities." being the majorities reasoning. I know there's some like you who actually want that but for most I just see it as an excuse. As long as they have their exclusive straight LIs they could care less about "variety." 

[DarkAmaranth1966]

Fenris also mentions it when speaking of his time with the Qunari rebels "They were free with thier affections" Knowing Qunari fighters are all male, and that they fought tells us Fenris shared affections with them. Isabell, well that's just her she is alabout action and not emotion so gender should not matter to her. I see it as cannon for Anders to be bi as well. Merill, Varric, Avaline and Sebastian I play as straight. I generally play male Hawkes, a rogue as bi, a warrior as straight and a mage as gay or bi.

[Sylvianus]

Well, From there, it's pure speculation, and no one can defend itself against this kind of testimony. based on your doubts. The arguments are the only value in this topic, based on something concrete. And no fears.

Yes, there are people who want their straight li and said so. ( i am not sure what's wrong with that, there are also gay people who want gay people, and some other who hope that  but fear that they have less Li )

And then it does not invalidate what other who think differently are saying  and who rather prefer something else too.

There are 25 pages in this topic that has demonstrated a diversity of opinion, and more than 580 posts. I read this topic, and I don't know how we can simply say " most just want their straight LI "  an opinion i assume that you had " before " reading this topic.

I read the opinions, and some people were able to fully express themselves and say no to this system, frankly, developing their point. I do not see why they would lie. Again, I fail to see how this kind of talk can bring something to the debate and can valid any point.

There are many views.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 04 janvier 2012 - 02:33 .

[Ryzaki]

I had that opinion from before DAO came out. It maybe wrong but again it's just the interpretation I've gotten to after seeing many threads on the subject.

And no it doesn't invalidate their desires never said it did. All I said is that it made me not really give a damn about their desires. The only option they're being denied is an exclusive option. To me that's not a big deal. We all have to make compromises. I have yet to have a white knight s/s male and I deal with it.

Until the day BW can give everyone the same amount of exclusive options I'd rather no one had exclusive options at all. That's just my view.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 04 janvier 2012 - 02:45 .

[Blacklash93]

tmp7704 wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

There are certain characteristic that come with sexual interest.

No.

I'd say it's a "yes" actually, unless i'm misreading the argument -- it's common to behave differently around people who are perceived as desirable sexual partners and those who aren't. Common to the point where you have these generalizations/stereotypes how "only a gay man can be really woman's friend" (and its mirror equivalent)

For a character with sexual interest there's always going to be question it that interest isn't driving or contributing to the interaction. So they'll be perceived different than characters who lack this potential motive.

I read it as "People of certain orientations are bound to have or not have particular characteristics becuase of their orientation".

And Ryzaki pretty much summed up what I think of the "Variety" argument. People only care about variety when it gets them what they want. Not many people care for the sake of it. The gay community was no different when it argued for S/S romances in the first place.

At this point I just want the devs to do what they want to do. They did so for both DA:O and DA2. BSN can try to sway them either way and I'll have no issue with the outcome as long as the devs feel comfortable and feel right with what they end up doing.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 04 janvier 2012 - 02:56 .

[Sylvianus]

Ryzaki wrote...

I had that opinion from before DAO came out. It maybe wrong but again it's just the interpretation I've gotten to after seeing many threads on the subject. 

I wasn't there when DAO was released. What happened ?

[Nejeli]

DarkAmaranth1966 wrote...

Fenris also mentions it when speaking of his time with the Qunari rebels "They were free with thier affections" Knowing Qunari fighters are all male, and that they fought tells us Fenris shared affections with them.

This makes no sense. Even if the Fog Warriors were all affectionate, male Qunari (and I thought it was a mixed group and, while I could be remembering wrong, the Wiki says that they were a rebel group trying to remove themselves from both Qunari and Imperium rule. The Qunari weren't under Imperium rule, which suggests that they had non-Qunari members) that doesn't mean Fenris shared anything with them,  and there's nothing to suggest the "affections" they showed were exclusively sexual. Considering Fenris' life up to that point even simple signs of affection - hugs, kissing, even friendly comradery  - done casually could have been an eye-opener.

Fenris also mentioned that touching his scars was uncomfortable for him, but he was willing to take a chance on Hawke because maybe it would be different with him. The impression I got from Fenris was that he didn't have a lot of experience with people getting close and personal outside of maybe what Danarius did to him or might have let others do to him. Other people could certainly have gotten a different impression, but the comment about the Fog Warriors in no way confirms Fenris as bisexual.

[Ryzaki]

Sylvianus wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

I had that opinion from before DAO came out. It maybe wrong but again it's just the interpretation I've gotten to after seeing many threads on the subject. 

I wasn't there when DAO was released. What happened ?

The typical "Oh he's not bi he's straight blah blah blah blah." 

I remember being bummed that Alistair wasn't the bi option. That bummed out feeling only worsened when I played the actual game.

Heck there was even debate about whether there would be a bi option at first.

@Blacklash: Yup. Most only care when it directly relates to them.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 04 janvier 2012 - 03:07 .

[Plaintiff]

Ryzaki wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

I had that opinion from before DAO came out. It maybe wrong but again it's just the interpretation I've gotten to after seeing many threads on the subject. 

I wasn't there when DAO was released. What happened ?

The typical "Oh he's not bi he's straight blah blah blah blah." 

I remember being bummed that Alistair wasn't the bi option. That bummed out feeling only worsened when I played the actual game.

Heck there was even debate about whether there would be a bi option at first.

@Blacklash: Yup. Most only care when it directly relates to them.

Alistair is the gayest straight guy I've ever met.

I too was disappointed. I wanted to marry him and become joint gay-kings of Ferelden. We would adopt our heirs from an impoverished nation, Madonna-style. 

[Blacklash93]

If the DA team does go back to the old way I'd like them to change how the S/S characters are expendable, secondary companions.

Alistair and Morrigan were essential to the plot, were introduced first, and you absolutely had to have them in the party at one point for the story to move forward.

Leliana and Zevran, on the other hand, were found later in the story, didn't even need to be recruited, and could be killed in multiple scenarios during the story. Hell, you could get rid of them anytime you wanted at the party camp via dialogue.

I'm sure Isabela and Fenris would have been the S/S options if the dev team didn't go for the open romances. The same would have applied to them.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 04 janvier 2012 - 03:18 .

[Sylvianus]

Ryzaki wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

I had that opinion from before DAO came out. It maybe wrong but again it's just the interpretation I've gotten to after seeing many threads on the subject. 

I wasn't there when DAO was released. What happened ?

The typical "Oh he's not bi he's straight blah blah blah blah." 

I remember being bummed that Alistair wasn't the bi option. That bummed out feeling only worsened when I played the actual game.

Heck there was even debate about whether there would be a bi option at first.

Okay now I understand a little better.

[Ryzaki]

Blacklash93 wrote...

If the DA team does go back to the old way I'd like them to change how the S/S characters are expendable, secondary companions.

Alistair and Morrigan were essential to the plot, were introduced first, and you absolutely had to have them in the party at one point for the story to move forward. Leliana and Zevran, on the other hand, were found later in the story, didn't even need to be recruited, and could be killed in multiple scenarios during the story.

I'm sure Isabela and Fenris would have been the S/S options if the dev team didn't go for the open romances. The same would have applied to them.

Agreed hard. I'd prefer that if any LI is essential to the plot they be bi options. Let the straight options be the expendable non essential characters. (if there is no more all bi)

@Plantiff:  I wanted him to dump my male for being a dude and unable to give him babies. Would've added a nice sucker punch to that scene.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 04 janvier 2012 - 03:19 .

[Blacklash93]

Ryzaki wrote...
Agreed hard. I'd prefer that if any LI is essential to the plot they be bi options. Let the straight options be the expendable non essential characters. (if there is no more all bi)

Plus the elf is always the secondary male LI (so far), as that's what we got for Origins and would have gotten for DA2 if things didn't pan out the way they did. And we all know it's not gay if it's an elf.

Seriously though, it's not that I mind elves. I just want the devs to prevent themselves from falling into these trappings and patterns (in all aspects of their games). I do prefer humans, just for the record.

Also, just so everyone knows, I edit like crazy. Please bear with me.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 04 janvier 2012 - 03:38 .

[Abispa]

One of the reasons I LOVE the "bi" or "hero-sexual" LIs is that they allow the player to choose the LI they want based on their own head-canon. If you think that Alistair is the perfect gay lover, take him and your male hero on a magic carpet ride. If you like him as a straight lover, make yourself a female hero and go for it. If evil, twisted Morrigan is your thing, there you go. The writer is relieved of having to make a character "gay" or "straight" enough.

I would prefer, for the most part, that the LIs are "hero-sexual" and not "bi," unless the writers feel it necessary to make a character "bi," "straight," or "gay" (like they did with Sebastian). That way a player can head-canon a "gay" or "straight" lover if possible. The only problem would be with people who get their panties in a bunch because they see a flirt option THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO CHOOSE when talking to a character of the same gender.

I also LOVE the idea of being able to flirt with anyone and actually being shot down or brushed off.

This is an RPG video game, and the game's focus should be on action and exploration, not creating some uber-realistic dating sim with a dozen "deep and meaningful" lovers to choose from. LIs are an accessory to be used to customize our heroes, even my favorite Ashley.

[Ryzaki]

Abispa wrote...

One of the reasons I LOVE the "bi" or "hero-sexual" LIs is that they allow the player to choose the LI they want based on their own head-canon. If you think that Alistair is the perfect gay lover, take him and your male hero on a magic carpet ride. If you like him as a straight lover, make yourself a female hero and go for it. If evil, twisted Morrigan is your thing, there you go. The writer is relieved of having to make a character "gay" or "straight" enough.

I would prefer, for the most part, that the LIs are "hero-sexual" and not "bi," unless the writers feel it necessary to make a character "bi," "straight," or "gay" (like they did with Sebastian). That way a player can head-canon a "gay" or "straight" lover if possible. The only problem would be with people who get their panties in a bunch because they see a flirt option THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO CHOOSE when talking to a character of the same gender.

I also LOVE the idea of being able to flirt with anyone and actually being shot down or brushed off.

This is an RPG video game, and the game's focus should be on action and exploration, not creating some uber-realistic dating sim with a dozen "deep and meaningful" lovers to choose from. LIs are an accessory to be used to customize our heroes, even my favorite Ashley.

Agreed.

Blacklash93 wrote...
Plus the elf is always the
secondary male LI (so far), as that's what we got for Origins and would
have gotten for DA2 if things didn't pan out the way they did. And we
all know it's not gay if it's an elf.

Seriously, though, devs. If you go back to the old way... Humanz plz.

[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/lol.png[/smilie]

I don't mind elves. I just want people who move the plot along (and really I really want a good guy s/s option).

[Sylvianus]

if this is an rpg game and the game's focus should be on action and exploration, so I don't see what's your problem with what Bioware could decide, whatever what you want in this area.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 04 janvier 2012 - 03:35 .

[Plaintiff]

Sylvianus wrote...

if this is an rpg game and the game's focus should be on action and exploration, so I don't see what's your problem with what Bioware could decide, whatever what you want in this area.

"Exploration" includes exploring relationships with characters. Who says the term has to be strictly limited to dungeon-crawling?

[Sylvianus]

Plaintiff wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

if this is an rpg game and the game's focus should be on action and exploration, so I don't see what's your problem with what Bioware could decide, whatever what you want in this area.

"Exploration" includes exploring relationships with characters. Who says the term has to be strictly limited to dungeon-crawling?

Who said the term has to be strictly limited to dungeon-crawling ? You assumed that yourself. If it is about action and explore relationships, what's wrong with whatever could decide bioware about this area ? that's still respected.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 04 janvier 2012 - 03:41 .

[Abispa]

Sylvianus wrote...

if this is an rpg game and the game's focus should be on action and exploration, so I don't see what's your problem with what Bioware could decide, whatever what you want in this area.

The main writers for DA implemented the "all bi" LIs, even though Sebastian was straight, and the ME writers have said they will probably be more supportive of s/s options in future post-Shepard ME games. If there aren't a large number of s/s options in ME3 it will probably be due to limited resources being spent on character who could be dead, not any desired to limit the option.

I expressed what I desire to see in the game. Although I may point out the hypocricy I've read in some s/s critics' comments, I have NEVER said that Bioware MUST write games in a way to maintain MY immersion. If they make games I like, I'll buy them. If they don't, I'll move on. Hell, I have no idea what number Final Fantasy is on now and I used to LOVE those games. But I won't waste my time wailing about how Bioware betrayed me if they do something I don't like.

[Blacklash93]

Sylvianus wrote...
 If it is about action and explore relationships, what's wrong with whatever could decide bioware about this area ? that's still respected.

Sadly, people will always complain.

If they don't go the all-bi route, people will claim it was because of Bioware caving in to the bigots.

If they do, it's because we didn't do our monthly virgin-offering to the great and terrible "political correctness".