922 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

motomotogirl wrote...

I love it and would be furious if DA3 returned to having straight-only LI options. Also, I don't really mind when a same-sex person hits on me OR my PC because I am not a gigantic homophobe.

No kidding.  A lot of women, both straight and gay, hate it when guys presume to hit on them, bu I've never in my life heard any woman say, "I got nothing against straight men but I hate it when they hit on me."  There's a reason why it's only ever men who say "I'm all for gay rights but I don't want any gays hitting on me," and it is precisely because yes, those men are homophobes, whether they admit it or not.

It's rather like saying "I don't hate X , but..."  That but right there tends to negate whatever get-out-of-homophobia free cliche you were trying to use.

[bleetman]

Oh Christ, not this crap again.

There are bisexuals. Get over it.

[coldwetn0se]

I will repost something I wrote in another thread a few days ago, regarding this very subject matter:

I know this has been said before (probably many times  ), but  I have never seen the LI's in DA2 as bisexual, but Hawke or PC sexual.  This is a roleplaying game, and as such, I simple use my imagination involving the relationships with both companions (LI or not), and NPC's.  If my female Hawke is straight, gets together with Fenris, then I RP it as Fenris is straight.  If my M!Hawke is gay and gets together with Fenris, then for that story, Fenris is gay.  I even have a M!Hawke who is most definately Bi, who ends up with Isabela; like two peas in a pod, HA!  Point is, by not limiting the LI's based on gender preferences, you open up a lot of RP possibilities while keeping cost in design and story from potentially getting out of hand.  It has been said, this is not like the real world.  However, we can use our imaginations to make it fit with how we view this world, and how we bring in our own life experiences from the RW to the characters we create and play as. 

Of course, I have no problem with the way LI's were handled in DAO, and if they returned to that, I would "make it work".   

p.s. And for the record, the admittedly few references to the PC's gender, when involved in a relationship with one of the companion, may be few and far between, but there is enough there and my imagination has no problem with filling in the rest.

[Lenimph]

How about they mix it up and just make everyone gay instead of bi?

I might cry later if they make the perfect man later but whatevs I can live without peen.

[jlb524]

Maybe I'l explain how I feel with an example of sorts.

Ideally, when I romance Leliana I want the dialog to pertain to my individual Warden (and not just gender...but her race/class/background/decisions/morality/appearance).   Oh here's a good example about appearance:   if I'm playing a bald Warden Leliana still tells her that she really likes the way she wears her hair 

Okay, I see this is the ideal.  But many other people want to romance Leliana too (damn them!) with all kinds of Wardens that differ from mine (some are male, some are elves, some aren't mages, some are perfect goody goodys).

They could create separate content for all possible Warden combinations but that's a lot of work.

So they make the romance content in game generic.   

One way to fix that is to come up with the 'ideal Warden' for romancing Leliana (a pragmatic female human Circle mage of course b/c that's my Warden!) and if you don't fit that...too bad.  This would make for a better Leliana romance by far...you just have to play a Warden you probably won't like much or identify with.  To do the romance, you have to romance her with 'a character that fits the romance as determined by the devs' and not 'your character'.

BW romances have always been more generic than limited but 'rich'.

These examples are kind of the extremes, but where do you draw the line?  Is it okay to take gender into account but not race?  Is it okay to take race into account but not appearance?

I personally prefer the 'more generic/more options' route as I am an active roleplayer and add in 'my PC specific' content in my headcanon.  I'm okay with the in-game dialog being generic because my Leliana romance is more than just what's in game..it's also what I roleplay it and head-canon it as.

Therefore, my Leliana romance with my female human mage feels totally different to me than my Leliana romance with my female City Elf even though the in-game dialog is practically the same.  

[Gunderic]

LiquidGrape wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Well, is it any different from the player establishing the characters preferences and personality by romancing them with a race/class/morality that doesn't 'make sense'?

Apples and oranges. It's a different matter and depends more on how the devs handle writing and interactions during the game. It can work or not, but charachters will still have a defined personality and a sexuality like every literary charachter in the history of fiction. A charachter can change opinions or fall in love with an unlikely person (Romeo and Juliet anyone?). It's a formal problem.

Instead if every possible LI is bisexual as a rule, they all loose a significant part of their personality and they become a paper thin writing joke just for gamey sakes. And that's a matter of substance. It's a general problem of DA2: gamey features taking over the story context.

Wait, I might be interpreting this entirely the wrong way, but are you seriously purporting that "every literary charachter in the history of fiction" has had a defined sexuality?
Even the deliberately ambiguous ones?

LI in dragon age 2 do not have any ambiguous preferences to begin with. any sexual ambiguity they would have is never put forward and I really doubt BioWare has the capability to successfully reproduce ambiguity for each_and_every_one of your LI in the same game unless there's a subplot deliberately interwoven to cover that subject.

since at least one of the ideas driving this decision is probably to reduce cost it would probably be contradictory however.

[Gunderic]

jlb524 wrote...

Maybe I'l explain how I feel with an example of sorts.

Ideally, when I romance Leliana I want the dialog to pertain to my individual Warden (and not just gender...but her race/class/background/decisions/morality/appearance).   Oh here's a good example about appearance:   if I'm playing a bald Warden Leliana still tells her that she really likes the way she wears her hair 

Okay, I see this is the ideal.  But many other people want to romance Leliana too (damn them!) with all kinds of Wardens that differ from mine (some are male, some are elves, some aren't mages, some are perfect goody goodys).

They could create separate content for all possible Warden combinations but that's a lot of work.

So they make the romance content in game generic.   

One way to fix that is to come up with the 'ideal Warden' for romancing Leliana (a pragmatic female human Circle mage of course b/c that's my Warden!) and if you don't fit that...too bad.  This would make for a better Leliana romance by far...you just have to play a Warden you probably won't like much or identify with.  To do the romance, you have to romance her with 'a character that fits the romance as determined by the devs' and not 'your character'.

BW romances have always been more generic than limited but 'rich'.

These examples are kind of the extremes, but where do you draw the line?  Is it okay to take gender into account but not race?  Is it okay to take race into account but not appearance?

I personally prefer the 'more generic/more options' route as I am an active roleplayer and add in 'my PC specific' content in my headcanon.  I'm okay with the in-game dialog being generic because my Leliana romance is more than just what's in game..it's also what I roleplay it and head-canon it as.

Therefore, my Leliana romance with my female human mage feels totally different to me than my Leliana romance with my female City Elf even though the in-game dialog is practically the same.  

restricting romances more in general would be a good idea. as it stands now every romance can be attained by simply messing with the affection rating.

I like the idea of how in Baldur's Gate 2 no one would go with a dwarf for example (as far as I know).

Modifié par Gunderic, 29 décembre 2011 - 09:33 .

[jlb524]

Brockololly wrote...
They absolutely can be and for many of my Wardens were. I'm saying that its occasionally nice to have an NPC stand up to the PC and firmly say "No." I wanted one of my Shepard's to romance Samara and she shoots him down. That was surprising and I kind of respected her for that. It made for a different experience and made her a more interesting character for it.

That seems like a separate issue from this, though.

There will always be a set of LIs (in DA it's typically 4 people) and there are those that fall outside of that set that aren't romanceable by any PC (Aveline, Varric, Samara, etc.).  Sometimes they allow you to even approach them and get rejected.  That's cool.

The question is, within that set of LIs...should there be restrictions on what PC can romance them?  

Brockololly wrote... 
While Morrigan and Alistair don't explicitly shoot down same sex romances (cause I don't believe you're given the dialogue to try and initiate one), given their characters, its nice to have some characters limited to non romance roles due to who they are.

Wynne, Oghren, Aveline, Varric, Sten, etc. were limited to non romance roles.

I don't really see Morrigan and Alistair as being limited based on who they are...all I have to do is roll the right gender and I can very easily romance either of them.

Brockololly wrote... 
Yes, I get it, you're pulling the privelege card and putting words in my mouth. No, what I'm saying is that BioWare should step up and have actual homosexual and bisexual and heterosexual characters in their games, like New Vegas.

Gaider said they won't do it out of resource considerations.

Brockololly wrote...  
With corresponding romances that actually present genuinely unique content that makes the most of having defined characters. Instead of having romances like DA2, they should be more like Morrigan and Alistair's in DAO where you had the potential for unique possibilities with them in a romance based on how they were defined characters.

Was the Morrigan romance unique to a dwarf vs. a human vs. an elf vs. a Circle mage?

Modifié par jlb524, 29 décembre 2011 - 09:34 .

[FedericoV]

LiquidGrape wrote...

Wait, I might be interpreting this entirely the wrong way, but are you seriously purporting that "every literary charachter in the history of fiction" has had a defined sexuality?
Even the deliberately ambiguous ones?

Golly.

Yes I am and it's a pretty simple statement: just as simple as to find some biased individual who can misread your opinion. A fictional charachter has a personality. Even ambiguoous and mysterious one. They do not change based on the sex or preferences of the reader/audience/etc. The personality of a charachter (even mysterious/ambiguous ones) serves a role in the story. It does not exist simply to give satisfaction to the reader/audience/etc.

Either way, considering Sebastian was a heterosexual love interest, I don't see any kind of rule enforcing some strict policy in the case of the four bisexual romances in DA2. I simply see four characters in possession of very different attributes and qualities (diegetic and non-diegetic alike) like I see in any other piece of fiction I've encountered. They just happen to be bisexual.

Well, it was hard (even for Bioware) to make a bigot bisexual but given time they can make it. Honestly, DA2 has the worst romance NPCs of any Bioware game to date. The most interesting and strong charachters in the game are the ones who were not defined by their LI status (Aveline and Varric). The rest are forgettable and for sure they will not make the history of gaming.

Having said that, I could agree with you if one charachter was bisexual like DA:O. But when 4 charachters out of 5 LI are bisexual is clear that gamey/market reason have taken over the context of a plausible fiction. As a result, the fiction in question sucks and it's not interesting (I cared more about my horse in Shadow of the Colossus than my LI in DA2).

- If anyone is enforing any kind of rule here it is you and your assertion that they are invariably reduced to "a paper thin writing joke" without motivating that perception more in-depth.

Don't play that card. I'm not enforcing any rule. I'm stating my opinion and supporting it with arguments.

[Gunderic]

jlb524 wrote...
Was the Morrigan romance unique to a dwarf vs. a human vs. an elf vs. a Circle mage?

Should've been (to some extent, at least).

gender is a bigger change than pointy ears and being short however.

[jlb524]

Gunderic wrote...
Should've been (to some extent, at least).

Right, but I don't see dozens of threads complaining that the DA:O romances sucked because race wasn't taken into account and they felt generic.

Gunderic wrote... 
gender is a bigger change than pointy ears and being short however.

Not necessarily.

[FedericoV]

jlb524 wrote...

FedericoV wrote...
Apples and oranges. It's a different matter and depends more on how the devs handle writing and interactions during the game. It can work or not, but charachters will still have a defined personality and a sexuality like every literary charachter in the history of fiction. A charachter can change opinions or fall in love with an unlikely person (Romeo and Juliet anyone?). It's a formal problem.

Or not...

I'm a lesbian but that doesn't mean I could possibly love any woman that would approach me if they just say the right things.

Sorry, I do not understand your reply. Can you elaborate a little more? But if I have understand your position (real life aside) it still seems to me a formal problem (how the games handles interactions/reactions with NPCs mechanically) and not a substantial one.

Modifié par FedericoV, 29 décembre 2011 - 09:47 .

[Lenimph]

jlb524 wrote...

Gunderic wrote... 
gender is a bigger change than pointy ears and being short however.

Not necessarily.

I would 5 million times over "go gay" then date a male dwarf. (Excluding Varric because he doesn't have a gross beard/ retarded jaw line)

Race is the biggest deal to me. Take the Mass Effect games for example.  I WOULD NEVER have my Shepard touch Garrus or Thane with a 10 foot pole. NEVER. 

[Zjarcal]

Gunderic wrote...

gender is a bigger change than pointy ears and being short however.

:lol:

[ObserverStatus]

: /

[FedericoV]

Blacklash93 wrote...

FedericoV wrote...
Instead if every possible LI is bisexual as a rule, they all loose a significant part of their personality and they become a paper thin writing joke just for gamey sakes. And that's a matter of substance. It's a general problem of DA2: gamey features taking over story's context.

I'm not in favor of this implementation of romance, but I don't believe characters become "a paper thin writing joke" because of it. Sexuality is a core part of who we are, but it's not like it comes up at every corner during an epic quest to save the world (save for the main character's romance plot).

There's much more to a character than that. All of it much more interesting, too.

Oh, I agree. But that's Bioware's problem: they are relying too much on romances for their storytelling to the point where their games are played just for them by many players (wich is sad and funny at the same time) and as a result the sexuality of their NPCs has become a central issue. I would love Bioware to give just the "right" importance to romances (best examples: Kotor and Jade Empire).

[AlexXIV]

Lenimph wrote...

How about they mix it up and just make everyone gay instead of bi?

I might cry later if they make the perfect man later but whatevs I can live without peen.

Lol. Best. Idea. Ever.

[LiquidGrape]

FedericoV wrote... 
Yes I am and it's a pretty simple statement: just as simple as to find some biased individual who can misread your opinion. A fictional charachter has a personality. Even ambiguoous and mysterious one. They do not change based on the sex or preferences of the reader/audience/etc. The personality of a charachter (even mysterious/ambiguous ones) serves a role in the story. It does not exist simply to give satisfaction to the reader/audience/etc. 

 

First of all I'd like to make a distinction between sexuality and personality. They are separate (if not completely void of interrelation) aspects of an individual, after all. That aside, what I balked at was the implied notion that *all* characters in *all* fiction have had a defined sexuality. As in, clearly stated and without any measure of ambiguity. A character who goes from projecting a predominantly heterosexual orientation to a bisexual such hasn't at all necessarily "changed".
Unless the writer ostensibly doesn't care for his or her own work, it would seem most reasonable to assume it is simply another facet of the character to which we were previously unacquainted.

Well, it was hard (even for Bioware) to make a bigot bisexual but given time they can make it. Honestly, DA2 has the worst romance NPCs of any Bioware game to date. The most interesting and strong charachters in the game are the ones who were not defined by their LI status (Aveline and Varric). The rest are forgettable and for sure they will not make the history of gaming.

   

I'll readily agree that Aveline and Varric are two of the game's strongest characters. But I will just as well argue that Isabela is probably BioWare's finest character to date, somehow managing to be both a subversion and a playful empowerment of certain prejudices/presumptions people are prone to aim in her direction. Her rapport with Aveline and their process of developing a genuine sense of grudging attachment is some of the finest writing I've ever encountered in a game.

   Having said that, I could agree with you if one charachter was bisexual like DA:O. But when 4 charachters out of 5 LI are bisexual is clear that gamey/market reason have taken over the context of a plausible fiction. As a result, the fiction in question sucks and it's not interesting (I cared more about my horse in Shadow of the Colossus than my LI in DA2).
 

  

With the risk of seeming a bit confrontational, it really isn't your place to dictate what is "plausible fiction" for a work in which you have no creative authority.

Don't play that card. I'm not enforcing any rule. I'm stating my opinion and supporting it with arguments.

But you are talking in absolutes without actually mentioning anything concrete regarding your reservations with the love interests which would have me consider your argument.
At the moment, you are speculating intent rather than arguing content.

Modifié par LiquidGrape, 29 décembre 2011 - 10:08 .

[jlb524]

AlexXIV wrote...

Lenimph wrote...

How about they mix it up and just make everyone gay instead of bi?

I might cry later if they make the perfect man later but whatevs I can live without peen.

Lol. Best. Idea. Ever.

You know what?  Eff this 'all bi fairness' crap!  I agree with y'all.

So, BW, please for the sake of better romances limit the DA3 LIs to s/s only.  Maybe you can throw in a bisexual non-party member NPC that a heterosexual PC could possibly romance (just for straight women though....the straight guys will miss out).

FedericoV wrote...
Sorry, I do not understand your reply. Can you elaborate a little more? But if I have understand your position (real life aside) it still seems to me a formal problem (how the games handles interactions/reactions with NPCs mechanically) and not a substantial one. 

I thought you were basically saying that any straight man and straight woman can fall in love and it can 'make sense' as long as the writing is good?

Modifié par jlb524, 29 décembre 2011 - 10:33 .

[Sister Goldring]

FedericoV wrote...


That's ludicrous. If I play a warrior I have no access to magic. That's not unfair: it make sense in the context of the game. If you want to experience any romance in the game, you can: you have just to replay it many times.

I understand where you’re coming from but I disagree with the comparison.
 
Take for example DAO’s Alistair romance. If I want to romance Alistair I must be straight. I can reroll as many characters as I like and only the females will ever be able to get into his pants. Personally, this doesn’t bother me, I only ever play females but if I wanted to play a male character and explore Alistair’s romance, I can’t.

I can as any gender play a mage or a rogue or a warrior and have no restriction placed upon my abilities or opportunities within the confines of that class but my romance choices are limited by gender. To say that a player can change their gender and have access to the content doesn’t really suffice if what the PC wants is a homosexual relationship with that character.
 
Personally, I find no compelling reason to restrict player choice here.

(edit - now I can't type)

Modifié par Sister Goldring, 29 décembre 2011 - 10:36 .

[darkrose]

Rawgrim wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...
It does have bearings on how the endings are as well, not just quests here and there. I guess quests and the endings of a roleplaying game isn`t an important factor...

The only times gender has mattered in BW games is when:

1)  the male PC could posibly impregnate a female...that only happens twice?  (and with Aerie you have to fully romance her to even know that this is possible).

2)  some sleaze-bag hits on the female PC (like Harkin)

3)  to prevent a female PC from initiating a romance or even flirting with a female NPC (or male PC with male NPC) even though the romance content itself is typically not all that gendered.

Gender had a bearing on alot of things in BG2, for example.

If you romance Jaheira, you got several pretty big quests further on. Access to new equipment as well. She could also get kidnapped and turned into a vampire by Bodhi, You then had the option to kill her, and later travel to an old temple and ressurect her via a ritual.

If you romanced Viconia, you could convince her to become a better person (change her alignment). If you managed to do that, it had a huge bearing on her as a character. It also made a huge difference for her Ending, as well.

As a male, you could also sleep with one of the drow priestesses, to gain her trust. The game is stuffed with little things like that. All of wich has very much to do with your gender. Some also include race + gender as well.

And as a female character, you could get "service" from the males in the drow ****house, and you generally had an easier time during most of those quests.

The problem was that as a female character, you had exactly one romance option. If you didn't like Anomen, too bad. 

However, you could go through BG2 without ever romancing anyone and not miss anything critical to the plot, which is the real point here. 

[FedericoV]

LiquidGrape wrote...

First of all I'd like to make a distinction between sexuality and personality. They are separate (if not completely void of interrelation) aspects of an individual, after all. That aside, what I balked at was the implied notion that *all* characters in *all* fiction have had a defined sexuality.

  

I was talking about something else. I'm just saying that the personality of a charachter should not change because of the preferences of the audience. Sexuality is a relevant element of personality in a fictional romance.

I'll readily agree that Aveline and Varric are two of the game's strongest characters. But I will just as well argue that Isabela is probably BioWare's finest character to date, somehow managing to be both a subversion and a playful empowerment of certain prejudices/presumptions people are prone to aim in her direction. Her rapport with Aveline and their process of developing a genuine sense of grudging attachment is some of the finest writing I've ever encountered in a game.

 

Imho, Isabella is a forgettable charachter. Half comical relief, half love interest. Not very efficient as both. I've romanced her in the game because she was the less annoying of the lot but that's it. Honestly, I've not seen the subversion part. Morrigain was more interesting as a subversion charachter. But you raise an interesting point: the strenght of Isabella as a charachter in DA2 rely more on her interaction with another NPC than her lover .

With the risk of seeming a bit confrontational, it really isn't your place to dictate what is "plausible fiction" for a work in which you have no creative authority.

You are being confrontational but that's the nature of the argument I guess. I have not to put an imho before every sentence to underline the fact that it's simply my opinion (yes, it's my absolute opinion: try to reply to my argument instead of using relativistic tricks). I apologize: I've not written Moby Dick. But I've read, watched and played a lot of fiction. Enough to say that DA2 party composition in terms of sexuality is not plausible (it's laughably unplausible) and  and it's clearly oriented by gamey and market reason. There's nothing artistic, politic or literary behind DA2 use of bisexuality.

But you are talking in absolutes without actually mentioning anything concrete regarding your reservations with the love interests which would have me consider your argument.
At the moment, you are speculating intent rather than arguing content.

I have not a lot of personal things to say about an experience that is bland, forgettable and awkwardly gamey. It's pointless: I would just describe my lack of interest. It's not that I hated it. I hated Aerie's romance in BG2 because her charachter was too naive and sweet and because the pregnancy thing felt out of place. But it was a good romance with a very dark spin. I simply do not care about the LI's charachters in DA2 and loose very quickly (and very cinically) any suspension of disbilief toward them. They were "just" romance charachter. And their romance just felt like a check on a list, not something that helped to shape my version of the story.

Modifié par FedericoV, 29 décembre 2011 - 11:01 .

[FedericoV]

Sister Goldring wrote...
 
Take for example DAO’s Alistair romance. If I want to romance Alistair I must be straight. I can reroll as many characters as I like and only the females will ever be able to get into his pants. Personally, this doesn’t bother me, I only ever play females but if I wanted to play a male character and explore Alistair’s romance, I can’t.

But that's what make Alistair a good and plausible NPC. If every LI is bisexual, it's like if they have no sexuality at all. They become toys instead of fictional charachters. That's the point I was trying to make with the class comparison. It's all about choices and consequences. If there are no restrictions, choices feel pointless.

[whykikyouwhy]

FedericoV wrote...

Sister Goldring wrote...
 
Take for example DAO’s Alistair romance. If I want to romance Alistair I must be straight. I can reroll as many characters as I like and only the females will ever be able to get into his pants. Personally, this doesn’t bother me, I only ever play females but if I wanted to play a male character and explore Alistair’s romance, I can’t.

But that's what make Alistair a good and plausible NPC. If every LI is bisexual, it's like if they have no sexuality at all. They become toys instead of fictional charachters. That's the point I was trying to make with the class comparison. It's all about choices and consequences. If there are no restrictions, choices feel pointless.

Just curious what the distinction is between playable fictional character and toy is? Isn't a toy something you play with? Technically then, every character you could actively play serves as a toy, as a form of entertainment, including the PC - who is a toy you create.

Also, how does bisexuality equate no sexuality at all? Perhaps you are confused as to the definition of the prefix "bi." <_<

[LinksOcarina]

The sexuality is optional, especially considering Fenris, Merrill and Anders don't flirt with you unless if you do it first.