922 réponses à ce sujet

[jlb524]

Sylvianus wrote...

Sometimes, what some are trying to suggest is a bit disgusting. I read this thread, and it is more a problem than the OMG " straight male power **** the world ", and OMG I do not want a new anders jumps on me.

Try to leave your prejudices, try to think that maybe people really care about the implementation of such a system. and are not only concerned with what you suggest, or only by a pure selfish desire.

I read this thread, and many post reasonable, the representations made ​​by some of the other side is just ridiculous, so it seems excessive, even if it is civilized.

Yes, there are people who care about the story, immersion, the sacrifice that this system requires to the integrity of the identity of the characters.

This may not be your priorities, maybe you don't ****ing care,  but it is time to understand it's important for others. So try to put your little comments about the other side, who is apparently only concerned by itself. Yadda yadda. It's getting old.

I'd believe that if people complained about similar issues with the DA:O romances regarding 'story and immersion'.  But no!  This has only became an issue with DA2 and the all-bi thing.

Now tell me:  what's the difference?  Why now?

[CuriousArtemis]

Can I just say that I didn't feel very "immersed" when my Warden couldn't hit on Alistair because he was a guy. I just felt annoyed.

[Sylvianus]

That's not the matter.

I won't discuss more about it, let us agree to disagree about this issue, no problem. It is there ? it is there and that's it. It isn't matter of life and death. What is important however is that people aren't forced to agree with you, otherwise that means OMG, yadda yadda.

the problem is not there. Emotional comments, try to put them away.  Constantly attempting to demonize the other side, "selfishness " and apparently who fear those who are different, to make your point valid.

 I read this topic,  they are people concerned about the practical implementation of such a system, so a perspective focused on the game, SOME, and YOU try to turn what they say into a social issue, to make them guilty and to reduce their point of view THAT is about the game, that is disgusting.

emotional comments, victimization,  Enough.

Let's remain on the comments about the implementation of a system without trying to place fools comments idiots, about what the other  is, seems to be. To each its opinion and there isn't a side more moral, better than the other; There isn't a side where all people are with the gay people, and those who are against them, so please, stop that sh!it.

I always supported gay people, but I am against this system because it looks bad, and it didn't work well to me in DA2. So yes, about the game actually.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 30 décembre 2011 - 09:59 .

[jlb524]

Sylvianus wrote...

That's not the matter.

How is it not the matter?

DA:O comes out and the only limitation on romance is gender in two cases.  

As a result:

1)  Both female LIs are open to a dwarven male even though dwarf/human relationships are pretty much non-existent in the Dragon Age universe.

2)  Alistair will romance a blood mage.

3)  Human/elf pairings can exist like it's no big deal when those pairings are taboo in the universe.

4)  I won't even get into all the moral crap.

But there weren't any complaints about this ruining immersion or making the romances weaker or ruining the narrative, etc.

Now...DA2 comes out and removes the one and only romance restriction...gender and there has been a huge fuss over it by some people since the game came out.

Sylvianus wrote...  
the problem is not there. Emotional comments, try to put them away.  Constantly attempting to demonize the other side, "selfishness " and apparently who fear those who are different, to make your point valid.

Well, the 'other side's' reasons make no sense if you think about it...so what other conclusion am I to draw?  The other side is complaining about 'X' in DA2 but are okay with 'X' in DA:O.   Well, I think b/c adding in more of X in DA2 isn't a personal benefit to them.

Sylvianus wrote...   
 I read this topic,  they are people concerned about the practical implementation of such a system, so a perspective focused on the game, SOME, and YOU try to turn what they say into a social issue, to make them guilty and to reduce their point of view THAT is about the game, that is disgusting.

  

It's not a social issue...it's like, some people don't want them to waste content on stuff they won't use.

Honestly, it's not even a 'gay issue' because I've witnessed similar things in the past when heterosexual female gamers have asked for more romance options to equal the number that they boys got.  BW has finally started to add in as many male options as female options.

Sylvianus wrote...    
emotional comments, victimization,  Enough.

You still haven't answered my questions.

Why didn't we need to spend pages and pages in threads to talk about implementing a better system when DA:O came out?   Hmmm...because no one complained about all the crazy potential romances you could do in DA:O perhaps?

So...why is it different now?

Modifié par jlb524, 30 décembre 2011 - 10:14 .

[Sylvianus]

Eeer, I think you didn't get it.

If you want to prove them they are wrong, remains focused on the arguments about the game and stop your crap, it gets stupid.

The op asked them what they thought, it in't to be accused or insulted of things that haVE nothing to do with this system, a feature in a game, what they are talking about;

if you are unable to contain your bitterness feel, your emotions, your veiled criticism of things that should not emerge in a discussion that asks to be constructive, or I do not know what it is, I suggest you leaving this thread and make you a favor.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 30 décembre 2011 - 10:36 .

[jlb524]

I'm responding to those that want restrictions on gender in romances and to those that were complaining about how DA2 handled it. This is a discussion thread, right? Am I not allowed to debate their opinions? People have debated my opinion that future DA romances should be like DA2 and remove the gender restriction.

I have posed my question to them (and to you) and no one has provided an answer (and you keep ignoring it and saying I'm bitter).

So...will you answer the question?

[Sylvianus]

if I do not answer your question that's because you seem too emotionally engaged on this subject, I have no interest in talking about this in this situation.

Because this subject will be discussed to death and I know we won't agree. Let us agree to disagree, isn't a stupid thing, it's better to shut up when we know that we are going nowhere.

because I learned, namely to keep quiet, when I know that a bad discussion has started, with the tone isn't appropriate and is not worth the trouble to be continued.

but the main reason is that I think it is not worth the trouble to discuss with you on this subject, you made your mind, because inevitably those who are against this systems are necessarily at your eyes suspicious people or selfish. You have yourself set up a barrier that I am unable to overcome. People who think so extreme, especially in such hot topics, I do not bother to debate with them.

Here your answer.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 30 décembre 2011 - 10:59 .

[jlb524]

You still haven't answered the question.

I've been asking this for months...why can't you explain the difference between the responses to the DA:O romances vs. DA2 romances and the reason for the double standard?

We aren't going anywhere because you won't answer this question.  It always stops here.

Modifié par jlb524, 30 décembre 2011 - 11:09 .

[Nejeli]

FedericoV wrote...

{smilie}... at least DA2 is different... having said that: romances in DA2 play the same no matter of your sex. The differences are really cosmetic (gay, etero, bisexual: the variation are minimal). So, if the aim was to allow more roleplaying and replayibility, they have failed pretty badly even in that repart.

How do you think the same-sex romances should have been handled? Since the DA2 romances are pretty wrapped up in the characters' own storylines, how could they have been changed anymore than they were without derailing those storylines? Isn't it enough that Fenris was freaked out about caring about Hawke at all? Did he also have to be freaked out about being attracted to a man? Do we really need Merrill going through a ~journey of self-discovery~ alongside the taboo of getting with a human? Anders is worried about what being in a relationship with him will do to Hawke as it is because he's an apostate, dangerous, and not stable; would adding a dash of 'and society won't approve' really have added anything meaningful?

I don't understand the claim that DA2 has less replayability and is less open to roleplay because there are no exclusive romance options, or no same-sex specific relationship changes. You have eight playthroughs if you want to romance all options and see both versions of the romance. More if you want to see the subtle differences between genders. Ignoring the romance, there's still seeing everyone's friend and rival paths which will take a minimum of two plaththroughs even if you're good at balancing things.  Having the romances open to all genders doesn't take anything away from anyone, and it doesn't force you into anything. You can  play a straight Hawke, bi Hawke, gay or lesbian Hawke, or even a Hawke that has no interest in anyone.

[jlb524]

Good post, Nejeli.

[Realmzmaster]

I like choices. The way the romances are setup does not bother me one way or the other. The system allows you to play it straight, bi or homosexual. I have no problem with that. I can play my character with whatever sexual orientation I choose.

Sebastian is straight and can be romanced. He simply will not jump into bed or kiss a female Hawke. He has been there and done that. If Bioware chooses to make a character straight that is fine. I am more concerned with the story. If it fits the story I have no problems with it.

[LinksOcarina]

Sylvianus wrote...

if I do not answer your question that's because you seem too emotionally engaged on this subject, I have no interest in talking about this in this situation.

Because this subject will be discussed to death and I know we won't agree. Let us agree to disagree, isn't a stupid thing, it's better to shut up when we know that we are going nowhere.

because I learned, namely to keep quiet, when I know that a bad discussion has started, with the tone isn't appropriate and is not worth the trouble to be continued.

but the main reason is that I think it is not worth the trouble to discuss with you on this subject, you made your mind, because inevitably those who are against this systems are necessarily at your eyes suspicious people or selfish. You have yourself set up a barrier that I am unable to overcome. People who think so extreme, especially in such hot topics, I do not bother to debate with them.

Here your answer.

Or you are just dodging the question like she said. 

But Jib should calm down, it's not worth getting all hyped up and defensive over a non-issue anyway.

[Wulfram]

jlb524 wrote...


But there weren't any complaints about this ruining immersion or making the romances weaker or ruining the narrative, etc.

That's an exaggeration.  For one thing, this is BSN.  There are always complaints about everything. 

[Sylvianus]

Or you are just dodging the question like she said. 

Thank you for this interesting comment that was useful.

You will learn one day that avoiding a debate that you feel too hot and unhealthy is never a sign of weakness or inability to speak.

Next time, you need to quote me, please, do it for something smart or at least for something useful. Now move on and end of line.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 31 décembre 2011 - 06:30 .

[jlb524]

Wulfram wrote...

jlb524 wrote...


But there weren't any complaints about this ruining immersion or making the romances weaker or ruining the narrative, etc.

That's an exaggeration.  For one thing, this is BSN.  There are always complaints about everything. 

I don't recall complaining about the DA:O romances in regards to there being no restrictions on race/class/moralit/etc. If there was one thread I believe that pales in comparison to this type of complaining.

LinksOcarina wrote...
But Jib should calm down, it's not worth getting all hyped up and defensive over a non-issue anyway.

I'm quite calm, actually.

I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.

Sylvianus wrote...
You will learn one day that avoiding a debate that you feel too hot and unhealthy is never a sign of weakness or inability to speak. 

Next time, you need to quote me, please, do it for something smart or at least for something useful. Now move on and end of line. 

So, shut up because you don't want to answer my question?

Modifié par jlb524, 31 décembre 2011 - 01:18 .

[ScotGaymer]

For myself I was against it to start with on grounds of "realism". Which is funny because when I actually thought about it I realised that I was being really stupid.

Role Playing Games are not meant to be realistic. The point of RPGs are to be UNrealistic in the sense of how things work in "real life".

The point of Role Playing Games is provide Role Playing, as much of it that can realistically be supplied in the medium. The only "realism" that matters is being "realistic" within the context of the story and universe.

And when I thought about that I realised that having the LIs "all bi" (which they arent because Sebastian is straight and Chaste) is indeed realistic within the context of the Dragon Age universe.

Given that The Chantry is a matriarchal institution it is much softer and more accepting and tolerant than its real world analogue (the Roman Catholic Church which became a strict patriarchy); as Grand Cleric Elthina said the Chantry is a loving and caring mother who guides her children, she does not rule them as a tyranical father would (in the way the Roman Catholic Church would in the past); the Chantry has created a world where ideology and theology matter a heck of a lot more than alternate sexualities or race so it isnt really that much of a stretch for the PC to come across a lot more people who are openly gay or bisexual, or come across more elves or dwarves and whatnot in their daily lives.

So it seems to me that the "realism" arguement at least holds no water.

Bioware (and now Bethesda) are one of the only major development houses outside of Japan who openly cater content to "everyone".

[Asenza]

I didn't mind the... duality of the LI's in DA2... but I did mind the fact that all in all, the romances felt exactly the same, for a male or female Hawk.

Making all romances available to a male or female Hawke gave me one less reason to be a male or a female Hawke; that wasn't exactly good or a bad thing in itself, but...

Shouldn't there have been some subtle differences in the way the LI's treated a male or female Hawke? Fenris being more protective over a male Hawke or more combative with a female Hawke? The only difference I'm aware of is that Anders doesn't mention his mage friend to a female Hawke.

The one-size-fits-all setup made the romances bland, generic. They didn't give me a reason to play again as a different gender or give me the urge to romance someone else.

It's the little details, things like this that crushed my heart as I went through DA2.

Modifié par Asenza, 31 décembre 2011 - 01:28 .

[LinksOcarina]

jlb524 wrote...

I'm quite calm, actually.

I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.

Could have fooled me, the tone of your posts seem overly agressive and it really gets you nowhere in this kind of debate.

[Gibb_Shepard]

jlb524 wrote...

GodWood wrote...

bleetman wrote...
There are bisexuals. Get over it.

Not everyone is a bisexual, get over it?

There are trees =/= Everything is a tree.

So then why is everything a tree? Your whole argument is for the inclusion of everything being a tree, in case you didn't notice.

Can i back this up with "There are heterosexuals, get over it?"

[jlb524]

LinksOcarina wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

I'm quite calm, actually.

I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.

Could have fooled me, the tone of your posts seem overly agressive and it really gets you nowhere in this kind of debate.

I just want an answer, that's all.  I wouldn't say I've gotten nowhere...well...we've hit the usual wall and no one will explain the double standard to me.  Claiming that I'm 'emotional' doesn't make my points any less valid.

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

So then why is everything a tree? Your whole argument is for the inclusion of everything being a tree, in case you didn't notice.

Can i back this up with "There are heterosexuals, get over it?"

My argument is that the LIs should be trees....not everything.

Modifié par jlb524, 31 décembre 2011 - 02:02 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

I knew you would say that. "Everything" was an allegory for "LI's". Making everything the same just creates a lack of diversity. Companions should be unique in ideals, motivations, background, personality and yes, even sexual preference. To make all the companions the same in a single aspect is to do an injustice to companions in general.

It is far better to have a diverse range of sexual preferences, just the same as the diversity of other character aspects.. Hetero, Bi and gay is far better than all Bi. You see? Diversity.

[LinksOcarina]

But heres the thing....

How are the characters bisexual? the only one who is confirmed to be Isabela really, while Fenris, Merrill and Anders make no moves against you overtly unless if you reprise it or initiate it. Fenris and Merrill especially....

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 31 décembre 2011 - 02:42 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

LinksOcarina wrote...

But heres the thing....

How are the characters bisexual? the only one who is confirmed to be Isabela really, while Fenris, Merrill and Anders make no moves against you overtly unless if you reprise it or initiate it. Fenris and Merrill especially....

I'm not sure how this is relevant, but Fenris and Anders are the very first ones that flirt with you male/female Hawke.

Still, what exactly is your point?

Modifié par Gibb_Shepard, 31 décembre 2011 - 02:52 .

[Blacklash93]

motomotogirl wrote...

Can I just say that I didn't feel very "immersed" when my Warden couldn't hit on Alistair because he was a guy. I just felt annoyed.

I'd actually like this. Why should your character not be able to make a pass at a certain character like Alistair as a guy? Just because they'll be unresponsive to you for whatever reason doesn't mean your character should be incapable of trying their luck.

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

I'm not sure how this is relevant, but Fenris and Anders are the very first ones that flirt with you male Hawke.

Only Anders hits on you. Fenris just complements you at one point.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 31 décembre 2011 - 02:56 .

[jlb524]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

I knew you would say that. "Everything" was an allegory for "LI's". Making everything the same just creates a lack of diversity. Companions should be unique in ideals, motivations, background, personality and yes, even sexual preference. To make all the companions the same in a single aspect is to do an injustice to companions in general.

It is far better to have a diverse range of sexual preferences, just the same as the diversity of other character aspects.. Hetero, Bi and gay is far better than all Bi. You see? Diversity.

Why don't they make gay only LIs?

Why don't they add in diverse range of preferences for things like race, morality, class, etc?