649 réponses à ce sujet

[brushyourteeth]

Cantina wrote...

Sorry hun, ya can twist it any way ya want. To me Blood Magic is evil. But really this is not the place to discuss this.

Yes on all points.

[Rinji the Bearded]

brushyourteeth wrote...
 There's nothing wrong with having all bi (or subjectively bi, depending on who you ask) love interests. It doesn't bother me, but I'd like to see more. I'd like to see gays represented. I'd like to see straight people represented. I'd like to see all three. I'd like to be a part of a DA community where that doesn't bother anyone, but I know I'm stretching it a little far to hope for that.

Again, I have to ask how you arrived at the conclusion that exclusion somehow = more or better?   I also have to question your logic because you seem to believe the romances are only there to make some political statement about sexuality or be there to represent and "support" the different sexualities, when it isn't anything like that.   The all bi romances were there to make the most amount of option for everyone, and was the most economical solution to do that.

It's as if you're saying that the all bisexual romances are somehow excluding heterosexuality and homosexuality, and that just is not the case.

[Curlain]

Tirigon wrote...


They hate blood mages because, to them, bloodmages are evil halfdemon beasts who use their powers to control kings, terrorize the smallfolk and sacrifice virgins to foul "gods".

You mean blood mages aren't this?!  That's it, I'm tearing up my bloodmage application form, if it doesn't involve some good old terrorizing the smallfolk, and getting to be a evil half-demon beast, well, where's the fun in that? 

Modifié par Curlain, 02 mai 2012 - 04:45 .

[Pasquale1234]

Dakota Strider wrote...

I noticed the literal gymnastics you were doing to try to make it clear (to those who are usually quick to take offense) that you were not a gay hater. 

There are times, when I find it necessary to do that to.  And I am usually selective when I jump into the fray on these issues, because to be honest, I get sick of the contortions one has to go through, to make a point that is even the slightest bit against what the LGBT'ers think the way things should be.

Even when nothing is said that can be taken out of context, you will see some that will claim what we are saying is the new "code" or "disguise" for our supposed hatred.   

It is ironic, that back in the old, old days of gaming (not so long ago) that when the forum conversations were about including LGBT content into games, any opponents to it, were treated far more harshly, if they made such blanket insinuations.  But now, it is almost accepted, and many who feel threatened do not show the same tolerance, that they expect to receive in return.

Thus, everyone has to tip toe around the topic, and say "I don't hate gays"  etc...when that should be the assumption in the first place.

But you're the same person who also said this:

Dakota Strider wrote...

Creating characters that have a split personality is better? Why not characters that act the same, regardless of what type of character you play? If they like guys, they like guys regardless of what sex of character the player has. If they like gals, they always like gals. I really feel it cheapens the companions to make them change with whichever way the wind blows.

The only character in the game who exhibited a 'split personality' was Anders, and that was due to Justice / Vengeance.  It had nothing to do with his implied sexual orientation.  He did share information about his romantic history with a male protag that he did not share with a female protag.  In no other way was any other character presented differently according to the gender of the protag.

So how, exactly, were they cheapened?

[upsettingshorts]

Cantina wrote...

So I'm stupid for having my own opinion? 

Some opinions have more value than others, some opinions can be objectively wrong.  This is perfectly logical.  

But it is off-topic.

[Cantina]

I'm surprised the option to have a three some with your other companions was not in the game. Not like I would pursue it but it certainly was a funny option in Origins.

[Sunnie]

brushyourteeth wrote...
 I'd like to see LI's in the (probably far-off) future that are simply gay and simply straight.

Sorry, but this will never be realized the way you hope. It's far less expensive to develop less characters that serve dual purposes than more characters with singular purposes.
E.G. 4 LIs that are player sexual (none of these characters are really Bi, they don't have any interest in anyone but the player, what ever gender they are), or 6 characters that are divided into straight, gay, or player. It really comes down to simple math and limited budgets, which will always be an issue in game development.

I liked the way it worked in ME3 (as a female Shepard, I never coveted the ability to flirt with Cortez -- I just loved and respected that he was gay).

You may not have but I have seen countless posts by people complaining that they could not romance Cortez or Traynor as the opposite gender. As a lesbian, I found it very cool that they put in a couple gay only LI's but at the same time I felt bad for everyone else because it further limited content that everyone could enjoy if taking their own values into account.

Because in truth, it doesn't limit the player. It just limits the way that one plays, and that's not quite the same thing and not quite worth the stink that quite a few forumites put up about it.

Any limit is still a limit, you are just wrapping this limitation in a different colored paper. Once you peel that paper off, it's still a limitation that doesn't need to be there.

Modifié par Sunnie22, 02 mai 2012 - 04:51 .

[mesmerizedish]

Cantina wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Cantina wrote...

Sorry hun, ya can twist it any way ya want. To me Blood Magic is evil. But really this is not the place to discuss this.

Which is an opinion you are obviously entitled to, but still a very narrrow-minded, if not downright stupid, one, and one that Anders and Fenris obviously learn to discard when faced with proof to the opposite.

So I'm stupid for having my own opinion?  The logic of people never ceases to amaze me!


Anyway.....back on topic.

You can have a stupid opinion without being stupid. You can be stupid without having any stupid opinons. The validity of the opinions one holds aren't inexorably tied to how smart they are.

I have nothing to say about your particular opinion. I don't care a bit about it. But "it's an opinion!" does not shield it from being wrong or stupid.

[upsettingshorts]

Cantina wrote...

I'm surprised the option to have a three some with your other companions was not in the game. Not like I would pursue it but it certainly was a funny option in Origins.

Jade Empire had a possible polyamorous MFF relationship, fwiw.

Male Spirit Monk/Silk Fox/Dawn Star.  

[Cantina]

If I recall correctly, there was a straight companion you could romance, Sebastian was considered straight, yes.

Modifié par Cantina, 02 mai 2012 - 04:48 .

[Rinji the Bearded]

Cantina wrote...

If I recall correctly, there was a straight companion you could romance, Sebastian was considered straight, yes.

I suppose if you count Sebastian as a romance, then you'd be correct.

[Cantina]

RinjiRenee wrote...

Cantina wrote...

If I recall correctly, there was a straight companion you could romance, Sebastian was considered straight, yes.

I suppose if you count Sebastian as a romance, then you'd be correct.

<laughs> Sadly, true.

[upsettingshorts]

Cantina wrote...

If I recall correctly, there was a straight companion you could romance, Sebastian was considered straight, yes.

Seb's "romance" isn't considered a romance, it's closer to an Easter egg in terms of content.  Word of God.

[Tirigon]

Cantina wrote...


So I'm stupid for having my own opinion?  The logic of people never ceases to amaze me!


Anyway.....back on topic.

No.

Prejudices are a very useful thing to protect you from harm.
But they must be dropped if proven wrong, or one becomes trapped in a wrong view (look at racists and n@zis for an RL example of people who never learned to drop their prejudices).

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...


You can have a stupid
opinion without being stupid. You can be stupid without having any
stupid opinons. The validity of the opinions one holds aren't inexorably
tied to how smart they are.

I have nothing to say about your
particular opinion. I don't care a bit about it. But "it's an opinion!"
does not shield it from being wrong or stupid.

Thank you.

Modifié par Tirigon, 02 mai 2012 - 04:51 .

[Cantina]

I always wondered this........

Is it possible to "romance" Sebastian then during  "Last Straw" keep Anders alive and Sebastian leaves?

Not that I would ever romance Seabass, but if you can do the above, gosh that is so deliciously evil and may even be worth it just to do it, if you can of course.

Modifié par Cantina, 02 mai 2012 - 04:53 .

[brushyourteeth]

jlb524 wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...
We're already limited - we can't romance Aveline or Varric.  Does that add to or take away from the story? I believe it adds to, but that's only my opinion.

The difference here is that they aren't LIs for anyone.

If they go to the effort to create an LI arc for Character X why should they limit who can pursue it based on gender?  The content is there...and with some tweaking can work for the other gender.  In fact, I used the Morrigan/FemWarden mod and I thought it worked well barring a few pronoun mishaps.

That is the brunt of my issue...I'm talking about content in the game that's just sitting there...but can't be accessed b/c of a gender check. That's different from content that's not even there for any player in the first place.

You're right - I made that unintentionally confusing. What I meant by that is that making an LI have a fixed single-gendered attraction doesn't limit the story, it only limits the parameters of the romance. And it's something I have no problem with. Would I pine if there was a gay male character that I thought was hot and my female protagonist didn't have a change? Yes. But then I'd start a male protag on my next character and be a happy girl. The same way I would in a similar real life situation. Do i realize that games are not real life? Yes. Definitely. In a game i can change who I am and experience that romance anyway. And this way each sexuality is represented, which I just find to be interesting and more diverse than the way things were done in DAII (which again, for those of you who are touchy, didn't bother me. I just think something else could be interesting, and if we're mature, shouldn't be problem-inducing).

jlb524 wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote... 
And you're right -- it all chalks up to personal preference. There's nothing wrong with having all bi (or subjectively bi, depending on who you ask) love interests. It doesn't bother me, but I'd like to see more. I'd like to see gays represented. I'd like to see straight people represented. I'd like to see all three. I'd like to be a part of a DA community where that doesn't bother anyone, but I know I'm stretching it a little far to hope for that.

Straight people/heterosexualiy is definitely represented in DA games.   You could argue that homosexuality/bisexuality needs more representation outside of optional romances.

I absolutely agree with that argument.

[Curlain]

Upsettingshorts wrote...



Did you see me individually naming posters here, though?  When I've had reason to dispute the argument of someone in this thread I've asked specific questions, because I want to know the real reasons behind them.  

It's a broad generalization, it's also kicking over anthills.  It's how you get people around here to actually start saying what they mean, instead of buzzwords and vaguery.

I don't buy the premise, essentially, and I'm going to be clear about the fact I don't.  

But your statements ties the premise to a set point of view and aspect of the person's character, and therefore in your responses becomes a character judgement on them (again with no way of knowing if this the case).  As a result I think it goes to far into making pre-concieved judgements on people you don't know, and casting a rather horrible label on anybody entering these debates and framing a argument in this manner.  You have by default placed them in a 'homophobic' camp, without knowing them personally at all, which I find a little distrubing.

Modifié par Curlain, 02 mai 2012 - 04:54 .

[upsettingshorts]

To be clear, I've placed posts of the nature I've described in the "likely homophobic" camp. Not the "clearly homophobic and I can't be convinced otherwise" camp. It's hardly the most disturbing preconceived notion I have about BSN posters, though. That would be the fact I assume everyone is an idiot until they prove otherwise.  

In any event, this seems to be devolving into a purely personal line of inquiry. If you'd like to discuss what prejudices I do and don't have about the forum further, send a PM.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 mai 2012 - 04:58 .

[The dead fish]

RinjiRenee wrote...

Curlain wrote...
No one should have to to convince you that their arguments are not the result of personal discomfort, prejudice etc.  Placing a judgement about someone's character based on a general postion the hold in a debate or discussion is a for prejudice (you've labelled them before knowing them), and are telling them they have to convince you first that is is not case.  That is neither fair, nor is it anyone's responsibility to convince anyone else that they are or are not x (in this case they are not homophobic).  That is a default assumption for any discussion, and should always be assumed (given how easy misunderstandings and miscommunications happen on internet forums) unless a poster comes out and straight out says, 'I hate x group because they are x group,' etc.

So if you are feeling that you have to be convinced of thier lack of prejudice or honest intentions in a debate or discussion, then I think that is an issue for you in these debates, not them.

Upsettingshorts would like to see a convincing argument against all bisexual LIs that doesn't come down to "I don't want to be hit on by the member of the same sex,"  which is a homophobic statement, whether one intended it or no.  You can have internalized, negative feelings about something without realizing that you are perpetuating a harmful idea.

My god, I hope it isn't a general statement . That's just ridiculous. Excuse me, what is a convincing argument against this system you support ? You do realize that only a few arguments, or no arguments when you support a system will be convincing to you ...

That's often the case with each debate I read.

For most people each argument of the other side won't be considered as " convincing argument. " Anyone, could say, yeah, it isn't convincing so **** you all. That's easy, huh.

You read what people write and you do not think for them, thank you. We don't need to read on this forum, you are this or that. Because otherwise, anyone can do that.  Or then, please shut up, and just try to discuss what you can discuss. If you do not see something convincing, you tell to others why it isn't convincing, your value judgments about whoever, no one cares, **** them.

Because me too, or anyone else, could do that too. And it will turn quickly into a fight and no more civil discussion if everyone does that. I won't let anyone saying that I 'm this or that, let's be clear. If he wants to think I'm this or that, I don't care, but then shut up.

And please, stop with your exagerations, I've seen on this forum thousand of arguments and there weren't only,I don't waaaant to be hit. I'm on this forum like you, and I read the topics like you.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 02 mai 2012 - 05:02 .

[brushyourteeth]

RinjiRenee wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...
 There's nothing wrong with having all bi (or subjectively bi, depending on who you ask) love interests. It doesn't bother me, but I'd like to see more. I'd like to see gays represented. I'd like to see straight people represented. I'd like to see all three. I'd like to be a part of a DA community where that doesn't bother anyone, but I know I'm stretching it a little far to hope for that.

Again, I have to ask how you arrived at the conclusion that exclusion somehow = more or better?   I also have to question your logic because you seem to believe the romances are only there to make some political statement about sexuality or be there to represent and "support" the different sexualities, when it isn't anything like that.   The all bi romances were there to make the most amount of option for everyone, and was the most economical solution to do that.

It's as if you're saying that the all bisexual romances are somehow excluding heterosexuality and homosexuality, and that just is not the case.

I'm not interested in exclusion. I'm interested in inclusion. I'd like to include representative LI's of each of the three sexual orientations. Why? Because it's interesting. Because it's realistic. Because it taps a real-life element of unrequited love that I find fascinating. Because it gives me another great reason to replay the game. Because we haven't had simply a gay companion in DA yet, and I respect that that's not the same as bisexual and shouldn't need to be in order to make everyone happy.

Above all, what I'm not interested in is fighting or even in changing anyone else's mind. It's my opinion, and it probably will never happen anyway. I'm content with all bi love interests, but I see this as a concession that's made in order to make both gay and straight fans happy without encouraging any celebration of our differences. I'm not saying it's Bioware's job to teach us acceptance, I'm just saying it makes for better storytelling when you don't have to mute every character's sexual preference in order to make it acceptable to everyone.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvianus wrote...

My god, I hope it isn't a general statement . That's just ridiculous. Excuse me, what is a convincing argument against this system you support ? You do realize that only a few arguments, or no arguments when you support a system will be convincing to you ...

That's often the case with each debate I read.

For most people each argument of the other side won't be considered as " convincing argument. " Anyone, could say, yeah, it isn't convincing so **** you all. That's easy, huh.

You're interpreting "convincing" as "you've changed my mind!"

The way we were using it is "convinces me that you aren't simply uncomfortable with gay people."

I find Sylvius the Mad' arguments - for example - convincing, even when I disagree with them entirely.  I believe he is sincere and his positions were arrived at after a great deal of thought, and he puts them forth honestly.

The assertion here is that such arguments are - intentionally or unintentionally - dishonest.  When their core objections are exposed, they are revealed to be just as (or similar to) what Rinji describes.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 mai 2012 - 05:05 .

[ladyofpayne]

Male option romances need to be free from whine like James Vega. MAle PC get funny Isabela and we have Anders and Fenris. Anders somewtimes is real man- stong willed and baddas but most time he is whine.

[jlb524]

brushyourteeth wrote...
You're right - I made that unintentionally confusing. What I meant by that is that making an LI have a fixed single-gendered attraction doesn't limit the story, it only limits the parameters of the romance.

I'm not talking about the story in general...just romances.

 

brushyourteeth wrote... 
And it's something I have no problem with. Would I pine if there was a gay male character that I thought was hot and my female protagonist didn't have a change? Yes. But then I'd start a male protag on my next character and be a happy girl.

That works for you but not everyone.  Again, that situation does limit a lot of players.   Some people in that situation won't want to play a male protagonist period.  Even if they did just to romance male character X, they might not get as much enjoyment out of the romance/game experience as they would if they could play their preferred protagonist (female).  Why limit their option when there's not good reason to do so?  If the writers want to explore homosexuality in the DAverse through a gay male LI, then it would make sense to limit him to male PCs.  If they don't...why do they need the LI to be gay just to...be gay?

brushyourteeth wrote... 
The same way I would in a similar real life situation. Do i realize that games are not real life? Yes. Definitely. In a game i can change who I am and experience that romance anyway. And this way each sexuality is represented, which I just find to be interesting and more diverse than the way things were done in DAII (which again, for those of you who are touchy, didn't bother me. I just think something else could be interesting, and if we're mature, shouldn't be problem-inducing).

Yeah, these game romances are definitely not real life and are pretty much there to play out fantasies (nothing wrong with that)....which is why it further boggles my mind that people fight so hard to limit people's options here when 'real life' does a damn fine job of limiting our options no matter who we are XD

As mentioned in another post, it's not a 'representation' issue, it's more of a 'I want to play out my video game fantasies the way I want to' issue for me at least (and most others I know who like the 'all bi' thing).

Modifié par jlb524, 02 mai 2012 - 05:15 .

[Sutekh]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Dakota Strider wrote...

Creating characters that have a split personality is better? Why not characters that act the same, regardless of what type of character you play? If they like guys, they like guys regardless of what sex of character the player has. If they like gals, they always like gals. I really feel it cheapens the companions to make them change with whichever way the wind blows.

The only character in the game who exhibited a 'split personality' was Anders, and that was due to Justice / Vengeance.  It had nothing to do with his implied sexual orientation.  He did share information about his romantic history with a male protag that he did not share with a female protag.  In no other way was any other character presented differently according to the gender of the protag.

So how, exactly, were they cheapened?

Thank you.

I'm still trying to fathom how PC gender modifies NPC personality in any way. I have played both genders and didn't notice it. Was beginning to doubt my own experience of the game (j/k I wasn't).


@Dakota and the "bisexuality cheapens personality" people:

So, I have questions.

Have you played both genders?

If so, have you romanced the same LI with both genders?

If so, have you actually noticed any splitting / cheapening of personality?  (Anders's Justicitis and Karl mentioning set aside)  

If so - and this is important - can you give specific examples?


And last (and totally unrelated):

Cantina wrote...

I'm surprised the option to have a three some with your other companions was not in the game. Not like I would pursue it but it certainly was a funny option in Origins. 

 It was in the game, in a very similar way. It involved Isabela and a certain returning Antivan.

[AkiKishi]

ladyofpayne wrote...

Male option romances need to be free from whine like James Vega. MAle PC get funny Isabela and we have Anders and Fenris. Anders somewtimes is real man- stong willed and baddas but most time he is whine.

There is no guarentee you will get someone of your type, whichever gender you are.

Having bi LI's makes it more likely, at the expense of not being as good if I were to compare DA and DA2.