649 réponses à ce sujet

[The dead fish]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

Who are you to decide if someone is dishonest ?

This isn't the point of this forum, nor this debate. If you see an argument not at all convincing, then it's easy, show to everybody why it isn't convincing. That's your only prerogative, not to insult the others with you value judgments that have nothing to do here. This isn't the purpose of this forum. After that goes too far. Besides, not everybody is cumfortable with a debate and arguments.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 02 mai 2012 - 05:21 .

[Mmw04014]

My problem with the romances in DA2 was just part of a greater problem with the game. Our choices were basically meaningless. Want to romance Anders as an anti Mage Hawke? Sure! Want to romance Isabela by being a total jerk to her constantly? Go ahead! Any position these characters took was disregarded simply to accomadate the PC. Gender becomes apart of that. If all the characters become one size fits all, then what is the point of giving them opinions, stances, or preferances? Again, this goes beyond just a characters sexuality.

I prefer quality options over the quantity of options. By quality, I mean when I choose to make my character a certain way, the world should react accordingly. The more options that are added, the less reactive the world can be simply because it is far easier to make the world accessible to all then to really have your decisions matter. I get that a lot people don't think that way though. They prefer more options even if it limits reactivity. I accept that some people just don't play the game the way that I do.

However, I don't go into "it's unrealistic for all these bisexuals to be hanging around." We knew nothing of Fenris or Merrill's sexuality and Isabela remaind consistent. We knew Anders liked woman already and I don't buy into the "He was straight in Awakenings!" argument. (If we had been able to romance him in that game as a female and not as a male, then I would say the argument had weight.)

Modifié par Mmw04014, 02 mai 2012 - 05:21 .

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvianus wrote...

[/b]Who are you to decide if someone is dishonest ?

Are you serious?  In what universe is authority required to make such judgements?  Do you always take everything everyone says at face value?  

Sylvianus wrote... 

This isn't the point of this forum, nor this debate. If you see an argument not at all convincing, then it's easy, show to everybody why it isn't convincing. That's your only prerogative, not to insult the others with you value judgments that have nothing to do here. This is the purpose of this forum. After that goes too far.

Hence my questions asking for specifics.  My post detailed that I do not buy the premise, and will not buy the premise, so any position relying on it will have to be specific and not take my nodding along with their vague statements for granted.  

Sylvianus wrote...  

Besides, not everybody is cumfortable with a debate and arguments. 

Then they can simply not participate in them.

[upsettingshorts]

Mmw04014 wrote...

My problem with the romances in DA2 was just part of a greater problem with the game. Our choices were basically meaningless. Want to romance Anders as an anti Mage Hawke? Sure! Want to romance Isabela by being a total jerk to her constantly? Go ahead! Any position these characters took was disregarded simply to accomadate the PC. Gender becomes apart of that. If all the characters become one size fits all, then what is the point of giving them opinions, stances, or preferances? Again, this goes beyond just a characters sexuality.

Did you Rivalmance Anders and Friendmance Anders?  How about Isabela?  Or Fenris?  Or Merril?  

If so, I find it hard to believe that you can hold the honest opinion that the experiences are not different, and that the characters do not react to the PC's choices and opinions.  If the experiences are different, then the game is reacting to your choices by definition.  Just because you can still romance them - in a different way - doesn't change that fact.

Your notion of reactivity seems to be absolute.  That others are accepting of variability of reactivity as opposed to black/white reactivity does not mean they are less concerned with it.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 mai 2012 - 05:26 .

[AkiKishi]

Mmw04014 wrote...

My problem with the romances in DA2 was just part of a greater problem with the game. Our choices were basically meaningless. Want to romance Anders as an anti Mage Hawke? Sure! Want to romance Isabela by being a total jerk to her constantly? Go ahead! Any position these characters took was disregarded simply to accomadate the PC. Gender becomes apart of that. If all the characters become one size fits all, then what is the point of giving them opinions, stances, or preferances? Again, this goes beyond just a characters sexuality.

I prefer quality options over the quantity of options. By quality, I mean when I choose to make my character a certain way, the world should react accordingly. The more options that are added, the less reactive the world can be simply because it is far easier to make the world accessible to all then to really have your decisions matter. I get that a lot people don't think that way though. They prefer more options even if it limits reactivity. I accept that some people just don't play the game the way that I do.

However, I don't go into "it's unrealistic for all these bisexuals to be hanging around." We knew nothing of Fenris or Merrill's sexuality and Isabela remaind consistent. We knew Anders liked woman already and I don't buy into the "He was straight in Awakenings!" argument. (If we had been able to romance him in that game as a female and not as a male, then I would say the argument had weight.)

There are two kinds of players. Those who want the fantasy and those who want to be a part of a mostly autonomous world (I fall into the latter catagory in case you are wondering).

Nothing wrong with forbidden romance. Viconia in BGII and my Paladin.. But you have to sell it in a way that makes sense. Both in concept and in dialogue.

A doomed love between a Mage and Templar is very Romeo and Juliette.

[Pasquale1234]

brushyourteeth wrote...

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.

In any given playthrough, you have a lot of latitude to assume representation in whatever form you'd like.  The game does not definitively tell you the orientation of any of the characters, nor does it imply that the characters have any notion of the very concept of sexual orientation.

You seem to want to assume that whatever might be implied in-game defines the character's sexuality - and that may be how it works for you, but it doesn't work that way for everyone, and certainly not IRL.  You might, for example, assume that Guillaume and Dulci de Launcet are both heterosexual, but the truth is that you don't really know that - nor do you know that about most couples you know IRL.

I'd agree that the whole unrequited love aspect might be interesting in a game world, but would vastly prefer that it be based on something else - like class, specialization, politics, or morality - rather than gender.

For my part, the only character whose orientation is of any interest to me is the one I might want to engage in romance.

[The dead fish]

Are you serious?  In what universe is authority required to make such judgements?  Do you always take everything everyone says at face value? 

We are talking about a civil debate, lol. There's no more civil discussion if you want to make such judgements, that's the point. Your judgements, you are all homophobe blah blah, actually serves no purpose in the debate. Maybe one day you'll grow up and understand.

Hence my questions asking for specifics.  My post detailed that I do not buy the premise, and will not buy the premise, so any position relying on it will have to be specific and not take my nodding along with their vague statements for granted. 

There were thousand of topics. It's not like it is the first topic, huh. Maybe people are tired to talk about that, over and over again. Maybe people don't want to debate anymore precisely , just want to give their opinion. And you only gave your opinion, not a fact about their " vague ". Me, your opinion, I don't care when I read it. I do not find it interesting. But see, I understand that it is only my opinion.

If you do not buy something, good, then don't buy it. There's nothing more to say actually, huh. The rest is useless.

It's a dead horse. I don't care myself anymore about this subject. It's always the same people that talk again and again. If you want to believe they are all homophobe, that's your problem. But then, again, I say myself you are an idiot lol.

Then they can simply not participate in them.

You can do that too. You think for others, you do not want to read what is actually written and you think you are better than others, while actually you are just a rabid dog.  You have already made up your mind about others. You are not interested in the debate.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 02 mai 2012 - 05:47 .

[Tirigon]

Curlain wrote...


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? 

Bloood magic is a tool. You can use it to rape and devour virgins, or you can use it to defeat evildoers.

Which you do is how you must be judged, and it is YOU who does it, not the tool.


Owning a gun does not make you evil. Using it to shoot innocent children does. It is the same here.

[Mmw04014]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Mmw04014 wrote...

My problem with the romances in DA2 was just part of a greater problem with the game. Our choices were basically meaningless. Want to romance Anders as an anti Mage Hawke? Sure! Want to romance Isabela by being a total jerk to her constantly? Go ahead! Any position these characters took was disregarded simply to accomadate the PC. Gender becomes apart of that. If all the characters become one size fits all, then what is the point of giving them opinions, stances, or preferances? Again, this goes beyond just a characters sexuality.

Did you Rivalmance Anders and Friendmance Anders?  How about Isabela?  Or Fenris?  Or Merril?  

If so, I find it hard to believe that you can hold the honest opinion that the experiences are not different, and that the characters do not react to the PC's choices and opinions.  If the experiences are different, then the game is reacting to your choices by definition.  Just because you can still romance them - in a different way - doesn't change that fact.

Your notion of reactivity seems to be absolute.  That others are accepting of variability of reactivity as opposed to black/white reactivity does not mean they are less concerned with it.

I have rivalmanced and friendmanced every character. I could have worded my argument better. It isn't that they don't react to my character, it's that they react in a way that I believe is untrue to their character. I find it completely unbelievable that Anders would fall in love with a Hawke who was absolutely anti-mage. Allowing him to romance the PC regardless of your choices is just meant to accomadate the PC at the detriment of the character.

Yes, my views on reactivity are absolute. I want the world and its characters to be consistent no matter what my decisions are. If I'm pro mage, I want people to react to that. Yes, a rival and friend Anders will react differently, but the point is you can still romance him no matter what. The reactivity becomes simple flavor changes, not real choice and consequences.

Modifié par Mmw04014, 02 mai 2012 - 05:51 .

[Tirigon]

BobSmith101 wrote...


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

I would say that the Bi characters, Zevran and Leliana, were much better than the straight ones.


Personal opinion? Sure.
But so is yours that having everyone bi makes the romance worse.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvianus wrote...

We are talking about a civil debate, lol. There's no more civil discussion if you want to make such judgements, that's the point. Your judgements, you are all homophobe bnlah blah, actually serves no purpose in the debate. Maybe one day you'll grow up and understand.

That is not what I've been saying.  

Nuance is lost on you, it seems.  Furthermore, questioning someone's motivations or honesty is a perfectly reasonable approach in a civil debate.  The purpose is to reach consensus, or at least mutual understanding, which is not possible if a participant in the debate is not being genuinely forthcoming about their position. 

What would serve a purpose in the debate? You know, since you've appointed yourself arbiter.  I've only been speaking of my standards, no-one is obligated to meet them unless they actively want to convince me.  If they don't, what I require isn't relevant.   On the other hand some people doth protest too much, perhaps a nerve was struck.

Sylvianus wrote... 

I say myself you are an idiot lol.  

"Maybe one day you'll grow up and understand"

Sylvianus wrote...  

You think for others, you do not want to read what is actually written and you think you are better than others, while actually you are just a rabid dog. 

Since when is asking people to explain themselves any of those things?  If they are willing to explain, good.  If they'd rather let their post speak for themselves, fine.  

Sylvianus wrote...  

You have already made up your mind about others.   

 

"I say myself you are an idiot lol."

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 mai 2012 - 05:54 .

[upsettingshorts]

Mmw04014 wrote...

I have rivalmanced and friendmanced every character. I could worded my argument better. It isn't that they don't react to my character, it's that they react in a way that I believe in untrue to their character. I find it completely unbelievable that Anders would fall in love with a Hawke who was absolutely anti-mage. Allowing him to romance the PC regardless of your choices is just meant to accomadate the PC at the detriment of the character.

So you wouldn't be opposed to the same system being used again, you would just hope that it is executed better in the future?

Mmw04014 wrote... 

The reactivity becomes simple flavor changes, not real choice and consequences.

I feel like this dichotomy needs an explanation.  At what point does a flavor change level-up to "real choice and consequence?"  If the divide is as absolute as you say, this should be a simple explanation, should it not?

[brushyourteeth]

jlb524 wrote...

 

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.

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?

Well I would argue that that would make him gay, period. Even if the fact isn't presented to a female protagonist. And why shouldn't it be? Isn't your sexuality a big part of who you are? Isn't everyone's? Why shouldn't each of our companions talk about it just because we can't romance them?

jlb524 wrote...

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).

Sure, I completely understand that. And I'm not intending to take away player choices, even though I realize that that's ultimately one of the consequences of what I'm suggesting.

I guess what I'm saying is... in DA:O, let's pretend that Leliana and Zevran had both been gay instead of bi. And some fans had been upset because they couldn't have a romantic relationship with them. Understandable, but that's how the characters were written in this imaginary scenario.

Now imagine that in order to make romance options available to everyone, Bioware made every LI in DAII bi, instead of gay or straight. Many of us would be up in arms, wondering what was wrong with having characters who are just straight or just gay, and why the writers weren't allowed to write just gay or straight characters.

The truth is that there's nothing wrong with it -- it's a compromise. Bioware is all about inclusion and I'm totally on board with that - I'd simply like to see a mixture of each. I think each character (though they're fictional) ought to have the right to turn your protagonist down based on his/her gender preferences, the same way that we do them. I think it would be fun and interesting to play around in a world where every companion knows what they want and we're supportive, even if we're pining for the love we can't have. It's not at all about taking away gay romance - it's about allowing the game to have love interests with autonomy from the player's choices because that's much more interesting than making that decision for them.

Feel free to disagree - I totally understand. But understand this isn't at all about me wanting to take homosexuality out of the game. My point is mainly that having only bisexual love interests will eventually get a bit stale. You can ask "why should it matter?" and that's a fair question that goes both ways. You can't romance Templar Joe because he's only into men - "why should it matter?" You can't romance Annie Apostate because she's straight - "why should it matter?" My sexuality is part of who I am, and it isn't the same as all my friends'. I just think it'd be neat (not necessary, but neat) to play a game that reflected the same idea.

Modifié par brushyourteeth, 02 mai 2012 - 05:57 .

[AkiKishi]

Tirigon wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...


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

I would say that the Bi characters, Zevran and Leliana, were much better than the straight ones.


Personal opinion? Sure.
But so is yours that having everyone bi makes the romance worse.

I think that is because they are written as bisexual openly rather than just being bisexual by default. My fault for not being clear there. Although that did not seem to carry over to Isabella in DA2, perhaps because everyone was bi... really could not say for sure.

[John Epler]

Also unacceptable forum behaviour - calling someone an idiot.

[Curlain]

Tirigon wrote...

Curlain wrote...


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? 

Bloood magic is a tool. You can use it to rape and devour virgins, or you can use it to defeat evildoers.

Which you do is how you must be judged, and it is YOU who does it, not the tool.


Owning a gun does not make you evil. Using it to shoot innocent children does. It is the same here.

Sorry, I was joking with the above comment (I was hoping the face would convey that) but perhaps it wasn't appropriate (as well as being off-topic) in this thread.  I wasn't actually advancing a real view on blood magic or it's uses, so I apologise for the misconception.

[jlb524]

Sylvianus wrote...
There were thousand of topics. It's not like it is the first topic, huh. Maybe people are tired to talk about that, over and over again. Maybe people don't want to debate anymore precisely , just want to give their opinion. And you only gave your opinion, not a fact about their " vague ". Me, your opinion, I don't care when I read it. I do not find it interesting. But see, I understand that it is only my opinion.

This is how these threads go.

The 'anti' crowd gives vague reasons why 'all bi' is bad.  Some examples.

1)  ruins immersion
2)  unrealistic
3)  they cheapen the romance/character/story/game

Some people ask for clarification/further explanation of these reasons...similar to this a few pages back:

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

why then can we not talk about the quality of interaction?

Define quality.  What makes an interaction a quality interaction?

Fandango9641 wrote... 

My objections aren’t predicated on sexual preference, they are coming from a place where I would like to see LI's be a little more sophisticated.

Define sophisticated.  In what way does the all-bi approach harm this?  In what way would a different approach be more sophisticated?

Please use examples.

 

....

And they are answered with...nothing.

[upsettingshorts]

brushyourteeth wrote...

I guess what I'm saying is... in DA:O, let's pretend that Leliana and Zevran had both been gay instead of bi. And some fans had been upset because they couldn't have a romantic relationship with them. Understandable, but that's how the characters were written in this imaginary scenario.

Now imagine that in order to make romance options available to everyone, Bioware made every LI in DAII bi, instead of gay or straight. Many of us would be up in arms, wondering what was wrong with having characters who are just straight or just gay, and why the writers weren't allowed to write just gay or straight characters.

I don't understand this.

Are you claiming that if a character is gay or straight, that was clearly the writers' original intent, but the only reason a character would be bisexual is as a result of a forced compromise from on high?

To use a hypothetical:  What if characters were written to be bi in the game, and they were forced to be straight or gay because a producer felt that approach was better?  Would be pro-bi romances in this scenario, or pro straight/gay romances?

[brushyourteeth]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

I guess what I'm saying is... in DA:O, let's pretend that Leliana and Zevran had both been gay instead of bi. And some fans had been upset because they couldn't have a romantic relationship with them. Understandable, but that's how the characters were written in this imaginary scenario.

Now imagine that in order to make romance options available to everyone, Bioware made every LI in DAII bi, instead of gay or straight. Many of us would be up in arms, wondering what was wrong with having characters who are just straight or just gay, and why the writers weren't allowed to write just gay or straight characters.

I don't understand this.

Are you claiming that if a character is gay or straight, that was clearly the writers' original intent, but the only reason a character would be bisexual is as a result of a forced compromise from on high?

To use a hypothetical:  What if characters were written to be bi in the game, and they were forced to be straight or gay because a producer felt that approach was better?  Would be pro-bi romances in this scenario, or pro straight/gay romances?

Firstly, you're missing the point I'm trying to make, which is that I'd like to see gay, straight, and bisexual love interests all in the same game.

Secondly, I would think it obvious that the change was made from DA:O's two straight and two bisexual romance options to DAII's four bisexual (or subjectively bisexual) because of the fan request for more player choice and better inclusion - which is something I applaud Bioware for.  I would like to see the writers writing gay, straight, and bisexual characters and dialogue that celebrates the differences and similarities in each.

[Red_Sonja]

John Epler wrote...

Also unacceptable forum behaviour - calling someone an idiot.

Yay for double standards (I’d much rather be called an idiot than a homophobe)! Why don’t you try moderating with an even hand John Epler, you might like it?

[upsettingshorts]

brushyourteeth wrote...

I would like to see the writers writing gay, straight, and bisexual characters and dialogue that celebrates the differences and similarities in each.

What are some of the differences?

Red_Sonja wrote...

Yay for double standards (I’d much rather be called an idiot than a homophobe)! Why don’t you try moderating with an even hand John Epler, you might like it?

Feel free to point out where I singled out anyone as being a homophobe.  I'll even apologize.  Take your time, I'll wait. 

An argument can be representative of internalized homophobia without the individual behind it being an active homophobe, you understand this, yes?

"Most arguments I've read fall under this, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise on a case by case basis" != A personal attack.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 mai 2012 - 06:09 .

[Mmw04014]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

So you wouldn't be opposed to the same system being used again, you would just hope that it is executed better in the future?

The all-bi system or the rivalry/friendship system?

I wouldn't be opposed to either system being used again. I have no real opposition to the all-bi approach beyond that when it's paired with the problems I percieve with the characters not reacting appropriately to the PC's choices it makes the characters seem even more one size fits all. If they removed the problem I have with characters reactions, then I really don't think I'd have a problem with them doing all-bi again. The characters would just be bisexual and they would act accordingly.

The rivalry/friendship system is fine, but I want it to have weight and meaning. If I rival Anders, I don't think I should be able to romance him. Yes, I get cut out of content, but I made a choice to roleplay a certain way and the consequence is that I don't get to romance a certain character. This way the characters keep their own consistency and the choice I made had a real impact on what I can do within the world. Some people see this as punishing the player, but I don't see it that way. Actually, I do see it that way. I want to be punished for some of my choices.

I feel like this dichotomy needs an explanation.  At what point does a flavor change level-up to "real choice and consequence?"  If the divide is as absolute as you say, this should be a simple explanation, should it not?

My example above is what I mean by this.

A flavor change is basically the difference between "You love mages. I will romance you" compared with "You hate mages. I will romance you." Both sides show differences but you still are able to do what you want to do which is to romance that character. There is no real choice here because it doesn't matter what you choose, you can still do what you want. There is no consequence for the same reason.

That's about a simple explanation that I can give.

[brushyourteeth]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

I would like to see the writers writing gay, straight, and bisexual characters and dialogue that celebrates the differences and similarities in each.

What are some of the differences?

Is that an honest inquiry, or are you just trying to trap you a bigot? Because I'd hate to disappoint you.

[John Epler]

I think we're done with this thread. If folks would like to discuss romances without the bickering, they're more than welcome to start a new thread - however, if it turns into the same sort of thing it'll be locked again.

[jlb524]

brushyourteeth wrote...
Well I would argue that that would make him gay, period. Even if the fact isn't presented to a female protagonist. And why shouldn't it be? Isn't your sexuality a big part of who you are? Isn't everyone's?

I hope not.

Since he's 'gay', period, what does that mean for his character/personality?

And how should he be depicted differently from someone who's 'straight', period beyond showing the differences between the type of person they are attracted to?

brushyourteeth wrote... 
I guess what I'm saying is... in DA:O, let's pretend that Leliana and Zevran had both been gay instead of bi. And some fans had been upset because they couldn't have a romantic relationship with them. Understandable, but that's how the characters were written in this imaginary scenario.

But to me it seems that they are being limited just to limit options for...some reason and not b/c they are actually going to do something with homosexuality in the narrative.  

brushyourteeth wrote... 
Now imagine that in order to make romance options available to everyone, Bioware made every LI in DAII bi, instead of gay or straight. Many of us would be up in arms, wondering what was wrong with having characters who are just straight or just gay, and why the writers weren't allowed to write just gay or straight characters.

Who would be up in arms?  Do you think the same people who had an issue with DA2's system would be upset if DA:O had 1 gay male (Zevran), 1 gay female (Leliana), 1 bisexual female (Morrigan), 1 bisexual male (Alistair)?  Basically, if DA:O limited the heterosexual PC only and then went to the 'all bi' system, do you think things would be different now as far as complaining about DA2 go?

brushyourteeth wrote...  
The truth is that there's nothing wrong with it -- it's a compromise. Bioware is all about inclusion and I'm totally on board with that - I'd simply like to see a mixture of each

They aren't necessarily opposed to that.

The problem is resources.  It takes more to make a crap ton of LIs for each type.  And it's just as 'gamey' and unrealistic having 1 gay, 1 straight, 1 bisexual of each gender as it is making all of them 'bi' or 'herosexual'.

By 'gamey' I mean, game design considerations trumping 'realism' considerations.  Except one game design (all bi) takes less resources...which means more time spent on each individual romance or on other game elements.