320 réponses à ce sujet

[Sal86]

I answered no but reading on in the thread I realise that the question in the poll is different to the topic of the thread.

The poll asks if all the potnetial romances should be bi. No they shouldn't imo.

The thread asks if all the potential romances should be available to all protagonists. Yes, they should imo.

Personally, I think it would be best and most realistic if the gender of the protagonist had some (not a total) effect on the orientation of the potential romances, like what Nyoka is describing for Cortez:

Nyoka wrote...

About dealing with past and sexual orientation. Making a whole different character is way more expensive than making a couple alternative lines in the conversation. Replace "husband" with "wife" and Cortez becomes a perfectly good heterosexual romance for Femshep, or at least as good as he is now as gay. Then you have that tragic background that you like in both cases. Problem solved.

You can have some characters who are both straight and gay without making them bi. If you're writing a character as bi, write them as bi. If you want a character to be straight for males and gay for females, tailor their story as such. Swap a few pronouns. If they comment that female NPC X is attractive, have the comment that male NPC Y is attractive in the other playthrough (not that they need to do either, just an example. A lot of the boys comment that EDI is attractive in ME3).

If the character has a well written romance then it doesn't show. If I didn't know that kaidan was available to broshep, I would have thought he was straight. In my canon Shep's playthrough, he is.

[psrz]

Being "BI" is different than LIs being available for both genders in the game. The latter is just a mechanic to allow people to romance the character they want with the gender they want.

Isabela was bi, Merrill was not. She was either lesbian or straight. Depending on how you play. Each game, each playthrough is a unique universe. If you play a dudeHawke and Merrill is your chosen LI, she's straight. She's not going to say something like "hey, y'know, there's no such thing as working on the mirror every day in the alienage, been hooking up with that hot Marian Hawke instead..."

When you play your dudeHawke and your immersion is being broken because in someone else's game Merrill is ladyHawke's romance option, then it is a fail on your end. That's metagaming knowledge. That's like your immersion being broken if you learn that Merrill falls in love with a nice Hawke in someone else's game and you happen to have a doucheHawke and she still falls in love with him/her. You're failing as a player.

Modifié par psrz, 29 mai 2012 - 04:30 .

[Apathy1989]

Yeah its not so much Bisexual as Shepardsexual (or Hawksexual, as was the case in DA2).

Personally I liked it. It did kind of give you the feeling that everyone was chasing your junk, but it gave the opportunity for the writers to make a few, good romances without favouring any sexuality specifically.

Then again, Male shepard being rejected by Traynor was hilarious.

[Fox544]

No. Characters have more weight when they have their own personality. Unrealistic to expect everyone to be bi.

[Reorte]

Most people are straight. Most characters are straight. Some people aren't straight. Some characters aren't straight. What's the problem?

[Walsh1980]

Making everyone Bi just makes them less interesting. If Steve were bi, would he be nearly as interesting? If Traynor was bi, we wouldn't have the brilliant (I thought) part were she rejects a male Shep. Making Tali a kid crushing on a hunky guy to me makes her seem cuter, if she went bi, it wouldn't be as endearing. For a bi character to work they should be set up that way from the outset, like Isabella. The romances in DA2 definitely were hurt by the male/female relationships being the exact same thing only in a different voice.

[mauro2222]

deathlord413 wrote...

This is starting to drift into the whole nature vs nurture argument. There are parts of a persons personality that are hardwired into who they are. These can be changed but it takes more than sheer force of will to do so, drugs, psychological controls, etc. Then there is the way the person is raised which has a strong impact but isn't always compareable to the natrual tendencies of a person. 

And...? this doesn't apply at all to friendship nor respect.

deathlord413 wrote...

In [the case I was refering to] it may be that a man became a soldier out a desire to protect what he knows and destroy what is different. Homosexuality is different from the norm for two reasons:

A) It is not currently socialy acceptable
It is a biological quirck which makes little sense when you look at the grand scheme of Evolution. 

Then he deserves to root in a prison. What kind of human is so afraid of the unknown that must destroy it... I'm sorry but that is just a stupid and a dangerous human.

A) I know, and I agree, change is coming.
Not at all, in fact there are a lot of theories about how homosexuality, or homosexual traits help to the mating process. Other than the fact that homosexuals can still reproduce, the mere existance of homosexuality goes againts what evolution dicatates, so there is a reason.

Evolution put homosexuality there, not humanity. In fact it helps to the reproduction process of our species (not saying that two members of the opposite sex are going to have offspring)

deathlord413 wrote...

Humans have another quirck which is monogamy. There are only a few other animals that exhibit this trait and as far as I'm aware there are no same sex partners in those species. The species that do exhibit homosexual behavior normally don't have single partners and still go with members of the opposite sex. 

Incorrect, this is still being debated. Currently, evidence points to biologycal polygamy, what society dictates is a complete different level.

deathlord413 wrote...

Also a "Brothers in Arms" friendship is different from one that you form on your own. Normally it is formed under duress and in tough conditions. You look to your "Brother" for support and to watch your back, so that you stay alive. It is not an emotional bond that one creates in order have some kind of intimacy with another. In those situations emotions are seen as a weakness and a hinderance. This is part of nature in that we a species are violent and cruel, no ifs, ands, nor buts about it. Our society perpetuates that part of ourselves because to be anything else risks destruction. If one side is seen as weak they will inevitably be attacked, just like if one is seen as an oppressor. Though the reasons behind those attacks will be different. 

And that is friendship dude, that's what I said. In the same way not everyone wants to sex you, not every gay wants to sex you, simple.

And no, cruelty is by no means natural, violence either. You're confusing agressive traits which appear in certain situations to ensure survival or defense with what sick minds or twisted minds do.

[malakim2099]

frylock23 wrote...

malakim2099 wrote...

Bob3terd wrote...

Not every one is bi.
We need dedicated homosexual characters, hetero, and bi's.

Problem is that there were a lot of #2, and very little #1/#3.

You're joking right?

Try ME3 as a straight femShep. You have two options assuming you didn't nuke one of Virmire and managed to romance the other in ME2. Of the other two possibilities for you, the developers straight out admitted they forgot one was a LI so he doesn't even net you the achievement if you try to stay loyal, and the other dumps you for a chick he knocks up, so you get nothing there.

It's possible for a straight femShep to play ME3 with absolutely ZERO options.

Oh, I was referring more to the number of options for heterosexual vs. bi/homosexual.

Your "straight" options.
ME1 - Kaidan, Ashley
ME2 - Garrus, Jacob, Thane; Miranda, Tali, Jack
ME3 - Ashley (again)

Your "not-straight" options
ME1 - Liara
ME2 - Kelly, I guess? - not really a "romance" option
ME3 - Traynor, Cortez, Allers (doesn't seem to care either way), Kaidan

Wasn't saying anything about the quality of options for Femshep... I mean, frankly, the reason that she tends to go for Liara when I play her is that most of the actual male LIs... kinda suck. Sorry dudes. (Except for Garrus, but he's like my little brother, and that's just WRONG.)

Still should be a Renegade option for shooting Jacob in the man-region, though, if you romanced him in ME2 and you discover his cheatery in ME3.

[HellbirdIV]

gearseffect wrote...

HellbirdIV wrote...

Related topic:

It really bugs me that the same sex romance options are almost always the same.

Male/Male: Athletic but not overly burly man who is strong-headed but sensetive and intelligent.

Female/Female: Geeky "cute" lipstick lesbian who is out of place in the grim dark reality of war and needs comforting and support. (Who's surprised Tali was intended as a same-sex option in 2 before they cut it? No-one?  I thought so.)

No MaleShep hooking up with sexy mysterious Thane, no FemShep hooking up with the butch, aggressive Jack.

The closest we got was the romantic conversation you can have with Samara as a Paragon... Well, assuming you're not playing MaleShep, in which case you don't get shiet.

Yeah to the best of my understanding there is nothing differnt between MaleShep/Samara and FemShep/Samara.

Yes, my meaning was that a gay FemShep can, if Paragon, at least explore the idea of a relationship with Samara even if she is ultimately rejected.

Gay MaleShep? NOPE.avi

[ViableFuzzball]

What about a random option at the start which picks random Squad members and and gives them one of the different options (Bi,Gay, Straight)
It would also make each play through unique

[incinerator950]

Absolutely not. We do not need this game to become more convoluted then most Japanese games and stories.

[Vigil_N7]

Definitely not - funnily enough their sexual orientation tells us a little bit about their character, not much, but its still a defining thing. Not only that but it'll add NOTHING to the game.

[Obvakhi]

No.... I hated that in DA2, it just kills off any individuality. I especially hated how lazy they were by making the love scenes mirrored(the IsabelaxFemHawke scene was just awkward)

Modifié par Obvakhi, 30 mai 2012 - 10:57 .

[Blacklash93]

And legitimizing the arguement with "cost efficiency" seems shallow in itself, IMO

Considering the same "cost efficiency" point is used to argue against gay or bi romancable characters in general, it's not really fair to say that.

Not only that but it'll add NOTHING to the game.

Not for you. But for others, certainly.

Now if you said it takes away from the game for you then that's a legitimate point.

I especially hated how lazy they were by making the love scenes mirrored(the IsabelaxFemHawke scene was just awkward)

We never saw actual sex in DA2. Just the "before" and "after" scenes. I don't see why those things need to be different for a same-sex couple. The process of making out is actually the same for gays and straights, if you didn't know.

What should have been different for Isabela and FemHawke? Isabela is top. Always. Her words, not mine. And FemHawke is still very much capable of carrying someone.

Absolutely not. We do not need this game to become more convoluted then most Japanese games and stories.

Unrealistic does not equal convoluted.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 30 mai 2012 - 11:19 .

[HellbirdIV]

Vigil_N7 wrote...

their sexual orientation tells us a little bit about their character, not much, but its still a defining thing.

Really? So Steve would have been a worse character if he'd been grieving his wife instead?

Care to elaborate on why that is?

[Apocaleepse360]

I could take it or leave it.

It's good to have more options for our gay/bisexual communities.

However, it also takes away from character development when everyone is bisexual. For example, Zevran from DA: Origins, he was bisexual because of his character and his personal history. Having characters being bisexual just for the sake of it can make them feel a little less developed.

Modifié par Apocaleepse360, 30 mai 2012 - 12:49 .

[Helios969]

One thing they could have done is make every character bi/gay romancible by default. Then once a certain threshold was passed other characters become locked as "straight." I know some wouldn't like that because life doesn't work that way, but it would have made everybody's favorite character accessible.  That or a high enough P/R/ reputation opens up the "willing to experiment" option.  Would have liked to be able to romance Tali with FemShep.

Modifié par Helios969, 30 mai 2012 - 12:49 .

[Blacklash93]

Apocaleepse360 wrote...
However, it also takes away from character development when everyone is bisexual. For example, Zevran from DA: Origins, he was bisexual because of his character and his personal history. Having characters being bisexual just for the sake of it can make them feel a little less developed.

Sexuality can be related to character history or development, but it's hardly mandatory.

Having every gay or bi character going "I'm this way because of X and Y." seems forced and even a little offensive, honestly. Why do people need to justify who they are attracted to? Another strength of Steve and Samantha is that they were what they were and didn't need to make issue of or explain it.

But besides that you can have every romancable character be bi and have it be part of their history, you know. It just becomes contrived and repetitive to make issue of it for each one of them.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 30 mai 2012 - 02:15 .

[EricHVela]

I think it brings another level of reality when a character swings in certain ways.

If an NPC is in their own less-than-perfect relationship and is unfaithful with the player's character, that would be fine.

If an NPC is in their own blissful, faithful relationship and the players demand that the NPC become unfaithful just for them, that seems to be crossing a line. Yet, I take relationships differently than most games do. In a game, it's just a game, but in a story, it loses something when a devoted wife gets changed into a floozy.

I see this no different than demanding that writers change their characters' gender preferences (at least, after the ink has dried).

[Blacklash93]

ReggarBlane wrote...

I think it brings another level of reality when a character swings in certain ways.

If an NPC is in their own less-than-perfect relationship and is unfaithful with the player's character, that would be fine.

If an NPC is in their own blissful, faithful relationship and the players demand that the NPC become unfaithful just for them, that seems to be crossing a line. Yet, I take relationships differently than most games do. In a game, it's just a game, but in a story, it loses something when a devoted wife gets changed into a floozy.

I see this no different than demanding that writers change their characters' gender preferences (at least, after the ink has dried).

Why would anyone want a character to be unfaithful? Honestly, just look at the Jacob fiasco.

There is also no "demanding" going on here. I see no guilt-tripping messages to the devs or threats or insults to them or anything like that. But as Sian said a bit ago, this ship has sailed and there's nothing anyone can do to change the romantic options for Shep.

[Han Shot First]

jlb524 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...
Samantha Traynor and Steve Cortez are homosexual romance options only.

How often do you see that?

They are also non-squadmate characters.

Other than them not being full squadmates you don't have a gripe. There are two characters on the Normandy who are homosexual romance options only, just as there are three characters who are straight options only.  Two characters are bi.

Homosexual players weren't in any way slighted by Bioware in ME3.

jlb524 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...  
Your post = epic fail.

I doubt you are even reading my posts considering you keep dodging the 'realism' point made a few posts ago.

I addressed it.

I had said that pointing out things that were unrealistic was hardly a convincing argument for adding in other elements that were unrealistic.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 30 mai 2012 - 09:28 .