473 réponses à ce sujet

[PizzaThe Hutt]

brushyourteeth wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...
"Yep, all four LI's are bi! What luck!" stance because it makes oh-so-much-more sense than "Isabela is what you want her to be." Excuse me? Isabela does what she wants -- it's why I love her! And I would even then be much happier if we had more excellent companions and NPC's who were gay, straight, and transgendered.

Isabela isn't what you want her to be (in regards to sexuality) since her sexuality is expclicity defined in game via conversations that take place outside of LI dialog.

However, with some LIs, they only express any form of sexuality via interaction with the PC, so in that case, sexuality is up to player interpretation.  Lots of BW LIs are like this in that they only express sexuality with the PC...even if these LIs are exclusive to one gender.

Yeah, that's the part I have a problem with. Just me, though - admittedly I'm the weird one. I really should just quit bringing this up and let people enjoy their game.

I don't think you're weird on that opinion.  I think it's really cool to stumble on a game that has more variety in their game like having gay NPCs and all that jazz.  I don't know, for me it's makes a fantasy world more believable...  What I mean by that is that it says that people(even fictional) have their preferences, their likes and dislikes, etc. better to tolerate them for it than change them to what the player would prefer, if the player made the fantasy world they could do whatever they want with it.  Since it's a world that the player is being immersed in I think it's better to make that world more believable(not for reality sake) by giving the characters of that world their own preferences(a mind of their own as it were).  Beyond that, when in doubt, Headcanon it...  Stragnely that reminds me of Fable, they had gay and cross-dressing NPCs there, so I doubt it's that hard...

[Masha Potato]

Gay NPCs will make fantasy world more believable. Okay then

[PizzaThe Hutt]

I know it sounds stupid but meh, whatever..

[brushyourteeth]

PizzaThe Hutt wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...
Yeah, that's the part I have a problem with. Just me, though - admittedly I'm the weird one. I really should just quit bringing this up and let people enjoy their game.

I don't think you're weird on that opinion.  I think it's really cool to stumble on a game that has more variety in their game like having gay NPCs and all that jazz.  I don't know, for me it's makes a fantasy world more believable...  What I mean by that is that it says that people(even fictional) have their preferences, their likes and dislikes, etc. better to tolerate them for it than change them to what the player would prefer, if the player made the fantasy world they could do whatever they want with it.  Since it's a world that the player is being immersed in I think it's better to make that world more believable(not for reality sake) by giving the characters of that world their own preferences(a mind of their own as it were).  Beyond that, when in doubt, Headcanon it...  Stragnely that reminds me of Fable, they had gay and cross-dressing NPCs there, so I doubt it's that hard...

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant! The system is kind of designed so that the player can decide the LI's sexuality in order for them to be able to make the choices they want. But the problem with that is that instead of encouraging diversity in the game, it actually discourages it by giving the player the god-like power of including or excluding whatever type of sexuality they prefer or would rather just not acknowledge.

better to tolerate them for it than change them to what the player would prefer

Definitely.

Masha Potato wrote...
Gay NPCs will make fantasy world more believable. Okay then

I don't see what's so unbelievable about that. At all.

[syllogi]

PizzaThe Hutt wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...
"Yep, all four LI's are bi! What luck!" stance because it makes oh-so-much-more sense than "Isabela is what you want her to be." Excuse me? Isabela does what she wants -- it's why I love her! And I would even then be much happier if we had more excellent companions and NPC's who were gay, straight, and transgendered.

Isabela isn't what you want her to be (in regards to sexuality) since her sexuality is expclicity defined in game via conversations that take place outside of LI dialog.

However, with some LIs, they only express any form of sexuality via interaction with the PC, so in that case, sexuality is up to player interpretation.  Lots of BW LIs are like this in that they only express sexuality with the PC...even if these LIs are exclusive to one gender.

Yeah, that's the part I have a problem with. Just me, though - admittedly I'm the weird one. I really should just quit bringing this up and let people enjoy their game.

I don't think you're weird on that opinion.  I think it's really cool to stumble on a game that has more variety in their game like having gay NPCs and all that jazz.  I don't know, for me it's makes a fantasy world more believable...  What I mean by that is that it says that people(even fictional) have their preferences, their likes and dislikes, etc. better to tolerate them for it than change them to what the player would prefer, if the player made the fantasy world they could do whatever they want with it.  Since it's a world that the player is being immersed in I think it's better to make that world more believable(not for reality sake) by giving the characters of that world their own preferences(a mind of their own as it were).  Beyond that, when in doubt, Headcanon it...  Stragnely that reminds me of Fable, they had gay and cross-dressing NPCs there, so I doubt it's that hard...

What is problematic with this wish for more inclusion is that it is very probable that many people who want "out" homosexual characters want walking, talking, most likely offensive stereotypes, in order to loudly telegraph to the player that the character in front of them meets their preconceived criteria for what a homosexual person should be like.

Some folks have criticized J.K. Rowling for offhandedly mentioning Dumbledore's sexual orientation after the fact, instead of including this information in the books.  Personally, I can see how the fact that he was in love with Grindelwald is pertinent to the story, but the story is told from Harry's perspective, and Dumbledore is not the kind of person who would talk about his personal life with a student, even Harry.  So should he have had a pronounced lisp, or have been a snappy dresser, or played showtunes in his office whenever Harry came to visit?  I would have been far more disappointed by that than I am that Rowling didn't take this opportunity to wedge "progressiveness" into the narrative when it wasn't necessary.  Albus Dumbledore's personality is what it is.  His romantic history isn't relevant to his position as a mentor and father figure to Harry Potter.

If we're going to see same sex couples falling in love, or who are already together, great, that's actually progressive and would be nice to see, especially if their stories are relevant to the plot.  If we are given characters who are only there to be tokens, however, I'll be disappointed. 

[aldien]

But what if you are bisexual? This is more about homosexual characters. For some reason that is always the focus. Besides, why do want something more realistic in a fantasy game? Isn't that the whole point of fantasy? Anyway, I can't remember the last time I saw a fifty foot dragon blowing fire at my rosebushes. So restricting me to have to play as a man to have one romance and as a woman to have another one makes it more realistic? No, there's more to this than that. It's about restricting and excluding people based on your preference.

[brushyourteeth]

syllogi wrote...

What is problematic with this wish for more inclusion is that it is very probable that many people who want "out" homosexual characters want walking, talking, most likely offensive stereotypes, in order to loudly telegraph to the player that the character in front of them meets their preconceived criteria for what a homosexual person should be like.

Some folks have criticized J.K. Rowling for offhandedly mentioning Dumbledore's sexual orientation after the fact, instead of including this information in the books.  Personally, I can see how the fact that he was in love with Grindelwald is pertinent to the story, but the story is told from Harry's perspective, and Dumbledore is not the kind of person who would talk about his personal life with a student, even Harry.  So should he have had a pronounced lisp, or have been a snappy dresser, or played showtunes in his office whenever Harry came to visit?  I would have been far more disappointed by that than I am that Rowling didn't take this opportunity to wedge "progressiveness" into the narrative when it wasn't necessary.  Albus Dumbledore's personality is what it is.  His romantic history isn't relevant to his position as a mentor and father figure to Harry Potter.

If we're going to see same sex couples falling in love, or who are already together, great, that's actually progressive and would be nice to see, especially if their stories are relevant to the plot.  If we are given characters who are only there to be tokens, however, I'll be disappointed. 

Well, as much as I loved Wade and Herren... once is enough. 

And I agree with you about stereotypes. One of the arguments I've seen a lot is that a person's sexuality doesn't define who they are, and I agree with about 90% of that. My sexuality is definitely important to me. I don't go around loudly proclaiming it at random, but when you are friends with someone they will most likely find it important for you to understand and accept that part of them (and the fact that it will not change for anybody).

I thought ME3 did a great job of including gay, straight, and bi characters that didn't pander down to stereotypes. I loved it. All I'm saying is that I think that kind of approach could really add something to DAIII.

And as for Dumbledore, he was totally a snappy dresser - the high-heeled buckled boots (in Chapter one of Sorcerer's Stone, no less!), the star-spangled robes, the maroon suit in the orphanage flashback. Oh yeah. Even before we knew Albus was gay, we totally knew he was a snappy dresser. 

I was honestly pretty bummed about Dumbledore being gay, not because I have a problem with homosexuality, but just because I always hoped that he and Minerva... you know... ah well.

[brushyourteeth]

aldien wrote...

But what if you are bisexual? This is more about homosexual characters. For some reason that is always the focus. Besides, why do want something more realistic in a fantasy game? Isn't that the whole point of fantasy? Anyway, I can't remember the last time I saw a fifty foot dragon blowing fire at my rosebushes. So restricting me to have to play as a man to have one romance and as a woman to have another one makes it more realistic? No, there's more to this than that. It's about restricting and excluding people based on your preference.

Bisexual characters are definitely part of my wish, too! I neglect to say that over and over again because we do already have bisexual LI's in DA:O and DA2 (even if you "reinterpret" the others, Isabela hits on both genders when she joins your party).

But did you really just compare homosexuality to the realistic equivalent of having a dragon maul your garden? Surely that was just a mistake.

And like I said before (though you'd have had to actually go back and read more than just my posts on this page to see it) I understand the value of each player being about to romance all four LI's on any given playthrough. I just hate that we live in a world where OUR choice is more important to us than THEIR choice. I know DA is just a game, but it reflects something nasty inside of us that's okay with changing people so that they're suited to our tastes. You don't think that's unrealistic?

So restricting me to have to play as a man to have one romance and as a woman to have another one makes it more realistic? No, there's more to this than that. It's about restricting and excluding people based on your preference.

Sexuality is restrictive. If I'm a lesbian, I only love women. That takes away your right to romance me if you're a man. Does that hurt your feelings? Is that unfair? Or is that just another facet to my identity and our relationship that you should not only get over, but uphold as unique and valuable? Maybe it's okay to try to change someone's sexuality in a video game, but I think we should be pushing towards great. I think we should be pushing towards acceptance and a celebration of each sexual lifestyle as valid and inalienable.

But for the sake of "player choice" I totally understand the value of having all-bi LI's in the game. So since human nature probably won't budge on this issue, I support more GLBTS companions and NPC's (which currently can only exist, or not exist in your headcannon, depending on what flavor of prejudiced the player might be. Sad.)

[aldien]

brushyourteeth wrote...

aldien wrote...

But what if you are bisexual? This is more about homosexual characters. For some reason that is always the focus. Besides, why do want something more realistic in a fantasy game? Isn't that the whole point of fantasy? Anyway, I can't remember the last time I saw a fifty foot dragon blowing fire at my rosebushes. So restricting me to have to play as a man to have one romance and as a woman to have another one makes it more realistic? No, there's more to this than that. It's about restricting and excluding people based on your preference.

Bisexual characters are definitely part of my wish, too! I neglect to say that over and over again because we do already have bisexual LI's in DA:O and DA2 (even if you "reinterpret" the others, Isabela hits on both genders when she joins your party).

But did you really just compare homosexuality to the realistic equivalent of having a dragon maul your garden? Surely that was just a mistake.

And like I said before (though you'd have had to actually go back and read more than just my posts on this page to see it) I understand the value of each player being about to romance all four LI's on any given playthrough. I just hate that we live in a world where OUR choice is more important to us than THEIR choice. I know DA is just a game, but it reflects something nasty inside of us that's okay with changing people so that they're suited to our tastes. You don't think that's unrealistic?

So restricting me to have to play as a man to have one romance and as a woman to have another one makes it more realistic? No, there's more to this than that. It's about restricting and excluding people based on your preference.

Sexuality is restrictive. If I'm a lesbian, I only love women. That takes away your right to romance me if you're a man. Does that hurt your feelings? Is that unfair? Or is that just another facet to my identity and our relationship that you should not only get over, but uphold as unique and valuable? Maybe it's okay to try to change someone's sexuality in a video game, but I think we should be pushing towards great. I think we should be pushing towards acceptance and a celebration of each sexual lifestyle as valid and inalienable.

But for the sake of "player choice" I totally understand the value of having all-bi LI's in the game. So since human nature probably won't budge on this issue, I support more GLBTS companions and NPC's (which currently can only exist, or not exist in your headcannon, depending on what flavor of prejudiced the player might be. Sad.)

Sorry, if it came across that way. It wasn't my intention to compare homosexuality and dragons. I was just saying the game is unrealistic, so to restrict LI's to a specific sexual preference does nothing to make it more realistic.

You know what would solve this? If BW could implement a way for people to pick their companions sexual preference or perhaps have it randomize on a given playthrough. It just feels like as I read through here, that some people, not everyone has an agenda.

Bottom line: I would like the game to be enjoyable for everyone and not have anyone feel excluded.

[CuriousArtemis]

syllogi wrote...

So should he have had a pronounced lisp, or have been a snappy dresser, or played showtunes in his office whenever Harry came to visit?

YES  Tell me you wouldn't want to read that.

brushyourteeth wrote... 

Well, as much as I loved Wade and Herren... once is enough. 

 

OMG Yeah they were so seriously gay gay.

brushyourteeth wrote...  

My sexuality is definitely important to me. I don't go around loudly proclaiming it at random, but when you are friends with someone they will most likely find it important for you to understand and accept that part of them (and the fact that it will not change for anybody).

 

Well but that's you.  My sexuality is not that important to me, nor is it important to my friends.  Nor is their sexuality important to me.  I worked with a woman for four years before hearing offhand from someone else that she had a longterm girlfriend.  I blinked and though, "Oh, really?" but never really thought about it again.

brushyourteeth wrote...   

I thought ME3 did a great job of including gay, straight, and bi characters that didn't pander down to stereotypes. I loved it.

 

Well except the instigation of the romance with Steve is like a scene straight out of QoF 

brushyourteeth wrote...    

All I'm saying is that I think that kind of approach could really add something to DAIII.
 

  

It would, but only if the hot guys are all still available to my character and not just female characters. 

brushyourteeth wrote...  

I was honestly pretty bummed about Dumbledore being gay, not because I have a problem with homosexuality, but just because I always hoped that he and Minerva... you know... ah well.

I would be fine with that pairing.  Sirius x Remus is the other little known gay couple in Harry Potter.  So little known that Rowling herself has yet to officially reveal it... *derp* xD

[Harle Cerulean]

Aldien, allowing players to choose the sexuality of their companions is pretty much the antithesis of what brushyourteeth is saying, so I'm not sure how you could propose it as a "solution." And, it's a pretty gross idea to me, frankly. When Bigot A can choose to make all companions straight, so that she/he never has to deal with a single gay or lesbian character, you are reinforcing the idea that erasing or changing people's sexualities is okay.

And it's not okay. It's not something that you can choose for people, and it's not something you should be able to choose for your companions, because then you're supporting the people who feel that it is okay. If this were purely a fictional matter, that would be one thing, but when our culture has a disturbingly large segment of the population who look at being gay/bi/lesbian as something to be "cured," and shoved into a dark corner and ignored if you can't cure it, then representing it as something that can be changed/hidden reaffirms their belief. That's wrong, and David Gaider has said it won't happen, for exactly that reason.

Personally, I like the all-bi LIs, because I like to have the options available no matter what I play. But, I also agree with brushyourteeth that there should be at least some characters defined within the GLBTQIA spectrum, so we don't have this "subjective sexuality" nonsense that shouldn't even be an issue due to the fact that the characters don't change, only our perceptions do, so arguing about what they are from a meta standpoint where we have the full information is pretty ridiculous.

Now, the matter of how to define characters is tricky, because no, walking, talking stereotypes wouldn't be any better, and frankly, lots of people don't just up and talk about their sexuality or past history of lovers, especially if they're afraid of people shaming, shunning, or hurting them for it. But 'tricky' doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. I don't like giving bigots an "out."

[aldien]

Harle Cerulean wrote...

Aldien, allowing players to choose the sexuality of their companions is pretty much the antithesis of what brushyourteeth is saying, so I'm not sure how you could propose it as a "solution." And, it's a pretty gross idea to me, frankly. When Bigot A can choose to make all companions straight, so that she/he never has to deal with a single gay or lesbian character, you are reinforcing the idea that erasing or changing people's sexualities is okay.

And it's not okay. It's not something that you can choose for people, and it's not something you should be able to choose for your companions, because then you're supporting the people who feel that it is okay. If this were purely a fictional matter, that would be one thing, but when our culture has a disturbingly large segment of the population who look at being gay/bi/lesbian as something to be "cured," and shoved into a dark corner and ignored if you can't cure it, then representing it as something that can be changed/hidden reaffirms their belief. That's wrong, and David Gaider has said it won't happen, for exactly that reason.

Personally, I like the all-bi LIs, because I like to have the options available no matter what I play. But, I also agree with brushyourteeth that there should be at least some characters defined within the GLBTQIA spectrum, so we don't have this "subjective sexuality" nonsense that shouldn't even be an issue due to the fact that the characters don't change, only our perceptions do, so arguing about what they are from a meta standpoint where we have the full information is pretty ridiculous.

Now, the matter of how to define characters is tricky, because no, walking, talking stereotypes wouldn't be any better, and frankly, lots of people don't just up and talk about their sexuality or past history of lovers, especially if they're afraid of people shaming, shunning, or hurting them for it. But 'tricky' doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. I don't like giving bigots an "out."

Harle! I have missed you


If Bigot A is truly a bigot then it doesn't really matter because I doubt seriously they are playing this game.

It's a game Harle not a political statement. You aren't going to change the minds of the mass by placing real life in a fantasy game. Some people get upset by the game's concept, but those people always want something to complain about.

because then you're supporting the people who feel that it is okay.

I take offense at that for reasons I am not going state pubicly and you are now making me into a bigot, which, trust me is the furthest thing from the truth. My proposol was not meant to 'cure' anything. Personally, I get sick of seeing labels thrown around like cheap flyers in a carpark. Let's just throw everyone in one big pot and that way we cover it all. Like it was said to me up ther: "Oh yes I meant to include bisexuals too.' Oh yes, you people, wouldn't want to exclude you. Even the labellers forget to use all their labels.

at least some characters defined within the GLBTQIA spectrum, so we
don't have this "subjective sexuality" nonsense that shouldn't even be
an issue due to the fact that the characters don't change, only our
perceptions do, so arguing about what they are from a meta standpoint
where we have the full information is pretty ridiculous.

Say you get your way. Do you know what will happen next? People will start complaining because now you have to make each of those characters believable without any type of prejudice, understand the culture contained within each label and not offend someone because of lack of experience. So, ideally you would want a writer for each one of those sexually oriented groups to come in and write. That's not going to happen. If it does I will be shocked. What you will get is a writer trying to write dialogue for a group of people he/she does not understand, for a sexual preference that he/she does not have. That already happened in DA2. The character that was supposed to represent a certain section of society was absolutely hated. I understand why, because when I went back and looked at character through their eyes I understood why they felt like BW was making fun of them and not taking their sexual choices seriously. That's the biggest problem I have with characters being limited to one sexual preference only. No one can sum that up in a game adequately without the life experience and choices to back it up. It becomes a guessing game and then a stereotyped character or worse, obvious dislike of that character's preferred sexual choice comes shining through.

So what would you rather have, Harle? You want to have stereotyped LI's or allow the characters to be just sexual in any given playthrough?

By the way, quit inferring that I am bigot. You do not know my sexual orientation or my family situation or anything about me personally. 

I was simply stating an option and had absolutely no agenda, unlike what I keep seeing around here. I want the game to be fun for all. This game will never prove to society at large that their narrowmindedness is wrong. It's a wonderful leap compared to games of the past, but it can't do what you want it to do. It has limitations and my thoughts were solely concerned with making it accessible to everyone. Believe it or not I was trying to be helpful instead of spouting out my sexual orientation and labelling people and then expecting everyone to automatically agree with me. (I don't mean you, Harle)  At this point, I hope they go back to making the characters bisexual, otherwise we will be dealing with stereotypes and that hurts more than anything. I know... the bisexual situation is steretyped too. But everyone seems to be okay with that. I'm not but it always becomes default and that's okay with the labellers.

I'm not arguing with you Harle on here any longer. You can pm me if you want to sersiously talk otherwise I will end up being the target of people's frustrations with society. Hey, I'm just not up to that job today. I do respect you but I won't be made a target. Love ya!<3

Modifié par aldien, 02 août 2012 - 03:42 .

[The Uncanny]

brushyourteeth wrote...

I just hate that we live in a world where OUR choice is more important to us than THEIR choice. I know DA is just a game, but it reflects something nasty inside of us that's okay with changing people so that they're suited to our tastes.

Change? From what?

[Cartims]

The Uncanny wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

I just hate that we live in a world where OUR choice is more important to us than THEIR choice. I know DA is just a game, but it reflects something nasty inside of us that's okay with changing people so that they're suited to our tastes.

Change? From what?

Yeah...I know what you mean. people keep trying to make me straight...wtf...I'm Gay, leave me be.

[Milan92]

I haven't really followed this thread, but I really don't see the problem that the OP has.

Do people feel insulted or something when they get hit up by their own gender? If thats the case, why do you feel insulted? If your not interested in them then you can just politely reject them right?

If its because that it doesn't feel realistic to you then please realize that games are not meant to be realistic. If games are just as realistic as real life what would be the point in playing games? Since it would be just like real life 

Modifié par Milan92, 02 août 2012 - 01:52 .

[Amirit]

It's more about canons then IRL sexuality. You played, you had your story the way you wanted and suddenly you see someone insisting that you read your characters all wrong. Like ..I don't know... an alternative version of Titanic with gay DiCaprio. Some might just laugh but some will be offended by very idea - and only because it brakes canon.

[The Uncanny]

Amirit wrote...

It's more about canons then IRL sexuality.

But if you can play the game in multiple ways surely there is no canon. And isn't the only canon that matters your personal one?

Isabela sleeps with guys. Isabela can sleep with DudeHawke. But the only thing that matters to me is that Isabela sleeps with my Hawke.

[Baronesa]

Consider the following.

I wanted to romance Morrigan with my warden, I couldn't
I wanted to romance Tali, Jack and Miranda with Shepard, I couldn't
I wanted to romance Bastila and couldn't.

Having every possible love interest open to both genders gives more choice, and in the only canon that matters is the one YOU lived.

I don't care that on someone else's play Leliana ended up with a male Warden, all I care is that she ended up with MY Wardenm, I don't care that Liara, or Merril or Isabella can end up with a male, all I care is that they are with my Shepard and my Hawke.

The only thing that you are proposing is to limit options to others because you are feeling uncomfortable knowing that the characters MAY be bisexual or homosexual on someone else's play through.

[mousestalker]

It's entirely possible to play DA (Origins and 2) without any romance at all. The idea strikes me as rather dull, but it's possible. If you play DAO without romancing anyone and just being buddies with the gang, how is that uncanonical? And how, exactly is that more or less canonical than if my Cousland romances Alistair? or Zevran? or Leliana?

Not seeing the logic here.

Modifié par mousestalker, 02 août 2012 - 02:29 .

[Amirit]

The Uncanny wrote...

But if you can play the game in multiple ways surely there is no canon. And isn't the only canon that matters your personal one?

Good points. Both of them. There are some problems, though.

If there is no canon - I can not come to forums and discuss it. I can not come here and say "oh, what a woundeful love story it was - my F!Hawk and Fenris!" Someone will come and point out that Fenris is gay accoding to their vision. And it does ruin the moment (as would my interruption of gay-Fenris discussion). Now, with Alistair or Morrigan it's stable and no matter who am I talking to we are always on the same page. And I like stability...

Yet, "only your canon matters" is the right point too and your vision should not bother me at all. But it does and I do not know what to do with it 

[Siansonea]

Limiting in-game options for metagame reasons? Dumb.

Give everybody the option to have the experience they want. It's a game. And this is one of the LEAST "unrealistic" implementations of player choice in the games. Don't want a romance option? Here's an idea, DON'T ROMANCE THAT CHARACTER. Customize your game. That's kind of the whole point. And the more options you have, the more meaningful the options you CHOOSE become.

People should spend less time on doctoral theses about inhibiting other players' options, and more time getting over themselves.

[Sunnie]

Milan92 wrote...
Do people feel insulted or something when they get hit up by their own gender? If thats the case, why do you feel insulted? If your not interested in them then you can just politely reject them right?

If its because that it doesn't feel realistic to you then please realize that games are not meant to be realistic. If games are just as realistic as real life what would be the point in playing games? Since it would be just like real life 

I don't think that people are actually "insulted", I do think they are frightened of the unknown and/or frightened of the possibility that they themselves might just be one of societies disliked minorities.

People are programmed from an early age by society to follow what that societies majority rule wants them to think, how to think it, and how to react.

I feel sorry for these people, their eyes will never really see the bigger world and all the wonders it contains. For how could they, since they can't even get past something as wonderful as another human being showing more thna a passing interest in them.  I am what I am, but that doesn't mean that I am not flattered when some good looking guy hits on me or compliments me in some way.

People need to leave their phobias back in the last century where they belong, which means overcomming  years and years of programming. Some manage it, but most don't, sadly.

[Amirit]

Siansonea II wrote...
 Don't want a romance option? Here's an idea, DON'T ROMANCE THAT CHARACTER.

Now, this one is wrong. It DOES bother me if I take some character as strait but when play the same gender have a flirting option. Why bothering me is less important then bothering you?

I will stay with my opinion: let us set NPC orientation for every game, like we can set hair color - and there will be no problems.

[Baronesa]

Amirit wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...
 Don't want a romance option? Here's an idea, DON'T ROMANCE THAT CHARACTER.

Why bothering me is less important then bothering you?

Because your stance is rooted on bigotry and intolerance. You rather do not encounter same sex content, while no matter where I look I'm forced to swallow heteronormative content, how the hell is that fair?

[Xilizhra]

Amirit wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...
 Don't want a romance option? Here's an idea, DON'T ROMANCE THAT CHARACTER.

Now, this one is wrong. It DOES bother me if I take some character as strait but when play the same gender have a flirting option. Why bothering me is less important then bothering you?

I will stay with my opinion: let us set NPC orientation for every game, like we can set hair color - and there will be no problems.

Why? Just have everyone be bisexual, it's less work.