930 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

Alessa-00 wrote...
Well, ... you totally missed me.

You refuse to play the opposite sex, but you claim for having the experience anyhow. If people here keep claiming for having more and more options it will end up with total abandonment of romances.

You get less options by all the LIs being bi? Mind explaining that to me? 

No the o/s has a different experience than the s/s. They're not the exact same romance. They're romancing the same character and yes a lot of the dialogue is similar if not the same but It is not the same exact experience.

It's like telling someone who has a blue shirt on and someone who has a red shirt on they both have on the same exact shirt. Even if everything's the same about the shirt except the color and maybe the red shirts had inside sitching and the blue one outside they don't have the same exact shirt one.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 09 juin 2012 - 10:15 .

[Iakus]

Ryzaki wrote...

So...romancing a character with a male is the same thing as romancing them with a female?

The desire isn't "to romance Alistair"

It's "to romance Alistair with a male PC".

There's a difference there Iakus.

To the first part:  depends on how well done the romance is.

If it's just a cost saving device, probably not much difference.

To the second part, I have to ask:

Is the desire "to romance Alistair with a male PC"  or is it "to have a m/m romance option"?

[TJX2045]

Alessa-00 wrote...

TJX2045 wrote...

Alessa-00 wrote...

Sorry, but that sounds like claiming for the possibility to experience the mage origin without being a mage.

Except it's not.

Mage vs. Non-mage =/= All-Bi vs. Non-Bi.

People who dislike playing mage will, for the most part, never play mage.  If they do, it'll feel forced and they won't enjoy it.  It will not affect their love interests.

So why should people who dislike playing the opposite sex who will very likely abhor playing the opposite sex have their love interests affected as well?

Honestly Sebastian could've worked as Bi as well.  He has a chaste
relationship.  There's no sex.  it's just the idea that religion =
straight people only which is not the case.

Well, ... you totally missed me.

You refuse to play the opposite sex, but you claim for having the experience anyhow. If people here keep claiming for having more and more options it will end up with total abandonment of romances.

How am I claiming to have the "experience" of the opposite sex?  This claim seems like the typical society thought process that all straight people must act this way or all LGBT people must act this way.

If they never established their sexuality, the common stereotype is that everyone assumes you are straight.  If you start doing effeminate things then automatically the guy is gay.  It's obvious this is not the case.

It seems like the problem that everyone has with all-bi LIs is that they don't cater to stereotypes.  Hell, even Cortez in ME3 doesn't.

[Ryzaki]

iakus wrote...
To the first part:  depends on how well done the romance is.

If it's just a cost saving device, probably not much difference.

To the second part, I have to ask:

Is the desire "to romance Alistair with a male PC"  or is it "to have a m/m romance option"?

No it's not. Unless the dialogue was perfectly identical (and no matter how much all bi detractors claim that's the case for DA2 it's not) it won't be.

The former. The m/m romance option in DAO is Zevran who I can't stand and I'm sure others felt the same way. Luckily in DAO I prefer playing a femWarden thus I stick to romancing Alistair. If I was a gay male though I'd be pretty bummed if I only had one choice and it was the one guy I couldn't stand. That blows. Just like it blew for my only option in BG2 as a female to be Ameojerk.

[TJX2045]

iakus wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

So...romancing a character with a male is the same thing as romancing them with a female?

The desire isn't "to romance Alistair"

It's "to romance Alistair with a male PC".

There's a difference there Iakus.

To the first part:  depends on how well done the romance is.

If it's just a cost saving device, probably not much difference.

To the second part, I have to ask:

Is the desire "to romance Alistair with a male PC"  or is it "to have a m/m romance option"?

That's like asking:

Is the desire "to romance Morrigan with a male PC" or is it "to have a m/f romance option?"

Imagine if all you had was Leliana and Morrigan was not romancable.  If you weren't attracted to Leliana or enjoyed her character, having her as a m/f option wouldn't mean anything to you.

Modifié par TJX2045, 09 juin 2012 - 10:21 .

[Blacklash93]

Maybe Bioware should just do it like Fallout: New Vegas. Let players occassionally flirt with NPCs and companions, but rarely let them sleep with them and when it does happen just make it fade to black.

[TJX2045]

Blacklash93 wrote...

Maybe Bioware should just do it like Fallout: New Vegas. Let players occassionally flirt with NPCs and companions, but rarely let them sleep with them and when it does happen just make it fade to black.

Does it bother you that much that everyone has the option to romance who they want that you would consider removing it all together?

The romances DID play out differently in DA2 with male or female.  I've heard lines in DA2 romance videos that I didn't get as a male.  They could have been made much better overall with differences.  For example, ME3 does a good job with the bi romances.

[Abispa]

iakus wrote...

TJX2045 wrote...


Except it's not.

Mage vs. Non-mage =/= All-Bi vs. Non-Bi.

People who dislike playing mage will, for the most part, never play mage.  If they do, it'll feel forced and they won't enjoy it.  It will not affect their love interests.

So why should people who dislike playing the opposite sex who will very likely abhor playing the opposite sex have their love interests affected as well?

What about those who love the mage origin story but hate playing a mage?  Is it fair that they'd prefer to play as a  dwarf warrior but can't have a mage origin?

Again you waste time and cloud the issue. We aren't discussing hypotheticals. Hero-sexual romances already exist in DA, and, from the (admittedly) vague hints of DA3, will continue to. It is NOT up to s/s supporters to justify the DA teams' decision, it's for s/s critics to argue how replacing the admittedly unrealistic hero-sexual solution with an equally unrealistic quota system is a better use of resources that SHOULD, IHMO, be used on better game design and fleshing out the plot.

Why is hero-sexual LIs more offensive than the amoral LIs of ME, the bribery by the Warden in DA:O, or the automatic horn-dogs of BG2? Hawke cannot romance EVERYBODY, not even everyone in his/her squad. Hawke can have his/her heart broken (in game). Hawke can have a friendship with any squadmate regardless of gender, with no fear of ninjamancing. Hawke can be SHOT DOWN after flirting. Do these changes get any positive feedback from critics? No. I have read posters in this very thread FLAT OUT LIE about everyone lusting after Hawke, and saying that (ha!) past LIs were more "realistic" (?) when there only real limitation was gender (or height in BG2).

[Ryzaki]

It would be nice to be able to flirt with NPCs and such and get rejected for all manners of reason. "You're human, you're not human, you're too nice, you're not nice, I don't like aggressive females, I don't like aggressive men, I haven't known you long enough, I've known you too long and you're like a sibling to me at this point, blah blah blah."

This is of course one of the limitless resources things though.

Hawke being burned by that female elf was hilarious though. We need more of that.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 09 juin 2012 - 10:28 .

[Iakus]

Ryzaki wrote...

The former. The m/m romance option in DAO is Zevran who I can't stand and I'm sure others felt the same way. Luckily in DAO I prefer playing a femWarden thus I stick to romancing Alistair. If I was a gay male though I'd be pretty bummed if I only had one choice and it was the one guy I couldn't stand. That blows. Just like it blew for my only option in BG2 as a female to be Ameojerk.

But I didn't say Zevran, I said a m/m romance option (though in hindsight, I probably should have specified "another" m/m option)

What I mean is, is it a desire to have more options, or is it a desire a particular  LI who happens to be unavailable?

[Ryzaki]

iakus wrote...
But I didn't say Zevran, I said a m/m romance option (though in hindsight, I probably should have specified "another" m/m option)

What I mean is, is it a desire to have more options, or is it a desire a particular  LI who happens to be unavailable?

The desire to have an LI I'd prefer. Since the only other male LI there is Alistair that's who I want. (and frankly I'd want Alistair anyway. He's my favorite LI. Being able to romance him with both gendered PCs would be a bonus. As it is my males tend to end up single.)

For me it's both. #2 wouldn't be so strong if I had the same amount of s/s and o/s options for each character because at least then there's a higher chance I'll actually like the other LI. Since that's unlikely without all Bi LIs I'd rather all the LIs be available to both genders.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 09 juin 2012 - 10:30 .

[Alessa]

TJX2045 wrote...

Alessa-00 wrote...

TJX2045 wrote...

Alessa-00 wrote...

Sorry, but that sounds like claiming for the possibility to experience the mage origin without being a mage.

Except it's not.

Mage vs. Non-mage =/= All-Bi vs. Non-Bi.

People who dislike playing mage will, for the most part, never play mage.  If they do, it'll feel forced and they won't enjoy it.  It will not affect their love interests.

So why should people who dislike playing the opposite sex who will very likely abhor playing the opposite sex have their love interests affected as well?

Honestly Sebastian could've worked as Bi as well.  He has a chaste
relationship.  There's no sex.  it's just the idea that religion =
straight people only which is not the case.

Well, ... you totally missed me.

You refuse to play the opposite sex, but you claim for having the experience anyhow. If people here keep claiming for having more and more options it will end up with total abandonment of romances.

How am I claiming to have the "experience" of the opposite sex?  This claim seems like the typical society thought process that all straight people must act this way or all LGBT people must act this way.

If they never established their sexuality, the common stereotype is that everyone assumes you are straight.  If you start doing effeminate things then automatically the guy is gay.  It's obvious this is not the case.

It seems like the problem that everyone has with all-bi LIs is that they don't cater to stereotypes.  Hell, even Cortez in ME3 doesn't.

You claim for options the game already offers, but you refuse to accept them, because they are not offered the way you would have liked. I can understand why David Gaider is already confused and frustrated with all the people here demanding for more and more romance options.

David Gaider wrote...

MKDAWUSS wrote...
Personally,
for DA3, I'd rather have no LIs period. In fact, they should shoot you
down should you try to advance on them.

That certainly
does get tempting after reading a thread like this, where one would
almost come to the conclusion that the entire point of the game is to
romance someone. Anyone. Everyone.

Inevitably this means
that, no matter what we do, someone will be unhappy and come to the
forums to declare that's not realistic/not why they play the game/not
done as well as it should be/was done better in some other game... well,
such is life on the Internet, I suppose.

Modifié par Alessa-00, 09 juin 2012 - 10:31 .

[Abispa]

TJX2045 wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

Maybe Bioware should just do it like Fallout: New Vegas. Let players occassionally flirt with NPCs and companions, but rarely let them sleep with them and when it does happen just make it fade to black.

Does it bother you that much that everyone has the option to romance who they want that you would consider removing it all together?

The romances DID play out differently in DA2 with male or female.  I've heard lines in DA2 romance videos that I didn't get as a male.  They could have been made much better overall with differences.  For example, ME3 does a good job with the bi romances.

Anders wants desperately for his male lover to be the leader of his movement and is ashamed of his sneaking around. He wants the female lover to support him, but says that he is protecting her by doing things behind her back. Merrill wants male Hawke to be the one who helps lead her people to greatness. She sees her female lover as a role model who she desperately wants to emulate. Isabela loves the sex and adventure with either gender, but she is territorial with her female lover, and laughs at her male lover if he wants to fool around with others. Fenris is pretty much the same with either gender. Each character is different, and most react differently based on the gender of their lover. That may not be "realistic," but is better than past most past Bioware romances.

[TJX2045]

iakus wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

The former. The m/m romance option in DAO is Zevran who I can't stand and I'm sure others felt the same way. Luckily in DAO I prefer playing a femWarden thus I stick to romancing Alistair. If I was a gay male though I'd be pretty bummed if I only had one choice and it was the one guy I couldn't stand. That blows. Just like it blew for my only option in BG2 as a female to be Ameojerk.

But I didn't say Zevran, I said a m/m romance option (though in hindsight, I probably should have specified "another" m/m option)

What I mean is, is it a desire to have more options, or is it a desire a particular  LI who happens to be unavailable?

It is the former, not the latter.  The All-bi lets them give equal options to everyone while at the same time not having to spend more money on resources just to give more options, because let's be realistic.  If they don't go the al bi route, the only thing they could really do that would make it fair is the 2/2/2.  And then people are going to complain about the gay/lesbian characters they can't romance.

With them all being bi it allows you to romance a character you identify or sympathize with and not just romance them because it's "the only option "or  "It's option a over option b."  I enjoyed all of the characters in DA2 and I romanced both Anders and Fenris.  Prefer Anders overall because of his character.  If I was stuck with just Fenris it'd feel like I'm stuck with an angsty whiny mage hating Zevran ( gotta tell you, it took A LONG time for me to get over that after the first playthrough and I still hate it to this day, but like his character in some ways).

Modifié par TJX2045, 09 juin 2012 - 10:37 .

[TJX2045]

Alessa-00 wrote...

You claim for options the game already offers only if you are one sex or the other, but you refuse to accept them, because they are not offered the way you would have liked to to the gender you play.

Fixed.

EDIT: Morrigan's relationship arc was made only with a Male Warden in mind.  Alistair's relationship arc was made only with a Female Warden in mind.

If they consider both sexes in the next Dragon Age, there will still be differences because they will take both genders into mind like with Kaidan in ME3.  If you don't believe me watch the youtube videos of both MaleShep and FemShep.  The scenes play out very different.

Modifié par TJX2045, 09 juin 2012 - 10:43 .

[jlb524]

Ryzaki wrote...
And no before you say it Alistair's romance wasn't all about how he and the FemWarden were the opposite gender and in love and focused intentally on her femaleness. His romance could've worked with a male. With reasonable tweaks of course.

(Not sure about Morrigan since I can't stand her).

Morrigan's works splendidly with a female.

I've done it a few times.

[Iakus]

Abispa wrote...
Again you waste time and cloud the issue. We aren't discussing hypotheticals. Hero-sexual romances already exist in DA, and, from the (admittedly) vague hints of DA3, will continue to. It is NOT up to s/s supporters to justify the DA teams' decision, it's for s/s critics to argue how replacing the admittedly unrealistic hero-sexual solution with an equally unrealistic quota system is a better use of resources that SHOULD, IHMO, be used on better game design and fleshing out the plot.

Who said I was against s/s romances?  All I'm arguing against is 100% overlap, and saying that "it's not fair that x is unavailable to me" isn't enough of a reason.

Why is hero-sexual LIs more offensive than the amoral LIs of ME, the bribery by the Warden in DA:O, or the automatic horn-dogs of BG2? Hawke cannot romance EVERYBODY, not even everyone in his/her squad. Hawke can have his/her heart broken (in game). Hawke can have a friendship with any squadmate regardless of gender, with no fear of ninjamancing. Hawke can be SHOT DOWN after flirting. Do these changes get any positive feedback from critics? No. I have read posters in this very thread FLAT OUT LIE about everyone lusting after Hawke, and saying that (ha!) past LIs were more "realistic" (?) when there only real limitation was gender (or height in BG2).

I'm on record as saying I have no problem with Aveline shooting down Hawke (or rather, remaining blissfully clueless)  despite some pretty blatant overtures.  I actually found it pretty funny, even if i was slightly disappointed.

You may also want to watch who you're caling a liar, btw.

I have also said that orientation isn't the only way, or even the best way, to make romances "restrictive"  But up until now, it was pretty much the only way Bioware LIs had of showing they're not throwing themselves at the PC just because you're the PC.  


I'd love it if Anders rejects Hawkes that side with the templars too much.  Or Leliana would dump a Warden who mocked the chantry.  I'd like to see romances become entire quest chains where the PC has to work to prove their affection.  Rather than just flinging gifts and saying what they want to hear.  One reason why my favorite romance in DA2 is Merrill's friendshp-turned-to-rivalmance.

But in DA2 removing all limitations, even the fig leaf of gender, removes the last illusion of realism or depth in the romances.  The LIs don't want you because your interests line up or any other measure of compatability.  They want you because you're the PC.  Romances go from being a love story to fanservice.  No, previous ones were flawed as well, but the DA2 ones seemed particularly flawed.

This is why Skyrim simply can't hold my attention.  It's beautful, with limiless possibilities.  But at the same time, it's empty and generic. Wider and shallower, that's what I fear.

Part of choice is choosing your limits. 

Modifié par iakus, 09 juin 2012 - 11:06 .

[Ryzaki]

Fandango9641 wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
And no before you say it Alistair's romance wasn't all about how he and the FemWarden were the opposite gender and in love and focused intentally on her femaleness. His romance could've worked with a male. With reasonable tweaks of course.

(Not sure about Morrigan since I can't stand her).

Morrigan's works splendidly with a female.

I've done it a few times.

Dark ritual?

I'd say a woman asking her lover to ask their male companion to sleep with her and impregnant her so she could save her life would be very heart rending.

Plus DR happens with everybody. Even my Wardens that can't stand Morrigan (with the feeling being mutal).

Modifié par Ryzaki, 09 juin 2012 - 11:02 .

[Alessa]

iakus wrote...

Abispa wrote...
Again you waste time and cloud the issue. We aren't discussing hypotheticals. Hero-sexual romances already exist in DA, and, from the (admittedly) vague hints of DA3, will continue to. It is NOT up to s/s supporters to justify the DA teams' decision, it's for s/s critics to argue how replacing the admittedly unrealistic hero-sexual solution with an equally unrealistic quota system is a better use of resources that SHOULD, IHMO, be used on better game design and fleshing out the plot.

Who said I was against s/s romances?  All I'm arguing against is 100% overlap, and saying that "it's not fair that x is unavailable to me" isn't enough of a reason.

Why is hero-sexual LIs more offensive than the amoral LIs of ME, the bribery by the Warden in DA:O, or the automatic horn-dogs of BG2? Hawke cannot romance EVERYBODY, not even everyone in his/her squad. Hawke can have his/her heart broken (in game). Hawke can have a friendship with any squadmate regardless of gender, with no fear of ninjamancing. Hawke can be SHOT DOWN after flirting. Do these changes get any positive feedback from critics? No. I have read posters in this very thread FLAT OUT LIE about everyone lusting after Hawke, and saying that (ha!) past LIs were more "realistic" (?) when there only real limitation was gender (or height in BG2).

I'm on record as saying I have no problem with Aveline shooting down Hawke (or rather, remaining blissfully clueless)  despite some pretty blatant overtures.  I actually found it pretty funny, even if i was slightly disappointed.

You may also want to watch who you're caling a liar, btw.

I have also said that orientation isn't the only way, or even the best way, to make romances "restrictive"  But up until now, it was pretty much the only way Bioware LIs had of showing they're not throwing themselves at the PC just because you're the PC.  


I'd love it if Anders rejects Hawkes that side with the templars too much.  Or Leliana would dump a Warden who mocked the chantry.  I'd like to see romances become entire quest chains where the PC has to work to prove their affection.  Rather than just flinging gifts and saying what they want to hear.  One reason why my favorite romance in DA2 is friendshp-turned-to-rivalmance.

But in DA2 removing all limitations, even the fig leaf of gender, removes the last illusion of realism or depth in the romances.  The LIs don't want you because your interests line up or any other measure of compatability.  They want you because you're the PC.  Romances go from being a love story to fanservice.  No, previous ones were flawed as well, but the DA2 ones seemed particularly flawed.

This is why Skyrim simply can't hold my attention.  It's beautful, with limiless possibilities.  But at the same time, it's empty and generic. Wider and shallower, that's what I fear.

Part of choice is choosing your limits. 

This.

[Abispa]

Fandango9641 wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
And no before you say it Alistair's romance wasn't all about how he and the FemWarden were the opposite gender and in love and focused intentally on her femaleness. His romance could've worked with a male. With reasonable tweaks of course.

(Not sure about Morrigan since I can't stand her).

Morrigan's works splendidly with a female.

I've done it a few times.

Dark ritual?

Dark Ritual can be perform by a female in a modded game, yet it is easily made "believable" by the fact that the Dark Ritual has ALWAYS been an option to female Wardens and male Wardens who want nothing to do with Morrigan in bed. Nothing about the Dark Ritual requires Morrigan to be "straight," save the fact that the writers made her LI for male Warden only. As is their right. Just as it is their right to make LIs hero-sexual in DA2 and, probably, DA3.

[Iakus]

TJX2045 wrote...


It is the former, not the latter.  The All-bi lets them give equal options to everyone while at the same time not having to spend more money on resources just to give more options, because let's be realistic.  If they don't go the al bi route, the only thing they could really do that would make it fair is the 2/2/2.  And then people are going to complain about the gay/lesbian characters they can't romance.

And even in DA2 there's demands fro Aveline, Cullen, Varric, heck maybe even Charade and Bethany/Carver as Lis.

People always want more.  I'd rather have more options with restrictions on them than fewer options with no restrictions.

[Ryzaki]

jlb524 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
And no before you say it Alistair's romance wasn't all about how he and the FemWarden were the opposite gender and in love and focused intentally on her femaleness. His romance could've worked with a male. With reasonable tweaks of course.

(Not sure about Morrigan since I can't stand her).

Morrigan's works splendidly with a female.

I've done it a few times.

Ah. Does she suffer from Alistair's "I must mention you're female every other sentence!" issue? I have to admit if I didn't like his personality so much I would've romanced Leliana. That was irritating. At least Leliana felt organic and natural. Then again constant gender references for no reason other than to be a gender reference bothers me.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 09 juin 2012 - 11:09 .

[Ryzaki]

[quote]iakus wrote...
Who said I was against s/s romances?  All I'm arguing against is 100% overlap, and saying that "it's not fair that x is unavailable to me" isn't enough of a reason.[/quote]

Alright then how about it being resource friendly and giving most bang for buck and less wasting of resources.

[quote]
I'm on record as saying I have no problem with Aveline shooting down Hawke (or rather, remaining blissfully clueless)  despite some pretty blatant overtures.  I actually found it pretty funny, even if i was slightly disappointed.

You may also want to watch who you're caling a liar, btw.

I have also said that orientation isn't the only way, or even the best way, to make romances "restrictive"  But up until now, it was pretty much the only way Bioware LIs had of showing they're not throwing themselves at the PC just because you're the PC.  [/quote]

And it being the only way was laughable because to me it was extremely transparent.

[quote]
I'd love it if Anders rejects Hawkes that side with the templars too much.  Or Leliana would dump a Warden who mocked the chantry.  I'd like to see romances become entire quest chains where the PC has to work to prove their affection.  Rather than just flinging gifts and saying what they want to hear.  One reason why my favorite romance in DA2 is Merrill's friendshp-turned-to-rivalmance.

But in DA2 removing all limitations, even the fig leaf of gender, removes the last illusion of realism or depth in the romances.  The LIs don't want you because your interests line up or any other measure of compatability.  They want you because you're the PC.  Romances go from being a love story to fanservice.  No, previous ones were flawed as well, but the DA2 ones seemed particularly flawed.

This is why Skyrim simply can't hold my attention.  It's beautful, with limiless possibilities.  But at the same time, it's empty and generic. Wider and shallower, that's what I fear.

Part of choice is choosing your limits. [/quote]

And all of this is YMMV. I found DA2's romances just fine. They certainly didn't feel shallow to me because in someone else's game someone might be romancing a character I romanced with the s/s or o/s with a different gendered Hawke.

And I never had any illusion of realism or depth to the romances. For the most part I kept running into jarring unrealistic things that kept me from that. So I can't really feel for you. Especially not if I get more choice from the removal of that artifical restriction when there weren't any other ones.

As for Skyrim. It was GOTY so clearly everyone didn't feel it was empty and generic.

As for me choice is great. I want choice, I want consequences, I don't want artifical silly consequences like being stuck with one option when someone else gets 2 just because I picked a certain gender PC. I want to be ble to have actual choice and consequences in the game with the plot and quests rather than if some misnamed "realism" with LIs. That's where I'd rather the resources go into. The plot. Actual decisions that'll impact the rest of the game, endgame not being ridculous. I'd take those over "LI realism" with an arbitary gender restriction anyday.

Otherwise at least let me attempt to flirt with the so called "o/s only" LIs and get shot down. At least then my PC tried.
[/quote]

Modifié par Ryzaki, 09 juin 2012 - 11:17 .