930 réponses à ce sujet

[wsandista]

Ryzaki wrote...

...it becomes a giant pointless circlejerk.

Do you expect different on BSN?

Yes I do. If you played Merrill's romance you'd know that too. You can drag Merrill with Hawke everywhere but if he/she doesn't do Merrill's personal quests and get his/her rivalry/friendship to a certain level you can't romance her. Your actions determine if she can be romanced. Not gender, not time spent around her (you can drag her around with you until act 3 but if you don't do those quests, get a certain amount of friendship or rivalry and pick certain dialogue choices. No Merrill romance for you!)

Doesn't exactly translate though. There is no concrete evidence behind it. Just because Y happens does not mean X causes it.

Weren't you just jumping on me because I assumed that DA2 has herosexual LIs because of the differences in certain character's actions when Hawke is different genders?

It's the whole thing. It's a page full of Gaider quotes.

But here's the most relevant quotes

David Gaider wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
And while having four bisexual characters in a group of 6 might be unlikely, it's still more realistic than having characters who are straight or gay depending on the gender of the PC.

I'm sorry, but just to chime in again-- how are we coming to the conclusion that the characters are either straight or gay, exactly? Considering that they don't generally discuss their sexuality with the player, the idea that their sexuality changes seems a bit bizarre when their actions don't. You can decide for yourself what they are-- that is indeed part of the point in leaving it to your interpretation-- but deciding that they are one thing or the other and calling this "not realistic" seems to me to be a little self-serving.

And, yes, they don't discuss their sexuality. Perhaps you'd prefer if they would. It strikes me that the only way some people will be happy is if we had an entire array of characters to romance-- some completely straight, some completely gay with maybe a few canonically bisexual characters for good measure. Enough to be "fair", and all of them covering the complete range of attractions for players of that persuasion.

I don't know about you, but that seems unlikely. So as I said, we went with simply giving players the option of deciding for themselves, as well as interpreting for themselves. If some people are unhappy that they still didn't get the particular flavor they were looking for-- well, that's just too damned bad. As always, we're never going to be able to provide enough to suit everyone. At least in this case the people that don't like it can be equally unhappy, and I can live with that.

Another.

David Gaider wrote...

wyvvern wrote...
So I'm not seeing how it's a great leap or inference to deduce both Anders and Isabella at least are cannonically bi-sexual.

I'm not saying they could be anything-- there are a few instances (Anders and Isabela, primarily) when their past might come up. I'll point out that, with Anders, he doesn't say "I am attracted only to men" or "I am attracted to both men and women". You could decide one way or the other... perhaps if someone says a member of the opposite sex or same sex is attractive, that's enough for you? But they simply don't say where they preference lies. My point is that their actions don't change, yet some people are deciding that their inference is enough to suggest the characters alter their preferences at the player's whim.

Even if they did, I'm not sure that would be a crime. Regardless, it's not the case.

I'm sorry I still don't see "DA2 LIs were bi".

I see they are ambiguous, but no direct confirmation of bisexual.

Modifié par wsandista, 13 juin 2012 - 06:48 .

[Ryzaki]

You know what? I'm done. I'm tired of circle jerks. You want to insist that they're herosexual when they're not. Go ahead. They're no more "herosexual" than the DAO LIs were.

Also you might want to reread that quote I posted for you. I'm sure you didn't get it the first time since you clearly didn't get the "My point is that their actions don't change, yet some people are deciding that their inference is enough to suggest the characters alter their preferences at the player's whim.

Even if they did, I'm not sure that would be a crime. Regardless, it's not the case." message. 

Yeah very clearly in english from what I can see. Ah well not my problem. The LIs aren't herosexual your insistance that they are doesn't make it true.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 13 juin 2012 - 06:53 .

[wsandista]

Ryzaki wrote...

You know what? I'm done. I'm tired of circle jerks.

So I win the thread?

0 to 10

Modifié par wsandista, 13 juin 2012 - 06:52 .

[Ryzaki]

wsandista wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

You know what? I'm done. I'm tired of circle jerks.

So I win the thread?

0 to 10

Really? You're going to be that childish? 

[wsandista]

Ryzaki wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

You know what? I'm done. I'm tired of circle jerks.

So I win the thread?

0 to 10

Really? You're going to be that childish? 

Yes. I'm suprised it lasted this long.

[Ryzaki]

wsandista wrote...
Yes. I'm suprised it lasted this long.

Okay according to your precious WoG you're wrong. They're not herosexual.  Chew on that.  

Ah well I fell for obvious bait. I'm really done this time.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 13 juin 2012 - 06:58 .

[wsandista]

Ryzaki wrote...

wsandista wrote...
Yes. I'm suprised it lasted this long.

Okay according to your precious WoG you're wrong. They're not herosexual.  Chew on that.

Ah well I fell for obvious bait. I'm really done this time.

Happens to everyone.

Modifié par wsandista, 13 juin 2012 - 07:00 .

[Ryzaki]

Blacklash93 wrote...

God that mod made me facepalm. Isabela just looks wrong like that. It's right up there with the chest-hairless Varric mod.

That mod cracked me up. But yeah...no just looks wrong wrong wrong.

And makes me wonder how on Earth is she not massively skinburned since she clearly doesn't tan.

[TJX2045]

I support WoG in terms of all-bi or herosexual.  People are unsatisfied either way so I'll stick with the one that pisses off the least amount of people alltogether.  The people who have a problem with s/s will have a problem regardless of how it's implemented.

Modifié par TJX2045, 13 juin 2012 - 07:48 .

[Urzon]

Word of Gaider. What he says goes storyline/character wise, since he's head writer.

Modifié par Urzon, 13 juin 2012 - 08:38 .

[AkiKishi]

Filament wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Am I the only one who doesn't think a character is bi-sexual if they do not "hit on" both genders during one playthrough?

If I am playing a man and I romance a male NPC in this playthrough, the
NPC character is gay. If I play a woman and romance the same NPC
character, in that playthrough he is straight. Admittedly, if during my
playthrough that character hits on both male & female characters,
then the change is they are bi (or very forgiving).

Plenty of people see it the same way. But it's subjective. You can see it that way, but I can see them as all bi, and nothing shown in the game contradicts either view. (If you're playing a woman and romance the same NPC, that doesn't
explicitly make them straight. It means they're into women. That doesn't
rule out them being bi.)

I would personally complain if the LIs were made unambiguously variable (as in, playthrough 1: NPC: I don't like men!, playthrough 2: same NPC: I like men!), because I'm perfectly fine with them all being bisexual, but I'm not really OK with the thought of them fundamentally changing based on choice of gender. Others would complain if the characters were shown to be unambiguously bisexual, a notion which the devs seem to be dedicating most of their time to correcting, in these threads. So I'm starting to gain a better appreciation for the notion of them being "subjective," but not in the sense that they can vary per playthrough: rather, in the sense that I can see them as static for every playthrough, whereas others can see them as variable, and neither point of view is explicitly wrong.

Of course, some people won't like it either way you slice it, but being subjective does guard the system against disappointing anyone who only takes issue with one of the proposed interpretations. To criticize the system and have any legs to stand on, one needs to be against all possible interpretations, or the notion of ambiguity (as I described it) itself-- but I think Gaider is right to point out that there's nothing wrong with such ambiguity, because ultimately that ambiguity is not in the portrayal of the characters, per se, but in our own perception, so anyone with the humility to understand the limitations of their own perception shouldn't really have a problem with it. And maybe some understand that but would still rather not be confronted with it and would rather have it all delineated so that there is only one correct interpretation to villify or praise, but I think it's perfectly realistic in this way.

Bioware is engaging the player here not the character. Bioware are making it meta game. S/S is player choice not a character choice.
As such the player has every right to point out how inconsistant things are when the characters change based on other factors.
It turns the game world from an alternate reality into a fantasy of the player.This occurs any time you start politiking game design.

You only have to read the last couple of pages to see how inconsistant making a character unfixed gets.

[ElitePinecone]

Urzon wrote...

Word of Gaider. What he says goes storyline/character wise, since he's head writer.

I love that this is a thing. 

Trying to catch up on this thread:

Dave of Canada wrote...
Imagine the tears if Alistair was bisexual and there was no way for him to keep you around if you were male and you placed him as king, as he'd need to produce an heir.

 

Interestingly, I read an opinion piece by someone who modded their male mage Warden into an Alistair romance and then interpreted the 'we can't we get married because I need to have kids' as exactly that, a male Warden would only ever hang around as a sort of... concubine... becaue the King needed heirs. I think that'd be a pretty fascinating - if devastating - end to the arc, if it were ever to happen. 

As to the OP, I'd always advocate erring on the side of giving players more choice when it comes to the romance arcs, and if there are (arbitrarily) four LIs in a given game I don't see why all four shouldn't be available to the player. DA2's system handled this well, and I'm glad the team are taking the same basic approach going forward. 

Insisting on separately straight/gay/lesbian NPCs is not only budgetarily difficult (as per the dev posts in this thread), but cuts off a significant segment of *optional* game content from people who might get lots of intangible value out of it. I've never been 'personally' invested at all in the romance part of Bioware's games (aside from their ability to define more about the protagonist and their story), but some people are very much so. 

[ElitePinecone]

Wulfram wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

This is what happens when you start politiking game design. The characters should be representative of what you find in Thedas and that should be the end of it.

Well, they're pretty clearly not, in ways that have nothing to do with sexuality.  If you met 7 random Kirkwallers, they probably wouldn't be a pirate, a prince, a Dalish blood mage, an escaped magically altered warrior, a merchant prince or a city guardsman or an abomination.

Actually, they'd probably all be blood mages or abominations, but that's besides the point.

:lol::lol:

Not to mention that we don't even know what "representative of Thedas" means. We don't know how common s/s relationships are in humans/elves/dwarves, we don't have (as I think David said a little while ago) a helpful Codex entry from Brother Genitivi on sexuality in the known world, and we don't know anything about perceptions of same-sex relationships except that nobody really freaks out about it that we've come across. 

Edit: 

Abispa wrote...

iakus wrote...

But keep in mind, if Bioware had a blank check, I'd love to see romances restricted by all sorts of ways, not just orientation

LI's who'd only be interested in humans, or elves.  Or followers of the Chantry.  "Evil only" relationships,  Mage only.  Or anything but mage.  Dalish only.  Dalish mage only.  As well as those with a broader range.  

I'd love to fire up a game, create a brand new character and go "Who's intereested in this one?"

But unless Bioware decides to go that route, having the ONLY limitation being gender is nonsensical and arbitrary.

So much this. 

Modifié par ElitePinecone, 13 juin 2012 - 01:32 .

[AkiKishi]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Not to mention that we don't even know what "representative of Thedas" means. We don't know how common s/s relationships are in humans/elves/dwarves, we don't have (as I think David said a little while ago) a helpful Codex entry from Brother Genitivi on sexuality in the known world, and we don't know anything about perceptions of same-sex relationships except that nobody really freaks out about it that we've come across. 

Zevren and Leliana both comment on it.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 13 juin 2012 - 01:35 .

[robertthebard]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Filament wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Am I the only one who doesn't think a character is bi-sexual if they do not "hit on" both genders during one playthrough?

If I am playing a man and I romance a male NPC in this playthrough, the
NPC character is gay. If I play a woman and romance the same NPC
character, in that playthrough he is straight. Admittedly, if during my
playthrough that character hits on both male & female characters,
then the change is they are bi (or very forgiving).

Plenty of people see it the same way. But it's subjective. You can see it that way, but I can see them as all bi, and nothing shown in the game contradicts either view. (If you're playing a woman and romance the same NPC, that doesn't
explicitly make them straight. It means they're into women. That doesn't
rule out them being bi.)

I would personally complain if the LIs were made unambiguously variable (as in, playthrough 1: NPC: I don't like men!, playthrough 2: same NPC: I like men!), because I'm perfectly fine with them all being bisexual, but I'm not really OK with the thought of them fundamentally changing based on choice of gender. Others would complain if the characters were shown to be unambiguously bisexual, a notion which the devs seem to be dedicating most of their time to correcting, in these threads. So I'm starting to gain a better appreciation for the notion of them being "subjective," but not in the sense that they can vary per playthrough: rather, in the sense that I can see them as static for every playthrough, whereas others can see them as variable, and neither point of view is explicitly wrong.

Of course, some people won't like it either way you slice it, but being subjective does guard the system against disappointing anyone who only takes issue with one of the proposed interpretations. To criticize the system and have any legs to stand on, one needs to be against all possible interpretations, or the notion of ambiguity (as I described it) itself-- but I think Gaider is right to point out that there's nothing wrong with such ambiguity, because ultimately that ambiguity is not in the portrayal of the characters, per se, but in our own perception, so anyone with the humility to understand the limitations of their own perception shouldn't really have a problem with it. And maybe some understand that but would still rather not be confronted with it and would rather have it all delineated so that there is only one correct interpretation to villify or praise, but I think it's perfectly realistic in this way.

Bioware is engaging the player here not the character. Bioware are making it meta game. S/S is player choice not a character choice.
As such the player has every right to point out how inconsistant things are when the characters change based on other factors.
It turns the game world from an alternate reality into a fantasy of the player.This occurs any time you start politiking game design.

You only have to read the last couple of pages to see how inconsistant making a character unfixed gets.

Every time there's a choice to be made, it's a player choice.  What gender, what line of dialog, who to pursue in a romance, or to not pursue anyone, all player choices.  If we assume that the player becomes the protaganist, this doesn't change that core philosophy, ever.  How does an avatar suddenly take on enough AI to make their own choices without player agency?  All games are designed to engage the player, other wise they'd be nothing but a movie, and even movies are designed to engage the audience.  Otherwise, what's the point?

How is your deciding that Anders, for example only, is straight not based on player preference as opposed to MC preference?  Hawke has no way to know Anders prior to events in Act I.  Hawke has no way to know who he did or didn't sleep with, unless Anders brings it up.  The same applies to all the cast, barring Isabela, where it's probably more of a "who didn't she sleep with" instead.  You even get a chance to question that in dialog a couple of times.

Regarding the "no way to tell they aren't bi" comment earlier, sorry, don't recall who said it, Fenris will sleep with Isabela if neither of them are romanced.  I asked this before, but how does this lead into him being bisexual?  Will he sleep with Anders if neither of them are romanced?  Does he take on the stereotypical inflection if it's mHawke?  Does Anders?  No?  Their characterizations stay the same?  How is that possible if having them Hawkecentric means they are inconsistant?  Characterization is how they are presented in game.  They are presented the same way, regardless of Hawke's gender.  Nothing changes, since they are available to be romanced by Hawke, regardless.  However, pointing to this consistency, and saying it makes them inconsistent is the same as pointing at the Origins LI's and saying that they are inconsistent since some of them can only be romanced by a specific gender Warden.  After all, they are also Warden specific LI's, unless they are different than them.  It's like the hardening of Leliana and Alistair, I see it over and over that one line of dialog shouldn't be able to affect them as characters, all the while completely disregarding the situations that led up to that one line of dialog.  I feel like not hardening them after their personal quest is inconsistent.

[ElitePinecone]

BobSmith101 wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

Not to mention that we don't even know what "representative of Thedas" means. We don't know how common s/s relationships are in humans/elves/dwarves, we don't have (as I think David said a little while ago) a helpful Codex entry from Brother Genitivi on sexuality in the known world, and we don't know anything about perceptions of same-sex relationships except that nobody really freaks out about it that we've come across. 

Zevren and Leliana both comment on it.

Okay. Zevran as an outsider to Ferelden says from his experience Fereldens are accepting of s/s relationships. I have no idea what Leliana says. 

If anything that points to "representative of Thedas" being further removed from what some people (not you Bob) have called "reality" when arguing against more choices for s/s romances. With no institutional prejudices (in terms of religious organisations, as far we know - even that Qunari bonds with the Seneschal's son), we don't know what common perceptions of homosexuality are, let alone how common or otherwise it is within Thedas society.

For all we know Thedas humans (since this isn't Earth o___O) actually have three kidneys and a penchant for bisexuality. 

[AkiKishi]

ElitePinecone wrote...
Okay. Zevran as an outsider to Ferelden says from his experience Fereldens are accepting of s/s relationships. I have no idea what Leliana says. 

If anything that points to "representative of Thedas" being further removed from what some people (not you Bob) have called "reality" when arguing against more choices for s/s romances. With no institutional prejudices (in terms of religious organisations, as far we know - even that Qunari bonds with the Seneschal's son), we don't know what common perceptions of homosexuality are, let alone how common or otherwise it is within Thedas society.

For all we know Thedas humans (since this isn't Earth o___O) actually have three kidneys and a penchant for bisexuality. 

Not sure about the former.. but the latter would be the case if you took the party as representative. Adventurers being adventurers may well be more adventurous.
Unless something is pointedly different though, there is no way for the player to know that. They are will project their own values onto the world and find it lacking or not.

I prefer how ME handles it over nebulous characters that need to do double duty. Not a big fan of that when it comes to dialogue, or giving up game world integrity just so something can be a fantasy.
Not being able to romance people for whatever reason gives as much characterisation value as being able to do so.

[robertthebard]

BobSmith101 wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...
Okay. Zevran as an outsider to Ferelden says from his experience Fereldens are accepting of s/s relationships. I have no idea what Leliana says. 

If anything that points to "representative of Thedas" being further removed from what some people (not you Bob) have called "reality" when arguing against more choices for s/s romances. With no institutional prejudices (in terms of religious organisations, as far we know - even that Qunari bonds with the Seneschal's son), we don't know what common perceptions of homosexuality are, let alone how common or otherwise it is within Thedas society.

For all we know Thedas humans (since this isn't Earth o___O) actually have three kidneys and a penchant for bisexuality. 

Not sure about the former.. but the latter would be the case if you took the party as representative. Adventurers being adventurers may well be more adventurous.
Unless something is pointedly different though, there is no way for the player to know that. They are will project their own values onto the world and find it lacking or not.

I prefer how ME handles it over nebulous characters that need to do double duty. Not a big fan of that when it comes to dialogue, or giving up game world integrity just so something can be a fantasy.
Not being able to romance people for whatever reason gives as much characterisation value as being able to do so.

Again, where is game world integrity given up?  Because you know that you can romance any LI?  To me, there are more than a few things that cause plot holes to the timeline than whether or not Anders is open to a gay relationship, such as Anders being there in the first place, especially in Act I.  Depending on when the Warden meets Isabela, this could be problematic too, considering events between meeting the Warden and meeting Hawke.  What about games where Alistair never met Isabela, 95% of all my games.  Note that I didn't like Alistair as a person, so I didn't take him much of anywhere with me.  I left him in camp, with his Kleenex box.  What about games where Anders is dead?  Or Leliana, although she's never been dead in any of my games.  These don't seem more inconsistent to you than Anders may like men?

Sorry, in the big picture, there are far more questionable things going on than LI's being receptive to Hawke, regardless of gender.

[AkiKishi]

robertthebard wrote...
Again, where is game world integrity given up?  Because you know that you can romance any LI?  To me, there are more than a few things that cause plot holes to the timeline than whether or not Anders is open to a gay relationship, such as Anders being there in the first place, especially in Act I.  Depending on when the Warden meets Isabela, this could be problematic too, considering events between meeting the Warden and meeting Hawke.  What about games where Alistair never met Isabela, 95% of all my games.  Note that I didn't like Alistair as a person, so I didn't take him much of anywhere with me.  I left him in camp, with his Kleenex box.  What about games where Anders is dead?  Or Leliana, although she's never been dead in any of my games.  These don't seem more inconsistent to you than Anders may like men?

Sorry, in the big picture, there are far more questionable things going on than LI's being receptive to Hawke, regardless of gender.

It's a symptom of turning the game world into a fantasy rather than an alternate reality. It should apply across the board, restrictions are what make things real.

I played DA2 before Awakenings and Anders is nothing like Anders... I just put it down the justice influence.

[robertthebard]

BobSmith101 wrote...

robertthebard wrote...
Again, where is game world integrity given up?  Because you know that you can romance any LI?  To me, there are more than a few things that cause plot holes to the timeline than whether or not Anders is open to a gay relationship, such as Anders being there in the first place, especially in Act I.  Depending on when the Warden meets Isabela, this could be problematic too, considering events between meeting the Warden and meeting Hawke.  What about games where Alistair never met Isabela, 95% of all my games.  Note that I didn't like Alistair as a person, so I didn't take him much of anywhere with me.  I left him in camp, with his Kleenex box.  What about games where Anders is dead?  Or Leliana, although she's never been dead in any of my games.  These don't seem more inconsistent to you than Anders may like men?

Sorry, in the big picture, there are far more questionable things going on than LI's being receptive to Hawke, regardless of gender.

It's a symptom of turning the game world into a fantasy rather than an alternate reality. It should apply across the board, restrictions are what make things real.

I played DA2 before Awakenings and Anders is nothing like Anders... I just put it down the justice influence.

I think that perspective may be what's giving you fits, and I have no opinion on it one way or the other, but it is a fantasy world first.  Games are things that I do to get away from the reality of the F5 tornado that is my constant migraine, and the more distracting the game is, the better.  So having Hawkecentric LI's does help with that, in my case, since it means that I don't have to try to map out what I'm going to do before an individual playthrough, barring things like "I want to get my Supplier" achievement, so I can't alienate certain companions before Act III.  I have yet to get the completed romance achievement, although I have a save game running now where I might.  It's just not that big a deal one way or the other.  However, leaving choices open to people is a big deal to me, and that's why I get involved in things like this.  I'm largely neutral to romances, they are fun, but not that appealing, I think my current GF might be a little upset if I told her that I couldn't go on our date because I have to do Isabela's Act III quest instead.  My psuedo grandchildren, my ex's daughter's kids, might be a bit upset if I told them I couldn't come over for the bbq, or to fix their trampoline because I'm busy with Merrill's romance.  They are a diversion for the main game, but are not integral to it.  If that ever changes, I might change my stance, depending on how it's implemented, but until then, I stand firmly in the "what difference does it make" corner.

[Nomen Mendax]

BobSmith101 wrote...

It's a symptom of turning the game world into a fantasy rather than an alternate reality. It should apply across the board, restrictions are what make things real.

I played DA2 before Awakenings and Anders is nothing like Anders... I just put it down the justice influence.

I agree with your point, but I think it's a very small symptom compared to larger issues such as time and events being wholly dependent on the PC's actions.  As a matter of interest did you feel the same way about the romances in DAO in terms of the player being a different race (elf / dwarf)?  When it comes down to it romances in CRPGs are very hero-centric given that a LI is attracted to the PC regardless of the PC's appearance.

[AkiKishi]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

It's a symptom of turning the game world into a fantasy rather than an alternate reality. It should apply across the board, restrictions are what make things real.

I played DA2 before Awakenings and Anders is nothing like Anders... I just put it down the justice influence.

I agree with your point, but I think it's a very small symptom compared to larger issues such as time and events being wholly dependent on the PC's actions.  As a matter of interest did you feel the same way about the romances in DAO in terms of the player being a different race (elf / dwarf)?  When it comes down to it romances in CRPGs are very hero-centric given that a LI is attracted to the PC regardless of the PC's appearance.

Appearence has always been a trivial thing in DA2. It's never really tracked. LIs do comment on if you are a dwarf/elf so it is a factor. I'd like to see more restrictions, NPCs should have their own preferences too. Like maybe choosing someone else in the party over you.

[ElitePinecone]

BobSmith101 wrote...
Not being able to romance people for whatever reason gives as much characterisation value as being able to do so.

This is true, but while it's possible to create characters who can't be romanced regardless of gender (Aveline, Samara, Varric, Oghren, Wynne(!)), an Origins-style system arbitrarily locks one gender from the romance arc. While there might be plenty of characterisation in the fact that a male Warden can't romance Alistair, it's not very enjoyable for people who would appreciate that option. Of *all* the implausibilities surrounding the romance arcs (a blood mage Warden romancing Alistair the templar, say) I don't see why gender should be the one that matters, particularly when we're never told (nor shown) the sexualities of any of the companions. 

(And we aren't even considering that the existing system preserves plenty of characterisation for both genders of the romance, in that the dialogue is often different based on Hawke's gender. More difference in The Next Thing for parallel dialogue paths varying on gender lines would only improve this.)

I guess it comes down to subjectivity and priorities, in the end. I'd always err on the side of inclusivity, because I feel 'letting players have more romance options and more opportunities to define their story' has a far higher relative value than 'the characterisation some people would appreciate if their protagonist wasn't able to romance [character x]'.

There's one caveat to the above, though - I think a romance arc where gender *does* play a large role, to the point of significantly affecting its outcome, would be fascinating. The male Warden/Alistair modded scenario I linked to above is a great example of it, because it hits a very obvious brick wall: a King (especially one from a mystical heroic bloodline) really does need legitimate heirs, and that's something a male could never provide. Ditto with a Queen and a female protagonist. 

If a character in future games (let's not use Alistair, that horse has bolted) really did feel it was his/her duty to take the (a?) throne, with all the responsibilities that implies, it would affect a same-sex protagonist romance - but that doesn't mean players should be prevented from starting one in the first place.