1685 réponses à ce sujet

[CuriousArtemis]

draken-heart wrote...

F/F Non-party romance. It would ensure that those who do not want to have a lesbian romance do not have to lose out on a party member.

Wait, I'm confused by this. 

I don't want a straight romance, so can the M/F romance be a non-party romance? I'd like all the gay romances to be in-party please!

[LPPrince]

SO MUCH CONFUSION

GIRLS HELP PRINCEY WINCEY HIS BRAIN IS WAT

[Neon Rising Winter]

draken-heart wrote...

F/F Non-party romance. It would ensure that those who do not want to have a lesbian romance do not have to lose out on a party member.

Alternatively they can either not roll a female character, or if they do, not shag a female party member. Lesbian romance avoided. I can vouch for this method, I've used a variant of it to avoid the M/F romances.

[LPPrince]

I'm still not seeing the idea behind draken's post, losing out on a party member because of refraining from romancing them...

*brain splatter*

[CuriousArtemis]

I've never romanced Merrill; gosh it's like she's not even there....

[draken-heart]

LPPrince wrote...

I'm still not seeing the idea behind draken's post, losing out on a party member because of refraining from romancing them...

*brain splatter*

sorry about that. It is kind of like if the character is gay but they are needed and end up flirting first, it could put them off and make people not use them, making the character useless. Non-party F/F eliminates the problem of debating whether or not to ignore a character you want to use simply because they are homosexual and overly flirting.

[LPPrince]

Oh, you meant Anders-syndrome.

[Neon Rising Winter]

draken-heart wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

I'm still not seeing the idea behind draken's post, losing out on a party member because of refraining from romancing them...

*brain splatter*

sorry about that. It is kind of like if the character is gay but they are needed and end up flirting first, it could put them off and make people not use them, making the character useless. Non-party F/F eliminates the problem of debating whether or not to ignore a character you want to use simply because they are homosexual and overly flirting.

So, remove a gameplay element to cater to people so far gone they can't face selecting the 'No, not interested' option from a dialogue wheel. I'm going with let's not do that.

[alhamel94]

well can we have someone more standard as a female romance in general. both females romances in da2 i didnt like, in fact all of them were weird. blood mage, ****, abomination, lyrium infused slave. honestly i liked isabella the best cuz she didnt come out of one flew over the cuckoos nest. hated the implementation of if she isnt yor friend she just leaves. always romanced her anyways to make sure my party didnt dissolve

[draken-heart]

Narrow Margin wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

I'm still not seeing the idea behind draken's post, losing out on a party member because of refraining from romancing them...

*brain splatter*

sorry about that. It is kind of like if the character is gay but they are needed and end up flirting first, it could put them off and make people not use them, making the character useless. Non-party F/F eliminates the problem of debating whether or not to ignore a character you want to use simply because they are homosexual and overly flirting.

So, remove a gameplay element to cater to people so far gone they can't face selecting the 'No, not interested' option from a dialogue wheel. I'm going with let's not do that.

the gameplay element is still there, just the person herself is moved from the party to someone you can talk to, but can not bring to a fight, bringing the party member that would be lesbian back to the option of being brout along.

Plus, it would just be easier to have the option of not romancing someone without having to worry about losing approval from that person.

Modifié par draken-heart, 13 février 2013 - 05:47 .

[syllogi]

I have successfully avoided losing approval with Anders on almost every one of my DA2 playthroughs in the infamous early scene where he has the audacity to want to show interest towards Hawke if he/she is nice. I really don't want to lose out on a romance with a full party member because some people can't put on their big boy pants and deal with one potentially awkward dialogue option and a slight dip in approval that you can easily make up for later.

I liked Samantha Traynor, but I hated the way her romance was written (hello, worst romance scene ever), and it felt incomplete and lacking even compared to the romance with Cortez. I'm tired of feeling like a second class citizen in games because I play a female character and I don't buy into male=default as the video game norm. It's possible that the DA team could do a better job than the ME3 writers did, but I would rather just not worry about people who don't want a potentially homosexual party member. If they really don't use a character just because they can be a lesbian in someone else's game, they are not worth catering to, and frankly, they should be scorned.

[Neon Rising Winter]

draken-heart wrote...

the gameplay element is still there, just the person herself is moved from the party to someone you can talk to, but can not bring to a fight, bringing the party member that would be lesbian back to the option of being brout along.

Plus, it would just be easier to have the option of not romancing someone without having to worry about losing approval from that person.

No, the gameplay element would be removed and replaced by a cut down budget version, and all this to benefit the members of the player base who will suffer a fit of the vapours at a hint of lesbians. Thankfully I don't see this bunch of developers taking that route, and with that I'll apologise for helping to derail this thread into a discussion on inclusion and stop talking about it!

[SgtElias]

syllogi wrote...

I have successfully avoided losing approval with Anders on almost every one of my DA2 playthroughs in the infamous early scene where he has the audacity to want to show interest towards Hawke if he/she is nice. I really don't want to lose out on a romance with a full party member because some people can't put on their big boy pants and deal with one potentially awkward dialogue option and a slight dip in approval that you can easily make up for later.

I liked Samantha Traynor, but I hated the way her romance was written (hello, worst romance scene ever), and it felt incomplete and lacking even compared to the romance with Cortez. I'm tired of feeling like a second class citizen in games because I play a female character and I don't buy into male=default as the video game norm. It's possible that the DA team could do a better job than the ME3 writers did, but I would rather just not worry about people who don't want a potentially homosexual party member. If they really don't use a character just because they can be a lesbian in someone else's game, they are not worth catering to, and frankly, they should be scorned.

That was . . . kind of beautiful.

Though I've never completed the Samantha Traynor romance, so I can't speak to that part. I really liked her, though! Her romance culmination scene is really that bad?

[humes spork]

syllogi wrote...

I liked Samantha Traynor, but I hated the way her romance was written (hello, worst romance scene ever), and it felt incomplete and lacking even compared to the romance with Cortez...

I thought Cortez's romance was decently-written. There's a logical progression from getting to know a person to developing empathy for them, to developing interest and finally consummation.

My issue with Traynor's romance was it seemed her "welcome to the Normandy crew!" party was in Shepard's shower. That's not a statement about gender norms and behavior, but it just lacks any logical progression through the phases of attraction and for that has this very strong "male fantasy" feel that puts even me off as a straight male gamer. That's especially true for the fact that scene is the "lock-in" point for a Traynor romance, which means if your femshep isn't..."forthright"...enough to just hook up with someone in the shower within minutes of having interacted with them on a personal leve, Traynor is not for her.

[syllogi]

SgtElias wrote...

Though I've never completed the Samantha Traynor romance, so I can't speak to that part. I really liked her, though! Her romance culmination scene is really that bad?

Here you go:

humes spork definitely hit the nail on the head with their take on the Traynor romance scene, but for me, especially since I desperately hoped for an Ashley romance in ME3, or at the very least a continuation and deeper relationship with Kelly Chambers, this felt insulting, as if the ME3 writers were deliberately trying to alienate women who had asked for a human female same sex romance option.  Knowing that the writer actually said he was patting himself on the back for a scene that felt like it was created to exclude female players who wanted a same sex relationship with a character other than Liara was infuriating.  

But perhaps it was more aggravating because a meaningful female s/s romance with Ashley was something I *really* wanted, and this was so incredibly lacking in comparison to what I had hoped for, that I view it more harshly than I would have otherwise.  I'm never going to look at Samantha Traynor, or that awful, gratuitous scene, as anything other than fan service done poorly, as it is, and that's a shame, because her character was pretty nice in every other way.

[SgtElias]

syllogi wrote...

But perhaps it was more aggravating because a meaningful female s/s romance with Ashley was something I *really* wanted, and this was so incredibly lacking in comparison to what I had hoped for, that I view it more harshly than I would have otherwise.  I'm never going to look at Samantha Traynor, or that awful, gratuitous scene, as anything other than fan service done poorly, as it is, and that's a shame, because her character was pretty nice in every other way.

Thanks for the link!

And I see what you're saying, especially with the shower scene; it did sort of feel . . . male fantasy-esque? Parts of the romance I really liked (mostly the last scene), but I definitely see what you're saying.

And. . . wait, you can't romance Ashley on a FemShep? You're joking. Really? I was sure you could! I thought both Kaidan and Ashley were same sex optional?

Though, for all three of my Shepards she's dead, so it's not like I've done it personally.

Modifié par SgtElias, 13 février 2013 - 04:54 .

[Xilizhra]

Sometimes I feel a bit guiltily lucky that I've only had serious eyes for Liara in the Mass Effect series. But I'm confident that the DAI writers will do well in this area.

[draken-heart]

Narrow Margin wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

the gameplay element is still there, just the person herself is moved from the party to someone you can talk to, but can not bring to a fight, bringing the party member that would be lesbian back to the option of being brout along.

Plus, it would just be easier to have the option of not romancing someone without having to worry about losing approval from that person.

No, the gameplay element would be removed and replaced by a cut down budget version, and all this to benefit the members of the player base who will suffer a fit of the vapours at a hint of lesbians. Thankfully I don't see this bunch of developers taking that route, and with that I'll apologise for helping to derail this thread into a discussion on inclusion and stop talking about it!

and romances in general are cut down budget, with nbo real impact on anything. What is the problem of a single pure F/F non-party option, when you would still have your bi option. Romances are optional and ar cut down budget.

Maybe they should just provide the two bi-sexual options and if you do not like either of those, you can suffer for wanting a gay party member when a nonparty gay option is just as optional and would be as availible as the party gay option would be.

Modifié par draken-heart, 13 février 2013 - 06:26 .

[draken-heart]

syllogi wrote...

I have successfully avoided losing approval with Anders on almost every one of my DA2 playthroughs in the infamous early scene where he has the audacity to want to show interest towards Hawke if he/she is nice. I really don't want to lose out on a romance with a full party member because some people can't put on their big boy pants and deal with one potentially awkward dialogue option and a slight dip in approval that you can easily make up for later.

I liked Samantha Traynor, but I hated the way her romance was written (hello, worst romance scene ever), and it felt incomplete and lacking even compared to the romance with Cortez. I'm tired of feeling like a second class citizen in games because I play a female character and I don't buy into male=default as the video game norm. It's possible that the DA team could do a better job than the ME3 writers did, but I would rather just not worry about people who don't want a potentially homosexual party member. If they really don't use a character just because they can be a lesbian in someone else's game, they are not worth catering to, and frankly, they should be scorned.

Romances are plain optional I do not see the problem of having a non-party romance for lesbian stuff. And I was thinking more along the lines of the Cortez romance or the near the end of Samantha's romance arc.

[syllogi]

draken-heart wrote...

Romances are plain optional I do not see the problem of having a non-party romance for lesbian stuff. And I was thinking more along the lines of the Cortez romance or the near the end of Samantha's romance arc.

And romances with full party members are also optional, so anyone who doesn't want to come into contact with "lesbian stuff" can simply opt out of starting a romance with a female character on their female player character.

As I (and everyone else who has responded to you) has already said, making a character who is not a party member the only same sex romance option would almost certainly lead to that romance being "lesser" compared to party member romances, and the idea of doing it that way to keep "lesbian stuff" away from players who won't use characters who *could* engage in homosexual relationships is not something that should be entertained.  It's like saying that in order to stop bullying on the playground, smaller children should be kept indoors during recess.  The policy rewards bad behavior (people who are so averse to homosexuality that they won't use characters who are gay in other people's games complaining) and punishes those who don't deserve it (those who want full fledged romance options with party members).

But as Narrow Margin said, this is off topic for the thread, and if you want to make a new thread about same sex romances being relegated to NPCs only, go ahead.  This thread is for talking about what we'd like to see in a female same sex romance.  For me, it's important that the character be a party member.

[draken-heart]

syllogi wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Romances are plain optional I do not see the problem of having a non-party romance for lesbian stuff. And I was thinking more along the lines of the Cortez romance or the near the end of Samantha's romance arc.

And romances with full party members are also optional, so anyone who doesn't want to come into contact with "lesbian stuff" can simply opt out of starting a romance with a female character on their female player character.

As I (and everyone else who has responded to you) has already said, making a character who is not a party member the only same sex romance option would almost certainly lead to that romance being "lesser" compared to party member romances, and the idea of doing it that way to keep "lesbian stuff" away from players who won't use characters who *could* engage in homosexual relationships is not something that should be entertained.  It's like saying that in order to stop bullying on the playground, smaller children should be kept indoors during recess.  The policy rewards bad behavior (people who are so averse to homosexuality that they won't use characters who are gay in other people's games complaining) and punishes those who don't deserve it (those who want full fledged romance options with party members).

But as Narrow Margin said, this is off topic for the thread, and if you want to make a new thread about same sex romances being relegated to NPCs only, go ahead.  This thread is for talking about what we'd like to see in a female same sex romance.  For me, it's important that the character be a party member.

And I despised the all bi option because it ruined some of the3 characters and was only there to cater to the blind morons who wanted a male warrior for their guys and female mage for their ladies. you would still have your S/S party option, just not in the character you would want.

I would be more than okay with a non-party S/S exclusive option because then those who want an exclusive
option can go for it, and those who do not want that particular character would still have their "S/S Romance."

[LPPrince]

Lena Headey doing VA for a F/F option I'm sure would get the lady gamers going crazy in a good way.

[SgtElias]

draken-heart wrote...

And I despised the all bi option because it ruined some of the3 characters and was only there to cater to the blind morons who wanted a male warrior for their guys and female mage for their ladies. you would still have your S/S party option, just not in the character you would want.

What about the Dragon Age 2 characters being being PC-sexual "ruined it" for you?

I'm not trying to start an argument; I'm genuinely confused.

You propose having the same sex romance option be an NPC rather than a full companion. If I understand what you're saying (and if I don't, please correct me), you think that moving the F/F romance option to the periphery would free up a slot in our companion list, and also correct the "all bi" situation.

If the all-bisexual love interests were that egregious to you, perhaps the answer is to move the straight romances from the companion characters to NPCs. This would still solve the problem you see to be having; not everyone in your party would be bi, and we'd free up a companion slot.

syllogi wrote...

But as Narrow Margin said, this is off topic for the thread, and if you want to make a new thread about same sex romances being relegated to NPCs only, go ahead.  This thread is for talking about what we'd like to see in a female same sex romance.

Oops! My bad. You're right. Back on topic!

Modifié par SgtElias, 13 février 2013 - 07:24 .

[gam3wizzard16]

does any one know when dragon age 3 is coming out i heard it was next year

[draken-heart]

SgtElias wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

And I despised the all bi option because it ruined some of the3 characters and was only there to cater to the blind morons who wanted a male warrior for their guys and female mage for their ladies. you would still have your S/S party option, just not in the character you would want.

What about the Dragon Age 2 characters being being PC-sexual "ruined it" for you?

I'm not trying to start an argument; I'm genuinely confused.

You propose having the same sex romance option be an NPC rather than a full companion. If I understand what you're saying (and if I don't, please correct me), you think that moving the F/F romance option to the periphery would free up a slot in our companion list, and also correct the "all bi" situation.

If the all-bisexual love interests were that egregious to you, perhaps the answer is to move the straight romances from the companion characters to NPCs. This would still solve the problem you see to be having; not everyone in your party would be bi, and we'd free up a companion slot.

Anders: MAkes no hint of liking guys in Awakening, and Merrill, In Origins, what little I saw of her, did not scream "Interested in any sexual relationship." Then in DA 2 Hawke has the option to romance her as any gender? Makes no sense. Fenris, I keep thinking that he was only added as aromance to appease the people who wanted a male warrior for their guys because they could not get alistair from origins.

Modifié par draken-heart, 13 février 2013 - 07:41 .