510 réponses à ce sujet

[Oberkaiser]

It's funny because the liberal gestapo doesn't tolerate people with dissenting opinions.

[thats1evildude]

Oberkaiser wrote...

It's funny because the liberal gestapo doesn't tolerate people with dissenting opinions.

It's even funnier that you don't see the irony in voicing hate speech in one post and then comparing people who disagree with you to the gestapo in another.

Or it's just really pathetic.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 14 février 2013 - 11:16 .

[Plaintiff]

Oberkaiser wrote...

It's funny because the liberal gestapo doesn't tolerate people with dissenting opinions.

"Flat-out lie" =/= "dissenting opinion".

[Gotholhorakh]

Plaintiff wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...
As for
the gay thing, well there's a can of worms - I wouldn't waste your time
with anything less than lavish praise here - remember these are the
BioWare forums where politely refusing the romantic advances of a gay
character in game is practically a hate crime.

Hahahahahahahaha.

It's funny because it's a blatant falsehood.

Yeah ok, perhaps it looks different from your perspective, I can see how that might happen. Perhaps it is not a "falsehood" for you to disagree with me, then.

thats1evildude wrote...
you don't see the irony. voicing hate speech. gestapo.

Oh no, how could we all be so blind to the irony.

lol, here's the thing. Anyone who sets themselves up as the bosses of the internet or of what other people are allowed think/approve of, are doomed to reap the ridicule that kind of behavior so richly deserves.

When people are doing that though, I hope everybody remembers there are millions of gay people who are regular people that respect other people's right to approve of/object to anything as they wish without being reduced to a fine dust by a shock-and-awe campaign of hysterical accusations and bullying. It is not so much gay people doing it as totalitarian lunatics - who exist everywhere. We're here. We're individuals. Get used to it.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 14 février 2013 - 12:18 .

[Paul E Dangerously]

Assuming it even gives you the option to politely refuse someone, and not just sound like an ass.

Looking at you, infamous Anders conversation.

Modifié par Sopa de Gato, 14 février 2013 - 11:37 .

[ejoslin]

Well, IIRC, people don't care if you turned down Anders (I did -- all the time). It was that people came on here FURIOUS that it happened to begin with, though others would just be upset that Anders would give rivalry points for the shoot-down. Even topics that started off civilly would end up with someone making some very hateful anti-gay comments.

But seriously, no one can be silly enough to think that portraying gay or bisexual characters in a video game is part of some mass conspiracy, can they? It's a video game, and honestly, sexuality is a lot more complex than playing with a joystick.

Modifié par ejoslin, 14 février 2013 - 11:41 .

[Gotholhorakh]

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Assuming it even gives you the option to politely refuse someone, and not just sound like an ass.

Looking at you, infamous Anders conversation.

Haha exactly, the reference was pointing just there - ISTR nobody could want that polite option legitimately, since not quite being enthusiastic about getting jiggy with Anders makes you an obvious bigot anyway - why hide it.

[DaringMoosejaw]

Two points:

1: No, Bioware and BSN are not a gigantic pro-gay conspiracy designed to turn you and your kids into homos. That is silly.

2. No, calling someone a fairy on the internet is not equivalent to murdering 6 million people. It's douchey, but JUST calling names no matter how vile is never even close to the league of murder.

Now, can we all get back to the OP's original point, which is no doubt, 'lolz, i bet all u furries would be mad n **** if they didnt let u have pixel sex lololollol nerdz.'

[Althix]

romance=/= game.

I am more concerned about engine, combat, character development, dialogue options.

I will buy this game anyway i think, but romances or absence of it, is not a reason to buy or not to buy end product.

[thats1evildude]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

2. No, calling someone a fairy on the internet is not equivalent to murdering 6 million people. It's douchey, but JUST calling names no matter how vile is never even close to the league of murder.

But I didn't bring up the **** analogy – Oberkaiser did. I'm just pointing out the dissonance between making anti-gay comments and then comparing people who disagree to an organization that included homosexuals amongst the list of people they sent to concentration camps.

Like, seriously? No one sees the slightest hint of hypocrisy in doing that?

Note: apparently you can't use the conventional term for members of the National Socialist German Workers' Party on this forum. Weird.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 14 février 2013 - 12:02 .

[Plaintiff]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...
As for
the gay thing, well there's a can of worms - I wouldn't waste your time
with anything less than lavish praise here - remember these are the
BioWare forums where politely refusing the romantic advances of a gay
character in game is practically a hate crime.

Hahahahahahahaha.

It's funny because it's a blatant falsehood.

Yeah ok, perhaps it looks different from your perspective, I can see how that might happen.

I don't see anyone accusing you or anyone else here of a hate crime. Except maybe Oberkaiser. Whether or not his comments constitute hate speech is a grey area. They're certainly offensive and bigoted.

What Oberkaiser most definitely did do, however, is tell a lie. There is nothing in any of the Dragon Age games that constitutes as smut, homosexual or otherwise, and there is no content in there that is inappropriate for even the youngest members of its target audience. Oberkaiser's remarkes are a deliberate and batant misrepresentation of facts. This is not a matter of opinion, it's just the truth.

There are only two possibilities:

1) Oberkaiser is a troll, deliberately trying to rile up people on the forum who appreciate the same-sex romances.

2) Oberkaiser is a legitimate bigot.

I hope everybody remembers there are millions of gay people who are regular people that respect other people's right to approve of/object to anything as they wish without being reduced to a fine dust by a shock-and-awe campaign of hysterical accusations and bullying. It is not so much gay people doing it as totalitarian lunatics - who exist everywhere. We're here. We're individuals. Get used to it.

I don't believe that any homosexual, or any rational person, for that matter, respects someone else's right to "object" to private activities that are none of their concern. Do I get the right to "object" to heterosexual romance content, and the sexual activities of real-life heterosexuals?

I don't see any homosexuals bullying anyone on this board. If anything, the oppostie is true. The only bullies in this thread are the people accusing those of us who enjoy romance content of being "loners" or "perverts" and "ruining Bioware".

[Gotholhorakh]

ejoslin wrote...

Well, IIRC, people don't care if you turned down Anders (I did -- all the time). It was that people came on here FURIOUS that it happened to begin with, though others would just be upset that Anders would give rivalry points for the shoot-down. Even topics that started off civilly would end up with someone making some very hateful anti-gay comments.

But seriously, no one can be silly enough to think that portraying gay or bisexual characters in a video game is part of some mass conspiracy, can they? It's a video game, and honestly, sexuality is a lot more complex than playing with a joystick.

Coming away for a second from the derailment - because while some people will throw vituperative language around (everyone's a bigot for crying out loud) we can all see absolutism/harrassment for what they are, whichever direction they come from.

I think most people would not object strongly to some well-written and portrayed gay, furry, transsexual, S&M encounters/romances and so on to be included in the games so that everybody can have the plethora of choices they want to have, and that can easiy be done without offending the sensibilities of people who don't want to be presented with it unsolicited (which is no more than you'd ask for heterosexual romances to be honest).

If we all back up the bulldozers for a second there is no reason that both cannot happen, and is by and large somewhere approximate to whatever actual balance BioWare tries to strike.

On this point, this raises an interesting feature possibility I would like to be able to enable a "never romance me unless I ask" option, I wonder if I would be alone in this?

Plaintiff wrote...

I
don't believe that any homosexual, or any rational person, for that
matter, respects someone else's right to "object" to private activities
that are none of their concern. Do I get the right to "object" to
heterosexual romance content, and the sexual activities of real-life
heterosexuals?

Obviously yes you do. You have the absolute right to your opinion, offensive or not, whether anyone agrees with it or not. This is a founding principle of free society and is a part of the modern world's intellectual development that has been hard-won, to say the least.

We are all free to object to that opinion, too - but when we step up to the level of believing they do not have the right to it, we have endorsed a founding principle that all of the most sickening and evil acts of mass murder in all of human history have in common.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 14 février 2013 - 12:03 .

[Sutekh]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

On this point, this raises an interesting feature possibility I would like to be able to enable a "never romance me unless I ask" option, I wonder if I would be alone in this?

As in "never ever flirt with me"? Wouldn't that be the player controlling the NPCs behavior and characterization?

[Gotholhorakh]

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 14 février 2013 - 12:10 .

[Plaintiff]

Gotholhorakh wrote...
Obviously yes you do. You have the absolute right to your opinion, offensive or not, whether anyone agrees with it or not. This is a founding principle of free society and is a part of the modern world's intellectual development that has been hard-won, to say the least.

We are all free to object to anyone else's opinion, too - but when we step up to the level of believing they do not have the right to it, we have endorsed a founding principle that all the most sickening and evil acts of mass murder in all of human history have in common.

But no "free" society believes that people should be free to express their opinions with no restraictions whatsoever. Even in the USA, there are forms of speech, like hate speech, that are not protected by the Free Speech amendment.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 14 février 2013 - 12:06 .

[Gotholhorakh]

Plaintiff wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...
Obviously yes you do. You have the absolute right to your opinion, offensive or not, whether anyone agrees with it or not. This is a founding principle of free society and is a part of the modern world's intellectual development that has been hard-won, to say the least.

We are all free to object to anyone else's opinion, too - but when we step up to the level of believing they do not have the right to it, we have endorsed a founding principle that all the most sickening and evil acts of mass murder in all of human history have in common.

But no "free" society believes that people should be free to express their opinions with no restraictions whatsoever. Even the USA, there are forms of speech, like hate speech, that do not fall under the protection of the Free Speech amendment.

There is a requirement to have some limited control over a situation by law enforcement for the direct purpose of maintining order, which is recognized by all.

Outside the realm of that, the state deciding what opinions people are allowed to have, and that people who disagree with them do not have the right to free speech is a legal/moral/constitutional aberration that will self-correct.

Edit: as fascinating as this branch of the conversation could be for both of us, I suggest we should probably not pursue it here, lest the just and righteous bottom-smacking from the moderators should ensue for politicalnessity.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 14 février 2013 - 12:21 .

[DaringMoosejaw]

Plaintiff wrote...
But no "free" society believes that people should be free to express their opinions with no restraictions whatsoever. Even in the USA, there are forms of speech, like hate speech, that are not protected by the Free Speech amendment.

...actually, hate speech IS (legally) protected in the U.S.. Unlike Germany or Canada (I believe), they can't send you to prison for holocaust denial.

Anyway, to the topic, I'd still buy it. I think the romances help a lot with immersion and getting you to 'live' in the world as it were, and I think without them everything would seem more detached and you'd have less of a personal investment in resolving things.

Modifié par DaringMoosejaw, 14 février 2013 - 12:12 .

[Gotholhorakh]

Sutekh wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

On this point, this raises an interesting feature possibility I would like to be able to enable a "never romance me unless I ask" option, I wonder if I would be alone in this?

As in "never ever flirt with me"? Wouldn't that be the player controlling the NPCs behavior and characterization?

I don't know - would it extend to flirting? I guess it might imply that. I guess it would depend on how subtly or otherwise it would affect the NPC interaction - which depends on how they are written.

If it was a "never flirt with me" option, I can see how it might wreck an NPC. On the other hand some it would have no more effect on, than the difficulty slider.

Hrm - there's a swathe of implicit limitations on how the writers can craft the NPCs, isn't there? I wonder how somebody who knew what the hell they were talking about in terms of writing the Dragon Age NPC interaction, would feel?

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 14 février 2013 - 12:12 .

[Plaintiff]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
But no "free" society believes that people should be free to express their opinions with no restraictions whatsoever. Even in the USA, there are forms of speech, like hate speech, that are not protected by the Free Speech amendment.

...actually, hate speech IS (legally) protected in the U.S.. Unlike Germany or Canada (I believe), they can't send you to prison for holocaust denial.

Anyway, to the topic, I'd still buy it. I think the romances help a lot with immersion and getting you to 'live' in the world as it were, and I think without them everything would seem more detached and you'd have less of a personal investment in resolving things.

"Hate Speech", as I understand the term is speech that infringes on the personal safety of others. Provoking members of your audience to do physical harm to minority groups, for example.

Holocaust denial is disgusting and abhorrent, not to mention just mind-numbingly stupid. But while I think it should be considered hate speech, it is possible that it may not fit the legal definition of the term as per United States Law.

[DaringMoosejaw]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Sutekh wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

On this point, this raises an interesting feature possibility I would like to be able to enable a "never romance me unless I ask" option, I wonder if I would be alone in this?

As in "never ever flirt with me"? Wouldn't that be the player controlling the NPCs behavior and characterization?

I don't know - would it extend to flirting? I guess it might imply that. I guess it would depend on how subtly or otherwise it would affect the NPC interaction - which depends on how they are written.

If it was a "never flirt with me" option, I can see how it might wreck an NPC. On the other hand some it would have no more effect on, than the difficulty slider.

Hrm - there's a swathe of implicit limitations on how the writers can craft the NPCs, isn't there? I wonder how somebody who knew what the hell they were talking about in terms of writing the Dragon Age NPC interaction, would feel?

Ah, the ol' "Just make it a toggle! That'll fix everything!". Toggles are the greatest solution to life's problems, as BSN knows quite well.

Fact of the matter is, I'm not too (personally) keen on homosexuality myself. Meaning I'm not one, pretty much, but subscribe to a live and let live philosophy where if people are, then it's not my place to tell them they can't unless I'm somehow affected.

However, gay people do exist! There aren't that many of them, but they exist. Not to the point where I understand people want there to be at least a gay person in every single game and for there to be someone who's gay/bi in your party in every single game (Pacific Islanders also exist, but I don't see anyone demanding their Pacific Islander lifestyle be represented in the game for the sake of equality).

All that aside, they certainly exist! And your party can certainly contain one. And in life, you sometimes get advances from people you're just not interested in. Whether that be gay folk, or someone who's a douchebag, or whatever the reason, you have to let them down. It's awkward, but it happens! So what's the big deal if it happens in a game? And yeah, I get disapproval and rivalry from that. If someone makes advances on you and you reject them, the relationship changes! I have never heard of a single case of a someone going, 'So, I'm interested in you. Would you like to...oh, no? Well, that's cool! Just checking. Let's go back to how things were five seconds ago without any ramifications from that conversation at all!'.

The game also gives you rivalry points for rejecting heterosexual advances. Is the game punishing you for not being heterosexual? No, that's just silly. So toggling it would be silly, unless you wanted to toggle all romances. But I think that's silly, too. You're fine with stabbing people in the gut but you can't play the game if your character gets oggled by a dude? Why bother.

[sarakirrer]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Sutekh wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

On this point, this raises an interesting feature possibility I would like to be able to enable a "never romance me unless I ask" option, I wonder if I would be alone in this?

As in "never ever flirt with me"? Wouldn't that be the player controlling the NPCs behavior and characterization?

I don't know - would it extend to flirting? I guess it might imply that. I guess it would depend on how subtly or otherwise it would affect the NPC interaction - which depends on how they are written.

If it was a "never flirt with me" option, I can see how it might wreck an NPC. On the other hand some it would have no more effect on, than the difficulty slider.

Hrm - there's a swathe of implicit limitations on how the writers can craft the NPCs, isn't there? I wonder how somebody who knew what the hell they were talking about in terms of writing the Dragon Age NPC interaction, would feel?

I don't know if "wreck" is the right word, but I definitely think there are a whole host of characterization issues that would arise from implementing a "never instigate romance with me" option... For example, would Isabela's character be the same if you "checked" that option for her and she then wasn't ever allowed to hit on you? Personally, even though I've never romanced Isabela in any of my playthroughs, I think it would be striking if she flirted with eligible NPCs and NEVER flirted with you--as in, you "checked" "never instigate romance with me" and so she never even mentioned romance with you. I'd find it very odd if there wasn't some kind of reason for that, or if someone didn't address it in a "Hey, how come you don't ever try to get in Hawke's pants?" banter, or something.

I think a better way to implement this would have been to have "rejection" options that match Hawke's three personalities. I don't find the rivalry points for rejection annoying because it's fairly easy to gain friendship/rivalry in DA2, but I would definitely have preferred a more in-character way to reject LIs. Most of the romance options were either, "yes, I'm in love with you, let's proceed to babymaking" or "how dare you ever deign to think of me like that?" I mean, in most cases, there was only one "broken heart icon" option, and you were straight up rude to the other person when you rejected them. That didn't make a whole lot of sense to me, since I usually stay away from playing aggressive jerkwads, and I always had a "huh?" moment when my "sarcastic" Hawke would reject someone with the "aggressive" voice.

--

Regarding the OP's question, I would definitely buy DA:I if it didn't have LIs, but I wouldn't buy it if it didn't include the same amount of dialog options or the ability to have a friendship/rivalry/whathaveyou with your companions. I loved Awakening even though it didn't have romance options because you still got to interact with your companions in a meaningful way. The dialog choices that flesh out  your companions' backgrounds and influence their actions (for better or for worse)  are definitely my favorite part of the DA games, and I would hugely miss that character development if it wasn't there.

[DaringMoosejaw]

Plaintiff wrote...

"Hate Speech", as I understand the term is speech that infringes on the personal safety of others. Provoking members of your audience to do physical harm to minority groups, for example.

Holocaust denial is disgusting and abhorrent, not to mention just mind-numbingly stupid. But while I think it should be considered hate speech, it is possible that it may not fit the legal definition of the term as per United States Law.

Nope. Hate speech means calling someone a name or inferring that all members of a certain race are stupid or thieves or something, usually these days referring to any discriminatory speech. Speech that actually incites danger, like yelling fire in crowded theater, isn't 'hate speech'. You can say whatever you want in the U.S. about whoever you want, the line is drawn at directly inciting panic or violence, like credible death threats. And I think even death threats just get you a restraining order, I don't think it's a felony.

Holocaust denial would be 'hate speech' in the popular terminology. Personally, though, I don't get why you'd throw someone in jail for it. It's a silly belief, but unless they're actually attacking people I don't see why you'd go to jail for it. Do we throw people in jail for thinking the moon landing is a hoax?

[Gotholhorakh]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Sutekh wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

On this point, this raises an interesting feature possibility I would like to be able to enable a "never romance me unless I ask" option, I wonder if I would be alone in this?

As in "never ever flirt with me"? Wouldn't that be the player controlling the NPCs behavior and characterization?

I don't know - would it extend to flirting? I guess it might imply that. I guess it would depend on how subtly or otherwise it would affect the NPC interaction - which depends on how they are written.

If it was a "never flirt with me" option, I can see how it might wreck an NPC. On the other hand some it would have no more effect on, than the difficulty slider.

Hrm - there's a swathe of implicit limitations on how the writers can craft the NPCs, isn't there? I wonder how somebody who knew what the hell they were talking about in terms of writing the Dragon Age NPC interaction, would feel?

Ah, the ol' "Just make it a toggle! That'll fix everything!". Toggles are the greatest solution to life's problems, as BSN knows quite well.

Fact of the matter is, I'm not too (personally) keen on homosexuality myself. Meaning I'm not one, pretty much, but subscribe to a live and let live philosophy where if people are, then it's not my place to tell them they can't unless I'm somehow affected.

However, gay people do exist! There aren't that many of them, but they exist. Not to the point where I understand people want there to be at least a gay person in every single game and for there to be someone who's gay/bi in your party in every single game (Pacific Islanders also exist, but I don't see anyone demanding their Pacific Islander lifestyle be represented in the game for the sake of equality).

All that aside, they certainly exist! And your party can certainly contain one. And in life, you sometimes get advances from people you're just not interested in. Whether that be gay folk, or someone who's a douchebag, or whatever the reason, you have to let them down. It's awkward, but it happens! So what's the big deal if it happens in a game? And yeah, I get disapproval and rivalry from that. If someone makes advances on you and you reject them, the relationship changes! I have never heard of a single case of a someone going, 'So, I'm interested in you. Would you like to...oh, no? Well, that's cool! Just checking. Let's go back to how things were five seconds ago without any ramifications from that conversation at all!'.

The game also gives you rivalry points for rejecting heterosexual advances. Is the game punishing you for not being heterosexual? No, that's just silly. So toggling it would be silly, unless you wanted to toggle all romances. But I think that's silly, too. You're fine with stabbing people in the gut but you can't play the game if your character gets oggled by a dude? Why bother.

Yep. All romances is what I suggested.


I wasn't suggesting a gay/not gay lever - although judging by how people's sensibilities differ, that might not actually be such an unpopular idea, haha.

sarakirrer wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Sutekh wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

On
this point, this raises an interesting feature possibility I would like
to be able to enable a "never romance me unless I ask" option, I wonder
if I would be alone in this?

As in "never ever flirt with me"?
Wouldn't that be the player controlling the NPCs behavior and
characterization?

I don't know - would it extend to
flirting? I guess it might imply that. I guess it would depend on how
subtly or otherwise it would affect the NPC interaction - which depends
on how they are written.

If it was a "never flirt with me"
option, I can see how it might wreck an NPC. On the other hand some it
would have no more effect on, than the difficulty slider.

Hrm -
there's a swathe of implicit limitations on how the writers can craft
the NPCs, isn't there? I wonder how somebody who knew what the hell they
were talking about in terms of writing the Dragon Age NPC interaction,
would feel?

I don't know if "wreck" is the right
word, but I definitely think there are a whole host of characterization
issues that would arise from implementing a "never instigate romance
with me" option... For example, would Isabela's character be the same if
you "checked" that option for her and she then wasn't ever allowed to
hit on you? Personally, even though I've never romanced Isabela in any
of my playthroughs, I think it would be striking if she flirted with
eligible NPCs and NEVER flirted with you--as in, you "checked" "never
instigate romance with me" and so she never even mentioned romance with
you. I'd find it very odd if there wasn't some kind of reason for that,
or if someone didn't address it in a "Hey, how come you don't ever try
to get in Hawke's pants?" banter, or something.

Well as you've rightly identified, Isabela is one of the first characters that springs to my mind when we raise such a concept.

On
the one hand I think she is a good example of why a "never flirt with
me" would be a disaster for free writing und the wrong circumstances, or
why a "never romance me unless I ask" option would have to stop short
of messing up the dialog eg: flirtatiousness.

That said, if you
don't want to be romanced unless you ask, her not flirting with you is
kinda what you want, isn't it? That particular sliver of the pie seems
like it would might be a non-issue, doesn't it?

I think a better way to implement this would have been to have "rejection" options that
match Hawke's three personalities. I don't find the rivalry points for
rejection annoying because it's fairly easy to gain friendship/rivalry
in DA2, but I would definitely have preferred a more in-character way to
reject LIs. Most of the romance options were either, "yes, I'm in love
with you, let's proceed to babymaking" or "how dare you ever deign to
think of me like that?" I mean, in most cases, there was only one
"broken heart icon" option, and you were straight up rude to the other
person when you rejected them. That didn't make a whole lot of sense to
me, since I usually stay away from playing aggressive jerkwads, and I
always had a "huh?" moment when my "sarcastic" Hawke would reject
someone with the "aggressive" voice.

Yeah, this is the point - in reality people do their best to sensitively and kindly
reject the affections of a (hitherto) friend, it sucks that there is no choice to do that.

Ditto not being able to say "no offense but I'm not that way", and ditto not being an ****
to your friend if they're just not into you in that way.

These things are more like how real people, who care about each other, might act
in such a situation, more human/realistic than the okyahsecks/gtfo choice we have had in the past.

--

Regarding the OP's
question, I would definitely buy DA:I if it didn't have LIs, but I
wouldn't buy it if it didn't include the same amount of dialog options
or the ability to have a friendship/rivalry/whathaveyou with your
companions. I loved Awakening even though it didn't have romance options
because you still got to interact with your companions in a meaningful
way. The dialog choices that flesh out  your companions' backgrounds and
influence their actions (for better or for worse)  are definitely my
favorite part of the DA games, and I would hugely miss that character
development if it wasn't there.

I hate to think of the bits of DA that people love being nerfed, even if they are to me pretty much irrelevant
stripping choice that the community loves is lowering quality as far as I'm concerned, so I would paradoxically
be against its removal, whilst not being a fan myself.

Basically, all I want is the moon on a stick.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 14 février 2013 - 12:57 .

[DaringMoosejaw]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Yep. All romances is what I suggested.


I wasn't suggesting a gay/not gay lever - although judging by how people's sensibilities differ, that might not actually be such an unpopular idea, haha.

I still think 'toggling' that is unneccessarily 'whitewashing' characterization. If you can turn off a character's sexuality with a button without removing any of their personality, then that sexuality must be very superficial and unimportant. Either they include it, or they don't. Being hit on happens and I really don't think it's all that psychologically draining (Though I do agree they should give you an option as to HOW you should turn them down based on your personality - and hey, maybe even options as to how you can accept their advances based on your personality without sounding like a sex-depraved homebody!) so 'turning off' flirting seems silly to me.

I really think the suggested tonal options would fix most people's objections. Being able to choose whether to let someone down gently or tell them to **** off should make their choice in the character acting bitter about it make more sense.

Modifié par DaringMoosejaw, 14 février 2013 - 12:58 .