Maclimes wrote...
People actually have far more complex reasons for romance other than the set of genitalia they possess.
This is the incorrect premise on which your conclusion relies. Quite frankly, their genitalia is the entirety of the reason for a romance; otherwise, romance would simply another word for "friendship" and no-one would ever ****. Well, either that or everyone would be bisexual, which would make your entire argument circular. No matter how you slice it, your statement is easily refuted.
But if you want more restrictions on romances, I would not object. I'd actually be happy if we could axe nonsensical rivalry romances -- someone really has to explain for me why Fenris would enjoy the company of a pro-slavery, pro-magister **** mage who constantly insults him.
SirGladiator wrote...
The reason that the DA2 system (and the DD system, and the Skyrim system, and the Sims system, etc.) is the best is simple, because everyone can romance who they want to. It doesn't change their 'individual personality' in any way...
How kind of you to bring up the likes of Skyrim. How much personality do the characters actually have? Not a damn bit. They're as vapid as one could possibly imagine. That is exactly the problem that caused DA2's romances to be almost universally panned. They are awful, soulless crap. With "romances" as empty as those you praise, what do you even want in a romance? Can we just give you a token whatever-you-are-sexual to follow you around and yell encouragement? In the meantime, we leave actual romances with well-developed characters for those who aren't into empty create-an-NPC romances. That seems like a fair tradeoff.
TheFinalDoctor wrote...
This. Even though it sounds strange, I kinda liked that on my femshep playthrough of ME3, that jacob dumped me. It was handled poorly, to be sure, but it did give a better illusion that ME is its own universe and that the characters make their own choices, not because the universe revolves around the the Player Character, but that each character has their own motives and preferences.
QFT.
DPSSOC wrote...
Or going after Traynor as a male shep and getting shot down. That was hillarious. Making all romances accessible to everyone denies us the opportunity of being turned down in humourous fashion, I disapprove. Case in point the most interesting romance option in DA2 for me was Aveline because you can pursue it, and pursue it and it never happens.
Also QFT.
Re: Anders, Anders responding with rivalry was inappropriate because the system is a plus-minus system -- gaining rivalry is losing friendship. You may determine which direction the plus, but it is still a plus-minus system in the end, and slipping up is still a penalty. The Anders part is frustrating because you are right on your way earning your plus points when the game out and says "OK, now romance this dude or you'll be penalized". Not only is that just downright stupid to begin with, it's extremely jarring for some guy to come on to you out of the blue and then rage when you turn him down. You might justify it however you want -- the actual dialogue makes the friendship loss not
entirely unbelievable -- but the player gets pretty well broadsided with it based on what he selects (summary is not what is said) and what he intends.
highcastle wrote...
Aside from the arguments about the realism of bisexuality being borderline offensive at times...
All fiction is an extension of reality. We as humans can only interpret what is similar to our own world. This is why non-human creatures in fiction are invariably anthropomorphic.
The logistics of a bisexual utopia obviously don't work out (especially in a world as violent as Thedas), so the game world is clearly mostly heterosexual. Yet we somehow happen on a bunch of blank slates (except Isabela; she's an open book) everywhere we go. The question is not only realism in the sense of conformity to our reality but also logical consistency. It strains credibility that every hero in Thedas happens to be flanked by a few faithful yet sexually-confused followers.
highcastle wrote...
...including options for both genders is just plain good sense for appealing to a broader player base. Not every gamer is a straight male, and some of us would like to see that representation continue in future games.
Depends. Only makes sense if the increase in sales accounts for the resources used and any harmful effects (e.g. loss of romance quality). There are costs associated with everything. You know BioWare would love to appease the select-a-subspecies crowd, but the resources just aren't there. They'd make a dozen romances of every shape, size, color, flavor, and fragrance to make everyone happy. But in the end, they can't.
highcastle wrote...
While ME3 did include exclusively same-sex LIs, they were non-crew members and thus had less interaction with Shep simply because they couldn't participate in missions. It's not a great example of how to do that content well.
There was also only one new squadmate, and being the intro-to-series guy, he was left out of the romance binge. As a matter of necessity, the new LIs were not squadmates. Though, I disagree that they had "much less interaction" -- I think you've vastly overestimated the impact of bringing LIs on missions. In fact, I can only think of one occasion where a romance that didn't begin in ME2 is referenced meaningfully in a mission, and that's at the Cerberus base.
Thrillho_82 wrote...
I cannot think of a single honest reason that anyone would want to limit a player's choice in regards to LIs in DA games
Thing is, it's as above: we want fully-developed characters, not blank slates. If all fully-developed characters are bisexual, it inevitably strains credibility. That's where the disconnect happens. Of course, having all actual bisexual characters is certainly preferable to the blank-slate approach: it isn't necessarily totally bad, just a bit quirky. I still think the best approach is a mix of heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual (and if you want to be really picky about it, U.S. men are more likely to identify is homosexual and women are more likely to identify as bisexual -- cultural biases?). And hell, there are transsexuals (or at least cross-dressers?) in the DA world; why not have one as a follower? But I digress.
gosimmons wrote...
I support more bromance.
Trudat. Intimate relationships do not have to be sexual.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
I would love a Cable and Deadpool-style relationship, for example. I wouldn't mind at all something like that added for LIs as well, to show you're friends as well as lovers.
