328 réponses à ce sujet

[Palipride47]

Gamemako wrote...

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.

Fenris being ok with proslave Hawke makes no sense, but it is a failure of the friendship/rivalry system being on a slider than anything else, where being pro-mage but anti-slavery made him ambivalent towards you.

Not to mention that the only way you had any "friendship" or frankly, any feeling of connection with the romancable characters is if you slept with them. Think Garrus vs. Alistair with a female. You only feel like you "have" to sleep with a character if that seems like the only way they won't be shallow caricatures (Isabela is a good example, I think)

Gamemako wrote...

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.

I'm sure his argument wasn't saying that the Skyrim characters were complex (and Bethesda's Elder Scrolls bits after Morrowind are not games for good storytelling).

But what makes you think that player-sexual/bi romance options= vapid? How does sexuality in any way "embody" the personality (unless you "make it" your identity, like Zevran and Isabela)?

Who is universally "panning" the romances? Do you mean the angry straight male gamers who were "uncomfortable" with Anders's come-on? The people for who Anders's general flirtiness towards women vs. men in DAA means he is heterosexual and that his bisexuality has been retconned (when bisexual people can swing one way and then back again? or he could have been joking around - like he did THE ENTIRE GAME?)

Gamemako wrote...

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.

Like if a boy/girl got mad when you say "I just want to be friends." Rejection hurts, regardless of sexuality, or who you flirt with. And he just gets moody for that one shot and never mentions it again, and you can still be bros, no problem. That definitely doesn't always happen in the real world.

The rvialry system is supposed to be about respect for your positions on issues (mage freedom vs. containment), not so much interpersonal actions. But because they couldn't "separate" the two, thats how it turned out to be, because they went simplistic.

They were still supposed to respect you as a person, unless you went too far (like not confronting the slavers right away after Fenris is ambushed in Act 2, he will make you go, or he will leave permanently. Anders can leave permanently after "Dissent" in Act 2, if you tell him to, and come back to destroy the Chantry. Isabela will leave forever if you aren't friends or rivals by the Qunari attack).

That is a failure of the approval system, not of the writer's decision to have that exchange occur.
And this happened REGARDLESS OF GENDER. He will get mad at a female Hawke just as much. But you don't hear about Femhawke players feeling "compelled" to be in a heterosexual relationship (at least, not as loudly).

Gamemako wrote...

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.

Sexuality is a recent (relative to human history) development.

You may point to the Bible or Quran, but those religions started out as minor "cults" (I use the term here to describe any small group of people who follow a non-conventional religion, as society defines convention at the time). In ancient Greece (Athens and Sparta), heterosexual relationships were considered inferior and a neccesary evil, because women have to make the babies.

And where does heterosexual = default? That is society telling you that.

Imagine if your son or daughter had to sit down and burst into tears while revealing his/her heterosexuality. Yeah, that doesn't happen, like, anywhere....ever.

And Alistair and Morrigan were straight, and two of the most important followers in DA:O.

And again, how does bi-sexuality = confused? They could just be that way. And player-sexual is just how YOU played the game. My homosexual relationship with Isabela does not affect your heterosexual relationship with Merrill. So this concern of characters that aren't player-sexual seems rather silly, in retrospect.

Why do you care about Fenris being gay in MY GAME? That's like people being concerned about MY Snickers bar, MY partner (who might be a woman) and I (as a woman) getting married, MY medications I take. It has no bearing on you, why do you care?

Gamemako wrote...

[Player-sexual based inclusion] 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.

So women and other races are "subspecies" as well?

It does make sales sense, it will ALWAYS make good business sense. The Sims is the highest grossing game of all time (and continues to be). They have gay marriage in that game. Even GTA made a gay themed character (The Ballad of Gay Tony). There is nothing that says "I must make hetero characters or I will lose money." Reaching out to a broader base is HOW YOU MAKE SALES. It works. 

Any perceived loss of quality relationship is you feeling the writers did everything else wrong. You see a loss in romance quality, I see missed opportunities due to a rushed game and having to condense 7-8 years in 3 Acts due to the narrative of Hawke as "a story being told" that already happened. And I see the player-sexual characters as having nothing to do with that.

Same sex characters don't mean a change in writing quality. Replace "he" with "she" (or "she" with "he"). Modders made a "free love" thing, it works fine. It did ALMOST NOTHING to the story-line. And the Dark Ritual would be so cool if Morrigan was sleeping with someone else that she hates to save her female lover, sharing intimacy with someone else (a DUDE!) because there is no other option. And Alistair/ The Warden having to "lie back and think of your lover" to save the man he loves.

There is no reason to exclude other gamers so you feel better.

Gamemako wrote...

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...........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. [/b]

So, like I have a trillion times, bisexual does not mean "less credible". You even said it yourself. Player-sexual is the EASIEST WAY to achieve inclusion, and even Gaider said he would like what you stated you want. They can't do it. So they go with the next best thing.

Gamemako wrote...

Trudat. Intimate relationships do not have to be sexual.

This is true. I wanted a "bromance" with Alistair, but it didn't feel the same with a chick vs. dude.
And honestly dude, big words do not equal more succient opinions. Ask anyone who read "50 Shades of Grey"

EDIT: bolded, unlined, italizied a point we all seem to be forgetting

Modifié par Palipride47, 06 novembre 2012 - 02:17 .

[Fiacre]

...Please tell me he didn't just say that bisexuals strain credibility / are sexually confused. Well. I'll just sit here then. Straining credibility, while being confused.

And I agree with nearly everything you just said, Palipride. Great post.

[Palipride47]

Fiacre wrote...

...Please tell me he didn't just say that bisexuals strain credibility / are sexually confused. Well. I'll just sit here then. Straining credibility, while being confused.

And I agree with nearly everything you just said, Palipride. Great post.

Can I sit with you and be sexually confused/ strain credibility?

And thank you. 

[Harle Cerulean]

Palipride47 wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

...Please tell me he didn't just say that bisexuals strain credibility / are sexually confused. Well. I'll just sit here then. Straining credibility, while being confused.

And I agree with nearly everything you just said, Palipride. Great post.

Can I sit with you and be sexually confused/ strain credibility?

And thank you. 

I'll just settle for being incredible, personally.

[Palipride47]

Harle Cerulean wrote...

Palipride47 wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

...Please tell me he didn't just say that bisexuals strain credibility / are sexually confused. Well. I'll just sit here then. Straining credibility, while being confused.

And I agree with nearly everything you just said, Palipride. Great post.

Can I sit with you and be sexually confused/ strain credibility?

And thank you. 

I'll just settle for being incredible, personally.

They aren't mutually exclusive . I am so incredible that people are suspicious. 

EDIT: Ha! I see what you did there *teehee* (a little too late , but whatever, and I really need to chill with the smiley faces)

Modifié par Palipride47, 06 novembre 2012 - 03:59 .

[Gamemako]

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

I'm sure his argument wasn't saying that the Skyrim characters were complex (and Bethesda's Elder Scrolls bits after Morrowind are not games for good storytelling).[/quote]

If you accept that Skyrim's romances are bad, then that applying the system involved in that can't be relied on to produce good results.

(Honestly, I never finished Skyrim anyway, but it hardly matters.)

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

But what makes you think that player-sexual/bi romance options= vapid? How does sexuality in any way "embody" the personality (unless you "make it" your identity, like Zevran and Isabela)?[/quote]

There are zero examples of a decent herosexual romance anywhere ever, but there are good examples of awful ones (like DA2's). There is a very simple reason for this: You cannot write around sex when the meaning of the encounter is sex. You are writing around the sexual character of a person in a sexual situation. That is why the entire premise of what the OP said is incredibly wrong.

David Gaider talks about a situation in which you couldn't tell from the romance that the characters is romanceable by the other sex. This is infeasible, and the folly of chasing this after the failure of DA2 is only going to harm the quality of DA3.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

Who is universally "panning" the romances?[/quote]

I'm sorry, but have you touched the internet past the BSN? Actually, did you even read the BSN? Because even here, among the most hardcore BioWare fans, reception was poor. You don't see huge talks like this one because everyone thought the relationships in DA2 were perfectly satisfactory.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

Like if a boy/girl got mad when you say "I just want to be friends." Rejection hurts, regardless of sexuality, or who you flirt with. And he just gets moody for that one shot and never mentions it again, and you can still be bros, no problem. That definitely doesn't always happen in the real world.[/quote]

This is a little silly. You're talking about someone you just met. This isn't someone you've known for a while turning down your advances. He just lost his lover, and Hawke was there as an exchange of services. Anders really has no reason to assume interest. And when he does make a proposition, very much out of the blue, he gets offended at rejection. The action itself is just plain bizarre, and the response is unexpected in any natural context. Even if you accept the rejection response as an odd response from an odd person, the player has no reason to expect that kind of result (esp. players of Awakening) and isn't keen on being punished by the plus-minus system as a result. It's bad design.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

The rvialry system is supposed to be... That is a failure of the approval system, not of the writer's decision to have that exchange occur.[/quote]

We can disagree on whether the exchange was appropriate from a writing standpoint, but the poor application of the approval system is what made it into the debacle we see. Sure, some people would have decried the poor writing and inane character 180 for Anders, but there would have been so little to talk about here if the game hadn't hit your Diplomatic Hawke with 10 rivalry points. 10 rivalry points that you have to make up later by bringing him along when you don't want him around.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

And this happened REGARDLESS OF GENDER.He would get mad at a female Hawke just as much. But you don't hear about Femhawke players feeling "compelled" to be in a heterosexual relationship.[/quote]

Did I mention player sex? Nope, no I didn't. Grind your axe elsewhere.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

Sexuality is a recent (relative to human history) development.[/quote]

You've now entered the realm of self-parody. Nope, nothing in history every had sex before the year 1045. It was the first time ever. And all male monkeys **** all other male monkeys in the ass because it's fun, right? Dogs do it, dinosaurs did it, and bees do it too!

Oh wait, nope, they don't. In fact, as it turns out, animal sexual behavior, like human sexual behavior, is subject to certain individual constraints. You know, what we call "sexuality". You know, how we have occasion to observe other species masturbating or performing oral sex on themselves or others. And how, as it turns out, homosexual behavior has been observed in countless species.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

And where does heterosexual = default? That is society telling you that.[/quote]

No, that's biology telling me that. You know, how species have evolved through sexual reproduction for thousands of years, and that heterosexuality is selected for because homosexuals don't reproduce. How, based on scientific estimates, somewhere around 93% of the human population are in fact heterosexual. As a matter of biological function, the default is heterosexual. As a matter of statistics, the default is heterosexual. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

As I said previously, consider the logistics of Thedas as a monogamous bisexual utopia. 50% of the population then fails to reproduce. Another 50% of that is male and cannot produce children. To maintain the population at its current level, that's 4 children per woman if every single woman born grew up to have children. That's not reasonable -- around 10% of women today are infertile despite our technology. Given how violent Thedas is, all the warrior women who die don't have children either. All of the kids who die from violence or disease or are kidnapped into slavery don't have children. Most mages don't have children. Maternal mortality in poor countries pushes 1%. To maintain the population in Thedas with the attrition that world experiences, a pure heterosexual world would require its fertile females to produce an average of quite a few children each already (maybe 4). If 100% were bisexual and half of them sought the company of their own sex, then each fertile female would need maybe 8 children. That strains credibility.

You can only have a majority-bisexual situation where promiscuity is the rule, such that a much larger portion of the female population produces children.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

Imagine if your son or daughter had to sit down and burst into tears to reveal his/her heterosexuality. Yeah, that doesn't happen, like, anywhere....ever.[/quote]

This is relevant how?

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

And Alistair and Morrigan were straight, and two of the most important followers in DA:O. [/quote]

So? All of the romances in DA:O had distinct sexualities.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

And again, how does bi-sexuality = confused?[/quote]

You not reading = confused. You might notice that I talked very specifically about the difference between what we have and bisexuality. Leliana = bisexual. Merrill = confused.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

They could just be that way. And player-sexual is just how YOU played the game. My homosexual relationship with Isabela does not affect your heterosexual relationship with Merrill. So this concern of characters that aren't player-sexual seems rather silly, in retrospect.[/quote]

Once again, ridiculous straw man. Herosexual characters are always bad for a fundamental reason. There will never be a herosexual romance that is even decent. It just won't happen. That massive failure of quality is the issue. I've already said that I'd be happy with all homosexual options if they're of good quality. BioWare won't do it (certainly not now that they're owned by EA), but it would be just fine by me.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

Why do you care about Fenris being gay in MY GAME? That's like people being concerned about MY Snickers bar, MY partner (who might be a woman) and I (as a woman) getting married, MY medications I take. It has no bearing on you, why do you care?[/quote]

I don't. Your straw man isn't doing you any credit. I do, however, get annoyed when I have to write the sexuality of my lover into the story I'm being told.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

So women and other races are "subspecies" as well?[/quote]

Did I say anything about women there? Nope. You would do well to learn what subspecies means, then come back and re-read the comment. And if you still don't get it, your PC is human in DA3.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

It does make sales sense, it will ALWAYS make good business sense. The Sims is the highest grossing game of all time (and continues to be). They have gay marriage in that game. Even GTA made a gay themed character (The Ballad of Gay Tony). There is nothing that says "I must make hetero characters or I will lose money." Reaching out to a broader base is HOW YOU MAKE SALES. It works. [/quote]

You don't face a whole lot of quality loss due to adding gay marriages to The Sims or having a gay character in a very good DLC. In fact, I daresay there is no quality loss, and in the case of TBoGT, it's not even extra work. You do, however, face a loss of quality by kowtowing to people who so refuse the notion that the game world isn't rewritten by your particular sexual desires. Thank the Gods Traynor was a lesbian, because it would have been pretty boring if she'd bedded male Shep anyway.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

Any perceived loss of quality relationship is you feeling the writers did everything else wrong... And I see the player-sexual characters as having nothing to do with that.[/quote]

Well, gee, thanks, I guess I always felt the way you feel about the romances in DA2 and not the way I feel. Thanks for clearing that up.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

Same sex characters don't mean a change in writing quality. Replace "he" with "she" (or "she" with "he").[/quote]

Same-sex characters are certainly not a bad thing, though your insistence on straw men certainly is. I've mentioned Juhani countless times in reference to this.

Characters without an existing sexuality in romances, however, are a massive failure. I can imagine the conversation that would go on in that world:

-"You seem a little uncomfortable. You've never mentioned sex or even seemed to acknowledge my gender."
-"Well, I was waiting for you to tell me what kind of genitals I should have."

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

And the Dark Ritual would be so cool of Morrigan was sleeping with someone else that she hates to save her female lover, sharing intimacy with someone else (a DUDE!). And Alistair/ The Warden having to "lie back and think of your lover" to save  the man he loves.[/quote]

You know, how she dislikes Alistair already? Oh, wait, that happened. You're inventing a meaningless dilemma that wouldn't add anything to the story. What if Morrigan were a lesbian? Hell if I know, but she wouldn't be the character she is. She wouldn't be there talking about her experiences with other men. She wouldn't be prepared for the ritual. Her attitude toward men would be all kinds of bizarre.

She would just have to be a different character if her sexuality were altered. That's not to say that she couldn't, but the game as it is written doesn't make sense with her swinging that way.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

There is no reason to exclude other gamers so you feel better.[/quote]

How adorably transparent. Ad hominem encased in a straw man. Go ahead, just say it. Call me a homophobe so I can promptly rip you a new one.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

So, like I have a trillion times, bisexual does not mean "less credible". You even said it yourself. Player-sexual is the EASIEST WAY to achieve inclusion, and even Gaider said he would like what you stated you want. They can't do it. So they go with the next best thing.[/quote]

Having all bisexual romances is only a little weird because, well, what are the odds. That is something you already give plenty of leeway as a hero saving the world -- if you're one in a million, so are they. Having all herosexual characters is disaster every time for reasons previously detailed. As I said, I'd be fine with all homosexual options, but I'm not the sole audience (or even 0.00001% of it). They'll go with what they think is the most feasible way to please their whole audience, and that will be to try to give the LGBT players access to whatever they want without making heterosexual players choose from all explicitly-bisexual characters. It will fail yet again, but they'll try (ostensibly because the rushed nature of DA2 makes the failed setup less obviously a failure). Can't have it both ways.

[Battlebloodmage]

[quote]Gamemako wrote...

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

I'm sure his argument wasn't saying that the Skyrim characters were complex (and Bethesda's Elder Scrolls bits after Morrowind are not games for good storytelling).[/quote]

If you accept that Skyrim's romances are bad, then that applying the system involved in that can't be relied on to produce good results.

(Honestly, I never finished Skyrim anyway, but it hardly matters.)

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

But what makes you think that player-sexual/bi romance options= vapid? How does sexuality in any way "embody" the personality (unless you "make it" your identity, like Zevran and Isabela)?[/quote]

There are zero examples of a decent herosexual romance anywhere ever, but there are good examples of awful ones (like DA2's). There is a very simple reason for this: You cannot write around sex when the meaning of the encounter is sex. You are writing around the sexual character of a person in a sexual situation. That is why the entire premise of what the OP said is incredibly wrong.

David Gaider talks about a situation in which you couldn't tell from the romance that the characters is romanceable by the other sex. This is infeasible, and the folly of chasing this after the failure of DA2 is only going to harm the quality of DA3.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

Who is universally "panning" the romances?[/quote]

I'm sorry, but have you touched the internet past the BSN? Actually, did you even read the BSN? Because even here, among the most hardcore BioWare fans, reception was poor. You don't see huge talks like this one because everyone thought the relationships in DA2 were perfectly satisfactory.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

Like if a boy/girl got mad when you say "I just want to be friends." Rejection hurts, regardless of sexuality, or who you flirt with. And he just gets moody for that one shot and never mentions it again, and you can still be bros, no problem. That definitely doesn't always happen in the real world.[/quote]

This is a little silly. You're talking about someone you just met. This isn't someone you've known for a while turning down your advances. He just lost his lover, and Hawke was there as an exchange of services. Anders really has no reason to assume interest. And when he does make a proposition, very much out of the blue, he gets offended at rejection. The action itself is just plain bizarre, and the response is unexpected in any natural context. Even if you accept the rejection response as an odd response from an odd person, the player has no reason to expect that kind of result (esp. players of Awakening) and isn't keen on being punished by the plus-minus system as a result. It's bad design.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

The rvialry system is supposed to be... That is a failure of the approval system, not of the writer's decision to have that exchange occur.[/quote]

We can disagree on whether the exchange was appropriate from a writing standpoint, but the poor application of the approval system is what made it into the debacle we see. Sure, some people would have decried the poor writing and inane character 180 for Anders, but there would have been so little to talk about here if the game hadn't hit your Diplomatic Hawke with 10 rivalry points. 10 rivalry points that you have to make up later by bringing him along when you don't want him around.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

And this happened REGARDLESS OF GENDER.He would get mad at a female Hawke just as much. But you don't hear about Femhawke players feeling "compelled" to be in a heterosexual relationship.[/quote]

Did I mention player sex? Nope, no I didn't. Grind your axe elsewhere.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

Sexuality is a recent (relative to human history) development.[/quote]

You've now entered the realm of self-parody. Nope, nothing in history every had sex before the year 1045. It was the first time ever. And all male monkeys **** all other male monkeys in the ass because it's fun, right? Dogs do it, dinosaurs did it, and bees do it too!

Oh wait, nope, they don't. In fact, as it turns out, animal sexual behavior, like human sexual behavior, is subject to certain individual constraints. You know, what we call "sexuality". You know, how we have occasion to observe other species masturbating or performing oral sex on themselves or others. And how, as it turns out, homosexual behavior has been observed in countless species.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

And where does heterosexual = default? That is society telling you that.[/quote]

No, that's biology telling me that. You know, how species have evolved through sexual reproduction for thousands of years, and that heterosexuality is selected for because homosexuals don't reproduce. How, based on scientific estimates, somewhere around 93% of the human population are in fact heterosexual. As a matter of biological function, the default is heterosexual. As a matter of statistics, the default is heterosexual. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

As I said previously, consider the logistics of Thedas as a monogamous bisexual utopia. 50% of the population then fails to reproduce. Another 50% of that is male and cannot produce children. To maintain the population at its current level, that's 4 children per woman if every single woman born grew up to have children. That's not reasonable -- around 10% of women today are infertile despite our technology. Given how violent Thedas is, all the warrior women who die don't have children either. All of the kids who die from violence or disease or are kidnapped into slavery don't have children. Most mages don't have children. Maternal mortality in poor countries pushes 1%. To maintain the population in Thedas with the attrition that world experiences, a pure heterosexual world would require its fertile females to produce an average of quite a few children each already (maybe 4). If 100% were bisexual and half of them sought the company of their own sex, then each fertile female would need maybe 8 children. That strains credibility.

You can only have a majority-bisexual situation where promiscuity is the rule, such that a much larger portion of the female population produces children.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

Imagine if your son or daughter had to sit down and burst into tears to reveal his/her heterosexuality. Yeah, that doesn't happen, like, anywhere....ever.[/quote]

This is relevant how?

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

And Alistair and Morrigan were straight, and two of the most important followers in DA:O. [/quote]

So? All of the romances in DA:O had distinct sexualities.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

And again, how does bi-sexuality = confused?[/quote]

You not reading = confused. You might notice that I talked very specifically about the difference between what we have and bisexuality. Leliana = bisexual. Merrill = confused.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

They could just be that way. And player-sexual is just how YOU played the game. My homosexual relationship with Isabela does not affect your heterosexual relationship with Merrill. So this concern of characters that aren't player-sexual seems rather silly, in retrospect.[/quote]

Once again, ridiculous straw man. Herosexual characters are always bad for a fundamental reason. There will never be a herosexual romance that is even decent. It just won't happen. That massive failure of quality is the issue. I've already said that I'd be happy with all homosexual options if they're of good quality. BioWare won't do it (certainly not now that they're owned by EA), but it would be just fine by me.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

Why do you care about Fenris being gay in MY GAME? That's like people being concerned about MY Snickers bar, MY partner (who might be a woman) and I (as a woman) getting married, MY medications I take. It has no bearing on you, why do you care?[/quote]

I don't. Your straw man isn't doing you any credit. I do, however, get annoyed when I have to write the sexuality of my lover into the story I'm being told.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

So women and other races are "subspecies" as well?[/quote]

Did I say anything about women there? Nope. You would do well to learn what subspecies means, then come back and re-read the comment. And if you still don't get it, your PC is human in DA3.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

It does make sales sense, it will ALWAYS make good business sense. The Sims is the highest grossing game of all time (and continues to be). They have gay marriage in that game. Even GTA made a gay themed character (The Ballad of Gay Tony). There is nothing that says "I must make hetero characters or I will lose money." Reaching out to a broader base is HOW YOU MAKE SALES. It works. [/quote]

You don't face a whole lot of quality loss due to adding gay marriages to The Sims or having a gay character in a very good DLC. In fact, I daresay there is no quality loss, and in the case of TBoGT, it's not even extra work. You do, however, face a loss of quality by kowtowing to people who so refuse the notion that the game world isn't rewritten by your particular sexual desires. Thank the Gods Traynor was a lesbian, because it would have been pretty boring if she'd bedded male Shep anyway.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

Any perceived loss of quality relationship is you feeling the writers did everything else wrong... And I see the player-sexual characters as having nothing to do with that.[/quote]

Well, gee, thanks, I guess I always felt the way you feel about the romances in DA2 and not the way I feel. Thanks for clearing that up.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

Same sex characters don't mean a change in writing quality. Replace "he" with "she" (or "she" with "he").[/quote]

Same-sex characters are certainly not a bad thing, though your insistence on straw men certainly is. I've mentioned Juhani countless times in reference to this.

Characters without an existing sexuality in romances, however, are a massive failure. I can imagine the conversation that would go on in that world:

-"You seem a little uncomfortable. You've never mentioned sex or even seemed to acknowledge my gender."
-"Well, I was waiting for you to tell me what kind of genitals I should have."

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

And the Dark Ritual would be so cool of Morrigan was sleeping with someone else that she hates to save her female lover, sharing intimacy with someone else (a DUDE!). And Alistair/ The Warden having to "lie back and think of your lover" to save  the man he loves.[/quote]

You know, how she dislikes Alistair already? Oh, wait, that happened. You're inventing a meaningless dilemma that wouldn't add anything to the story. What if Morrigan were a lesbian? Hell if I know, but she wouldn't be the character she is. She wouldn't be there talking about her experiences with other men. She wouldn't be prepared for the ritual. Her attitude toward men would be all kinds of bizarre.

She would just have to be a different character if her sexuality were altered. That's not to say that she couldn't, but the game as it is written doesn't make sense with her swinging that way.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

There is no reason to exclude other gamers so you feel better.[/quote]

How adorably transparent. Ad hominem encased in a straw man. Go ahead, just say it. Call me a homophobe so I can promptly rip you a new one.

[quote]Palipride47 wrote...

So, like I have a trillion times, bisexual does not mean "less credible". You even said it yourself. Player-sexual is the EASIEST WAY to achieve inclusion, and even Gaider said he would like what you stated you want. They can't do it. So they go with the next best thing.[/quote]

Having all bisexual romances is only a little weird because, well, what are the odds. That is something you already give plenty of leeway as a hero saving the world -- if you're one in a million, so are they. Having all herosexual characters is disaster every time for reasons previously detailed. As I said, I'd be fine with all homosexual options, but I'm not the sole audience (or even 0.00001% of it). They'll go with what they think is the most feasible way to please their whole audience, and that will be to try to give the LGBT players access to whatever they want without making heterosexual players choose from all explicitly-bisexual characters. It will fail yet again, but they'll try (ostensibly because the rushed nature of DA2 makes the failed setup less obviously a failure). Can't have it both ways.[/quote]And how do you decide what is a good romance? You said there is zero example? That is pretty subjective in nature, and for you to stating it as if it's a fact is a bit ridiculous. I happen to find Kaidan's romance to be very well-done (and overdue) as well as Anders.

I don't think a lot of people who are in the dating phase would think more or less about preserving the human race. Although it makes more sense to find love where you can when you could die at any moment. Another thing is this is a video game, there are limited numbers of LIs, it's not like in real life where you don't like one person, you could always find someone else. Unless there are more choices for all sexual orientations, I would agree that they should continue with herosexual. I don't want to be stuck with just one LI while others can choose between one or the other. That's all I care about, choices in the game. I wouldn't care as much about herosexual if they give me at least 2 choices.

[cindercatz]

The all-bi, hero-sexual thing is all about options, at the expense of more defined characterization ala DA:O. (Alistair actually did throw my city elf to the curb for political convenience, so he did have another bias, at least, maybe the bias of least resistance, in accordance with his overall personality.)

So.. I've come to the conclusion I'm fine with it, but if it's going to be that way, then at least some of the characters need alternate sexual histories depending on whether you choose them. That way we can have all the available options and we don't sacrifice story or characterization. We could also just choose our PC's orientation at character creation and then we could still be confronted with characters of other character important personal histories, orientations and related personal arcs entirely apart from any chosen romance. This kind of thing shouldn't depend on whether we romance a particular character, even if all the characters are 'hero-sexual'.

Modifié par cindercatz, 06 novembre 2012 - 07:41 .

[Battlebloodmage]

cindercatz wrote...

The all-bi, hero-sexual thing is all about options, at the expense of more defined characterization ala DA:O. (Alistair actually did throw my city elf to the curb for political convenience, so he did have another bias, at least, maybe the bias of least resistance, in accordance with his overall personality.)

So.. I've come to the conclusion I'm fine with it, but if it's going to be that way, then at least some of the characters need alternate sexual histories depending on whether you choose them. That way we can have all the available options and we don't sacrifice story or characterization. We could also just choose our PC's orientation at character creation and then we could still be confronted with characters of other character important personal histories, orientations and related personal arcs entirely apart from any chosen romance. This kind of thing shouldn't depend on whether we romance a particular character, even if all the characters are 'hero-sexual'.

Pretty sure sexual orientation toggle is never gonna be implemented since it's being deemed too discrimatory in nature.

[cindercatz]

edit: sorry, just saw your response :-)

How is it discriminatory at all if you're just choosing your own character's orientation? If you choose to be straight or gay, then there's no need for every character to be bi or ambiguous (in DA2, only two are defined bi, and only really if you play a male Hawke; the others are non-descript). If you choose to be bi, then I guess you'd still have all options open. Defined sexuality, even player alternative defined sexuality, opens up a lot more storytelling oppurtunity. In DA:O, for instance, sexuality played a rather major part in every character's characterization, not just the LIs (though moreso). In DA2, this is far, far more shallow. I prefer it matter to the character again. I always prefer characters to have a lot of depth all round.

Xilizhra wrote...

Im one of the People who feel like the game should be centered around the player's stories , not getting to know my companion's and interfering in their personal problems, I should have the option to which companion i take a quest from, and that quest should not be important to the overall plot. Agency.

I strongly disagree. I believe that all companions should be important and woven into the plot, and their own stories given more space. While it may not change anything, I would recommend that DA3 not move too far from DA2 in this regard.

Agreed. Personally, I want all personal arcs, all romance arcs, most side content in general, more woven into the main storyline. I felt DA2 was a bit disjointed because there wasn't a very strong throughline to the plot at times, and I felt the romances were largely ignored in the main scheme of things. Your LI moves in and you practically never hear from them again, and that's a major problem. Relationships should be central to the game, because that's how a lot of players, myself included, emotionally connect to the rest of the story. This should be a point of emphasis.

I'd much rather have a single sidequest and a lot of smaller interactions and alterations (body language, dialogue changes throughout) and give both the baseline characters and their relationships a few arcs that way then have three large sidequests that follow a single arc to the exclusion of more constant and intimate (and otherwise) interaction.

Modifié par cindercatz, 06 novembre 2012 - 08:39 .

[Battlebloodmage]

cindercatz wrote...

edit: sorry, just saw your response :-)

How is it discriminatory at all if you're just choosing your own character's orientation? If you choose to be straight or gay, then there's no need for every character to be bi or ambiguous (in DA2, only two are defined bi, and only really if you play a male Hawke; the others are non-descript). If you choose to be bi, then I guess you'd still have all options open. Defined sexuality, even player alternative defined sexuality, opens up a lot more storytelling oppurtunity. In DA:O, for instance, sexuality played a rather major part in every character's characterization, not just the LIs (though moreso). In DA2, this is far, far more shallow. I prefer it matter to the character again. I always prefer characters to have a lot of depth all round.

Xilizhra wrote...

Im one of the People who feel like the game should be centered around the player's stories , not getting to know my companion's and interfering in their personal problems, I should have the option to which companion i take a quest from, and that quest should not be important to the overall plot. Agency.

I strongly disagree. I believe that all companions should be important and woven into the plot, and their own stories given more space. While it may not change anything, I would recommend that DA3 not move too far from DA2 in this regard.

Agreed. Personally, I want all personal arcs, all romance arcs, most side content in general, more woven into the main storyline. I felt DA2 was a bit disjointed because there wasn't a very strong throughline to the plot at times, and I felt the romances were largely ignored in the main scheme of things. Your LI moves in and you practically never hear from them again, and that's a major problem. Relationships should be central to the game, because that's how a lot of players, myself included, emotionally connect to the rest of the story. This should be a point of emphasis.

I'd much rather have a single sidequest and a lot of smaller interactions and alterations (body language, dialogue changes throughout) and give both the baseline characters and their relationships a few arcs that way then have three large sidequests that follow a single arc to the exclusion of more constant and intimate (and otherwise) interaction.

It has been discussed before. You can't avoid gays in video games just like you can't avoid gays in real life. You can't just turn it off with a toggle. If you look at SWTOR board: http://www.swtor.com...ad.php?t=294041
most of the people who posted in this thread wanted the toggle based on their prejudice and has nothing to do with wanting a deep backstory that based on their sexual orientation and experience.
Also, a similar thread in this forum in which a developer stated that it's not on anywhere on the agenda since you can't simply just make all the gays disappear: http://social.biowar...1409/1#14141489

I personally would like a fully fleshed gay character, but it would seem that due to budget issue, hero-sexual is the best way for the time being.

Modifié par Battlebloodmage, 06 novembre 2012 - 09:45 .

[esper]

cindercatz wrote...

edit: sorry, just saw your response :-)

How is it discriminatory at all if you're just choosing your own character's orientation? If you choose to be straight or gay, then there's no need for every character to be bi or ambiguous (in DA2, only two are defined bi, and only really if you play a male Hawke; the others are non-descript). If you choose to be bi, then I guess you'd still have all options open. Defined sexuality, even player alternative defined sexuality, opens up a lot more storytelling oppurtunity. In DA:O, for instance, sexuality played a rather major part in every character's characterization, not just the LIs (though moreso). In DA2, this is far, far more shallow. I prefer it matter to the character again. I always prefer characters to have a lot of depth all round.

I am sorry, but your reasoning for the toggle makes zero sense and is discriminatory.

your are saying that if the player defines as gay then all the other loves interest suddenly defines as gay as well, meaning if you play fem Hawke Anders and Fenris suddenly doen't hit on you. - That is a question of discomfor about not wanting to be hit by on people you don't share a comfibertable orientation with. And honestely not something that should be promoted or allowed. Also this is still hero-sexual orientation, the mechanism is exactly the same as in da2, not just with added option to be a jerk from the player's side.

Futhermore you are saying that a person must announce their sexuality, sorry. The only place I have annoucced that I am bi-sexual on is bioware's board. In real life there have never been a conversation where I could just casually throw out, btw I am a grey-A bi-sexual, orientated person.
Fenris, Merill and to some degree also Anders doesn't announce their sexuality because it doesn't matter to them. All that matter is that they are compitible with Hawke and they can fall in love with said person.

Sexuality played a large role for Zevran's personality, and that was because he was trained to kill by charming his oppononets into bed with him. For Alistar, Morrigan and Leliana it is no big deal.

And since there have been talk about the 'trans' spectrum as well. People with transsexuality, transgender and the like still have the same hetero, bi, ****** orientated spectrum as cis-persons, as to who they are romantically/sexually attracted to, the same with the a-sexual persons, and a-romantic persons.

Modifié par esper, 06 novembre 2012 - 09:22 .

[cindercatz]

esper wrote...

cindercatz wrote...

edit: sorry, just saw your response :-)

How is it discriminatory at all if you're just choosing your own character's orientation? If you choose to be straight or gay, then there's no need for every character to be bi or ambiguous (in DA2, only two are defined bi, and only really if you play a male Hawke; the others are non-descript). If you choose to be bi, then I guess you'd still have all options open. Defined sexuality, even player alternative defined sexuality, opens up a lot more storytelling oppurtunity. In DA:O, for instance, sexuality played a rather major part in every character's characterization, not just the LIs (though moreso). In DA2, this is far, far more shallow. I prefer it matter to the character again. I always prefer characters to have a lot of depth all round.

I am sorry, but your reasoning for the toggle makes zero sense and is discriminatory.

your are saying that if the player defines as gay then all the other loves interest suddenly defines as gay as well, meaning if you play fem Hawke Anders and Fenris suddenly doen't hit on you. - That is a question of discomfor about not wanting to be hit by on people you don't share a comfibertable orientation with. And honestely not something that should be promoted or allowed. Also this is still hero-sexual orientation, the mechanism is exactly the same as in da2, not just with added option to be a jerk from the player's side.

Futhermore you are saying that a person must announce their sexuality, sorry. The only place I have annoucced that I am bi-sexual on is bioware's board. In real life there have never been a conversation where I could just casually throw out, btw I am a grey-A bi-sexual, orientated person.
Fenris, Merill and to some degree also Anders doesn't announce their sexuality because it doesn't matter to them. All that matter is that they are compitible with Hawke and they can fall in love with said person.

Sexuality played a large role for Zevran's personality, and that was because he was trained to kill by charming his oppononets into bed with him. For Alistar, Morrigan and Leliana it is no big deal.

And since there have been talk about the 'trans' spectrum as well. People with transsexuality, transgender and the like still have the same hetero, bi, ****** orientated spectrum as cis-persons, as to who they are romantically/sexually attracted to, the same with the a-sexual persons, and a-romantic persons.

Ok, your bias completely clouded any understanding of what I just wrote. You can't just throw out 99% of my post and ascribe your own reasoning to the other 1%.

An example of what I was actually talking about, if there are four love interests:

Player is straight male: both female characters are available, one male LI is gay, one female is bi.

Player is gay male: both male characters are available, one male is bi.

Player is straight female: both male characters are available, one female is gay, one male is bi.

Player is gay female: both female characters are available, one female is bi

Player is bi-male: one of each gender available, one male is gay

Player is bi-female: one of each gender available, one female is gay

The point is to get more defined sexuality across the board *without* discriminating, period, but rather you as the player experience other characters of different backgrounds, personal non-fantasy experience, and orientation. IF it would add to the story. Doing it this way allows sexuality to matter to the characters you are *not* romancing, as well as those you do, like in DA:O, like in reality. It allows more storytelling oppurtunity, more expression of different biases (which is a good thing, allowing for different kinds of conflicts and relationship arcs), and generally deeper and more fleshed out characterization on the whole. We won't be met with wet blankets from here on out, which is my general experience with DA2 and what I fear if this current policy is maintained. I want to play the best possible game with the best possible story and the best possible characters. I don't want the game to squirm around anything that might make me uncomfortable, or any player, of any orientation. NPCs should not uniformly bend to whatever your inclination might be.

I do prefer defined sexuality, but this is a way to maintain the options of "hero-sexual" LIs while regaining the depth of defined sexuality. Don't jump on everybody that doesn't outright conform to your point of view as some kind of bigot.



edit: And yes, I dropped the bi option from four to two, reason being that you get more perspectives like that, like the straight and gay PC options. You've got two LI options, no matter you character's gender or orientation, but those two change for every choice.

edit 2: And since when did I say anything about announcing sexuality? I said choose your orientation during character creation, just as you do anyway in your own head. Your character is whatever you create them as period, just as you are whatever you are. There is no announcement. If in game you choose to avoid sexuality as a subject, that should be up to you as the player to actively choose, just like in RL. If not, then those issues get explored like they normally would when discussions concerning them come up.

edit 3: Sexuality played a large role for *every* major character in DA:O, Zevran no more than the others. Just because Zevran was the one to make the most sex jokes and non-serious flirts doesn't mean sexuality wasn't important to the other characters. You have Morrigan's weaponized sex, Alistair's chaste upbringing, Leliana's disassociation of sexuality owing to her bardship, Wynne's wit and self image factors and her back and forth about who she was versus who she was outwordly percieved to be, Oghren's self debasement and loss of his wife (which was very entwined with sexual orientation), Sten's sexual stoicism and rather dangerous potential if you listen to his convos about it with Morrigan or a female PC, Shale's lack of memory of sexual identity and her self identification when it's learned she's formerly female, etc. Sexuality and sexual identity, including orientation, is a bid deal across the board in DA:O.

edit 4: Asexual and transgender: Asexual is not an issue. In order to play asexual, pick whatever you like (which would define the other LIs), and then don't engage in romance. Voila, you're asexual. Transgender hasn't come up in a modern BioWare game, but if it becomes a reflected state, fine, the same system applies. If not, it's not because of some imagined discrimanatory policy. I think asking for every single sexual permutation to be represented in every single party for inclusion's sake is asking a little much. BioWare has a policy of party makeup promoting inclusivity in general. If they include this in the future, great, but requiring every single tack on the checklist be marked for every game they make isn't really inclusion promotional, it's neurotic.

Modifié par cindercatz, 06 novembre 2012 - 10:37 .

[esper]

cindercatz wrote...

esper wrote...

cindercatz wrote...

edit: sorry, just saw your response :-)

How is it discriminatory at all if you're just choosing your own character's orientation? If you choose to be straight or gay, then there's no need for every character to be bi or ambiguous (in DA2, only two are defined bi, and only really if you play a male Hawke; the others are non-descript). If you choose to be bi, then I guess you'd still have all options open. Defined sexuality, even player alternative defined sexuality, opens up a lot more storytelling oppurtunity. In DA:O, for instance, sexuality played a rather major part in every character's characterization, not just the LIs (though moreso). In DA2, this is far, far more shallow. I prefer it matter to the character again. I always prefer characters to have a lot of depth all round.

I am sorry, but your reasoning for the toggle makes zero sense and is discriminatory.

your are saying that if the player defines as gay then all the other loves interest suddenly defines as gay as well, meaning if you play fem Hawke Anders and Fenris suddenly doen't hit on you. - That is a question of discomfor about not wanting to be hit by on people you don't share a comfibertable orientation with. And honestely not something that should be promoted or allowed. Also this is still hero-sexual orientation, the mechanism is exactly the same as in da2, not just with added option to be a jerk from the player's side.

Futhermore you are saying that a person must announce their sexuality, sorry. The only place I have annoucced that I am bi-sexual on is bioware's board. In real life there have never been a conversation where I could just casually throw out, btw I am a grey-A bi-sexual, orientated person.
Fenris, Merill and to some degree also Anders doesn't announce their sexuality because it doesn't matter to them. All that matter is that they are compitible with Hawke and they can fall in love with said person.

Sexuality played a large role for Zevran's personality, and that was because he was trained to kill by charming his oppononets into bed with him. For Alistar, Morrigan and Leliana it is no big deal.

And since there have been talk about the 'trans' spectrum as well. People with transsexuality, transgender and the like still have the same hetero, bi, ****** orientated spectrum as cis-persons, as to who they are romantically/sexually attracted to, the same with the a-sexual persons, and a-romantic persons.

Ok, your bias completely clouded any understanding of what I just wrote. You can't just throw out 99% of my post and ascribe your own reasoning to the other 1%.

An example of what I was actually talking about, if there are four love interests:

Player is straight male: both female characters are available, one male LI is gay, one female is bi.

Player is gay male: both male characters are available, one male is bi.

Player is straight female: both male characters are available, one female is gay, one male is bi.

Player is gay female: both female characters are available, one female is bi

Player is bi-male: one of each gender available, one male is gay

Player is bi-female: one of each gender available, one female is gay

The point is to get more defined sexuality across the board *without* discriminating, period, but rather you as the player experience other characters of different backgrounds, personal non-fantasy experience, and orientation. IF it would add to the story. Doing it this way allows sexuality to matter to the characters you are *not* romancing, as well as those you do, like in DA:O, like in reality. It allows more storytelling oppurtunity, more expression of different biases (which is a good thing, allowing for different kinds of conflicts and relationship arcs), and generally deeper and more fleshed out characterization on the whole. We won't be met with wet blankets from here on out, which is my general experience with DA2 and what I fear if this current policy is maintained. I want to play the best possible game with the best possible story and the best possible characters. I don't want the game to squirm around anything that might make me uncomfortable, or any player, of any orientation. NPCs should not uniformly bend to whatever your inclination might be.

I do prefer defined sexuality, but this is a way to maintain the options of "hero-sexual" LIs while regaining the depth of defined sexuality. Don't jump on everybody that doesn't outright conform to your point of view as some kind of bigot.

I threw away the second part of your post because it was about a different subject. I do want the companions to be interwoven in the story, but your comment to Xil had nothing do with you toggles, just as my comment about trans/cis had nothing to do with my comment to your toggles.

This is not more defined sexuality across the board, this is about the player sitting a cross in a toggle to choose which two characthers are Li, just because. And if anything is hero-sexual then this is it. You are not just affecting how the current persons are, but how their past were which I am against, because that I think is not good story telling. It does not allow for more story telling opportuneties, because for most companions their sexuality is not something they are concerned with and thus not something their story revolves around, and honestly all the story telling (which I am guessing is interparty relationships you are advocating in thise case) can still be told just as well without a clear defined sexuality. If any thing makes the companions 'wet blankets' it is this system because who they were before meeting the pc changes at the press off a bottom. The pc should not be allowed to warp people's past, they should just be allowed influence their present.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Maclimes wrote...

I know a lot of people were upset with the "Everyone is Bi" aspect of Dragon Age 2, because it seemed un-realistic. Real people have preferences, and depth to their personal decisions.

The problem is that simply making them straight/gay/bi doesn't actually address that issue. It just addresses one minor aspect of a person's preference. People actually have far more complex reasons for romance other than the set of genitalia they possess.

*****

Perhaps Fenris only like non-mages, regardless of other factors.

Perhaps Leliana only likes people who are loyal Andrastians, regardless of race or gender.

Perhaps Anders only likes light-skinned characters, regardless of gender or race.

Perhaps Alistair only likes human females who are loyal Andrastians.

Perhaps Cullen only likes blondes who are proficient warriors, no rogues or mages.

Perhaps Sigrun only likes dwarf warrior males named Maclimes because she's mine and you can't have her.

******

What I'm saying is, drawing the line at gender preference is arbitrary and self-serving. It's better to just go with the "Everyone is hero-sexual", and give people options. The alternative is just over-simplification.

Stupid post is stupid.

There is a difference between basic attraction and prefference.
Sexual orientation is not a matter of prefference. It just IS.

I might prefer brunettes but that doesn't mean that I'm not attracted to blondes or readheads, nor does it mean I can't or won't fall in love with them.

So your entire tirade jsut make no sense whatsoever.

[esper]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

I know a lot of people were upset with the "Everyone is Bi" aspect of Dragon Age 2, because it seemed un-realistic. Real people have preferences, and depth to their personal decisions.

The problem is that simply making them straight/gay/bi doesn't actually address that issue. It just addresses one minor aspect of a person's preference. People actually have far more complex reasons for romance other than the set of genitalia they possess.

*****

Perhaps Fenris only like non-mages, regardless of other factors.

Perhaps Leliana only likes people who are loyal Andrastians, regardless of race or gender.

Perhaps Anders only likes light-skinned characters, regardless of gender or race.

Perhaps Alistair only likes human females who are loyal Andrastians.

Perhaps Cullen only likes blondes who are proficient warriors, no rogues or mages.

Perhaps Sigrun only likes dwarf warrior males named Maclimes because she's mine and you can't have her.

******

What I'm saying is, drawing the line at gender preference is arbitrary and self-serving. It's better to just go with the "Everyone is hero-sexual", and give people options. The alternative is just over-simplification.

Stupid post is stupid.

There is a difference between basic attraction and prefference.
Sexual orientation is not a matter of prefference. It just IS.

I might prefer brunettes but that doesn't mean that I'm not attracted to blondes or readheads, nor does it mean I can't or won't fall in love with them.

So your entire tirade jsut make no sense whatsoever.

Actually not. Depending on where you are on the sexual/a-sexual scale preferences might be as important (if not more) than orientation.

I could never be attracted to a person in a romantic way which is not morally compertible with me. There are certain moral stand points which make me emotianal unattracted to persons, if I am emotional unattracted to a person I am also physical unattracted which means I can't not fall in love with them. It is simply not possible.

As you say it simply is.

[cindercatz]

esper wrote...

I threw away the second part of your post because it was about a different subject. I do want the companions to be interwoven in the story, but your comment to Xil had nothing do with you toggles, just as my comment about trans/cis had nothing to do with my comment to your toggles.

This is not more defined sexuality across the board, this is about the player sitting a cross in a toggle to choose which two characthers are Li, just because. And if anything is hero-sexual then this is it. You are not just affecting how the current persons are, but how their past were which I am against, because that I think is not good story telling. It does not allow for more story telling opportuneties, because for most companions their sexuality is not something they are concerned with and thus not something their story revolves around, and honestly all the story telling (which I am guessing is interparty relationships you are advocating in thise case) can still be told just as well without a clear defined sexuality. If any thing makes the companions 'wet blankets' it is this system because who they were before meeting the pc changes at the press off a bottom. The pc should not be allowed to warp people's past, they should just be allowed influence their present.

I described what my toggles would do in list form, so how is that "nothing to do with" my toggle? She/he (I don't know which) incorrectly assumed I was proposing a discriminatory, bigoted system and just flat out painted me to be an entirely different person than I am to match their bias, despite everything I've ever written on this (including that post) being directly contrary to that characterization. I don't like being painted as something I'm not, hence my response.

It is both hero-sexual and more defined, which is the point. If we're going to have hero-sexual characters, I prefer them to have well defined pasts and psyches, not to be wet blankets until we decide to bed them (barring the one or two defined bi-sexuals, which is all the definition there was in DA2). Like I said, I prefer well defined characters that are fully developed and expressed, not cyphers that only become a complete character if you personally choose them. If we're not going to get that completely, then give us a more defined set of characters that change based on your character creation as the player, so that they are both well defined and consistent within your particular playthrough, rather than being non-descript or ambivalent.

If the option is defined or hero-sexual, I choose defined. If the option is hero-sexual or nothing, I choose to add variable depth. Otherwise I get restricted, more shallow characterization. And everybody is concerned with their sexuality. It's a basic core part of who we are, and sexuality is wrapped up in a great swath of our psyche, how we experience the world and express ourselves in it. I don't see sexuality nearly so narrowly as people like to pretend it to be. Obviously, I'm not just talking about orientation, but that too is an important part of who we are. It doesn't define us, just like no single trait does, but it's integral to our personal experience.

edit: And obviously Aveline is well defined, so "one or two" plus Aveline for DA2.

Modifié par cindercatz, 06 novembre 2012 - 11:05 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

esper wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Stupid post is stupid.

There is a difference between basic attraction and prefference.
Sexual orientation is not a matter of prefference. It just IS.

I might prefer brunettes but that doesn't mean that I'm not attracted to blondes or readheads, nor does it mean I can't or won't fall in love with them.

So your entire tirade jsut make no sense whatsoever.

Actually not. Depending on where you are on the sexual/a-sexual scale preferences might be as important (if not more) than orientation.

I could never be attracted to a person in a romantic way which is not morally compertible with me. There are certain moral stand points which make me emotianal unattracted to persons, if I am emotional unattracted to a person I am also physical unattracted which means I can't not fall in love with them. It is simply not possible.

As you say it simply is.

Actually yes.

Sexual prefference is hard-wired. Other type is not.

The sorceress Evil-ina may be morally reprehensible, but physicly there will still be some attraction (if she's good looking of course)
Emotional and physical attraction are not the same b.t.w.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Palipride47 wrote...
And where does heterosexual = default? That is society telling you that.

Emm... everywhere?
Because it is.

Sorry to break it to you, but the LGBT crowd is a tiny minority. Always was. Always will be.

It has no bearing on you, why do you care?

You THINK it has no bearing on other people.
Obviously it has.

[esper]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

esper wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Stupid post is stupid.

There is a difference between basic attraction and prefference.
Sexual orientation is not a matter of prefference. It just IS.

I might prefer brunettes but that doesn't mean that I'm not attracted to blondes or readheads, nor does it mean I can't or won't fall in love with them.

So your entire tirade jsut make no sense whatsoever.

Actually not. Depending on where you are on the sexual/a-sexual scale preferences might be as important (if not more) than orientation.

I could never be attracted to a person in a romantic way which is not morally compertible with me. There are certain moral stand points which make me emotianal unattracted to persons, if I am emotional unattracted to a person I am also physical unattracted which means I can't not fall in love with them. It is simply not possible.

As you say it simply is.

Actually yes.

Sexual prefference is hard-wired. Other type is not.

The sorceress Evil-ina may be morally reprehensible, but physicly there will still be some attraction (if she's good looking of course)
Emotional and physical attraction are not the same b.t.w.

And I am saying for others emoitional/intellectual attraction may be just as hard wired as sexual oritation if not more if you sexual oritation happens to be bi/pan.

Emotional attraction is hardwired for me and other who falls in my specific sprectrum of sexuality.  is a requiriment for sexual attraction. I cannot feel sexual attraction unless I feel an emotional first. Evil-ina might be physical attractive to you, which is fine you are an sexual person obvuiously, but to me the physically aspect simply do not exist before I can make an emotional connection. Are we talking prefrecenes I would prefer it if she is intellegent too, but that is a preference.

[esper]

cindercatz wrote...

esper wrote...

I threw away the second part of your post because it was about a different subject. I do want the companions to be interwoven in the story, but your comment to Xil had nothing do with you toggles, just as my comment about trans/cis had nothing to do with my comment to your toggles.

This is not more defined sexuality across the board, this is about the player sitting a cross in a toggle to choose which two characthers are Li, just because. And if anything is hero-sexual then this is it. You are not just affecting how the current persons are, but how their past were which I am against, because that I think is not good story telling. It does not allow for more story telling opportuneties, because for most companions their sexuality is not something they are concerned with and thus not something their story revolves around, and honestly all the story telling (which I am guessing is interparty relationships you are advocating in thise case) can still be told just as well without a clear defined sexuality. If any thing makes the companions 'wet blankets' it is this system because who they were before meeting the pc changes at the press off a bottom. The pc should not be allowed to warp people's past, they should just be allowed influence their present.

I described what my toggles would do in list form, so how is that "nothing to do with" my toggle? She/he (I don't know which) incorrectly assumed I was proposing a discriminatory, bigoted system and just flat out painted me to be an entirely different person than I am to match their bias, despite everything I've ever written on this (including that post) being directly contrary to that characterization. I don't like being painted as something I'm not, hence my response.

It is both hero-sexual and more defined, which is the point. If we're going to have hero-sexual characters, I prefer them to have well defined pasts and psyches, not to be wet blankets until we decide to bed them (barring the one or two defined bi-sexuals, which is all the definition there was in DA2). Like I said, I prefer well defined characters that are fully developed and expressed, not cyphers that only become a complete character if you personally choose them. If we're not going to get that completely, then give us a more defined set of characters that change based on your character creation as the player, so that they are both well defined and consistent within your particular playthrough, rather than being non-descript or ambivalent.

If the option is defined or hero-sexual, I choose defined. If the option is hero-sexual or nothing, I choose to add variable depth. Otherwise I get restricted, more shallow characterization. And everybody is concerned with their sexuality. It's a basic core part of who we are, and sexuality is wrapped up in a great swath of our psyche, how we experience the world and express ourselves in it. I don't see sexuality nearly so narrowly as people like to pretend it to be. Obviously, I'm not just talking about orientation, but that too is an important part of who we are. It doesn't define us, just like no single trait does, but it's integral to our personal experience.

edit: And obviously Aveline is well defined, so "one or two" plus Aveline for DA2.

Aveline is not well defined. She just happens to have had two men.Nowhere does it say that she never considered a woman too, of course it doesn't say that she did consider a woman either. That is the point.
Not everyone is concerned with their sexuality if life generelly is about survival. If you have to run for your master constantly without a pause, which sex you prefer might not be all that relevant untill you have that pause (fenris).

But I think we should agree to disagree at this point. I think any toggle that change who people were is autricious you obviously prefer it if it gets companions to say what they are.

[cindercatz]

Since when did I say orientation alone was at all what I meant by well defined? Aveline is well defined because we know how she interacts with others and personally reflects and inflects off of a number of situations. She's not a restricted character in any way shape or form. You're suggesting we need a proof of negative here for her to qualify, a requirement of which would actually be bad storytelling. By contrast, Merrill isn't allowed those kind of story beats. Fenris isn't allowed those kind of story beats. Not unless you choose them first, and nothing referring back prior to that.

I don't want characters to "say" what they are. I want them to be fully fleshed out. I don't want the restriction of them not saying anything or doing anything or responding in any way that might possibly contradict your potential choice to bed them, which is what we got in DA2 for the non-defined-bi characters and which restrictions will exist as long as we have this kind of system. Blank slate characters are inherently less well defined, and I don't like that. When the storytelling or the characters are restricted, I realize that as a player (much as I like most of the characters) and I feel that as a real individual. I don't like artificial restriction. As is, the characters now have to tip toe around the player or risk contradicting the player, necessitating a restriction in storytelling and characterization. There are any number of situations, a whole range of dialogue, etc. that simply can't come up if a character is to remain sexually neutral. The characters are required to be non-descript to a certain degree, more shallow than they could be, for the sake of one extra LI option (as compared to DA:O's LI options).

Modifié par cindercatz, 06 novembre 2012 - 12:03 .

[Xilizhra]

edit 3: Sexuality played a large role for *every* major character in DA:O, Zevran no more than the others. Just because Zevran was the one to make the most sex jokes and non-serious flirts doesn't mean sexuality wasn't important to the other characters. You have Morrigan's weaponized sex, Alistair's chaste upbringing, Leliana's disassociation of sexuality owing to her bardship, Wynne's wit and self image factors and her back and forth about who she was versus who she was outwordly percieved to be, Oghren's self debasement and loss of his wife (which was very entwined with sexual orientation), Sten's sexual stoicism and rather dangerous potential if you listen to his convos about it with Morrigan or a female PC, Shale's lack of memory of sexual identity and her self identification when it's learned she's formerly female, etc. Sexuality and sexual identity, including orientation, is a bid deal across the board in DA:O.

Alistair's orientation was irrelevant to his upbringing, and Morrigan's orientation is barely relevant to her weaponized sex thing. It would have been trivial to add one or two lines of her with women, or possibly something with a female Warden saying that she'd never gotten to try that sex before. Sexuality being part of background is a good thing, but it's not necessary for them to be straight.

If the option is defined or hero-sexual, I choose defined. If the option is hero-sexual or nothing, I choose to add variable depth. Otherwise I get restricted, more shallow characterization. And everybody is concerned with their sexuality. It's a basic core part of who we are, and sexuality is wrapped up in a great swath of our psyche, how we experience the world and express ourselves in it. I don't see sexuality nearly so narrowly as people like to pretend it to be. Obviously, I'm not just talking about orientation, but that too is an important part of who we are. It doesn't define us, just like no single trait does, but it's integral to our personal experience.

Throw away the toggle, it's unnecessary. Just have their dialogue differ depending on which sex romances them. Personally, I'd rather that they all be bisexual instead of worrying about this "herosexual" claptrap, though. To be frank, I wasn't worried about Leliana still being attracted to men, and I don't need to be about Merrill either.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 06 novembre 2012 - 12:59 .

[esper]

Xilizhra wrote...

edit 3: Sexuality played a large role for *every* major character in DA:O, Zevran no more than the others. Just because Zevran was the one to make the most sex jokes and non-serious flirts doesn't mean sexuality wasn't important to the other characters. You have Morrigan's weaponized sex, Alistair's chaste upbringing, Leliana's disassociation of sexuality owing to her bardship, Wynne's wit and self image factors and her back and forth about who she was versus who she was outwordly percieved to be, Oghren's self debasement and loss of his wife (which was very entwined with sexual orientation), Sten's sexual stoicism and rather dangerous potential if you listen to his convos about it with Morrigan or a female PC, Shale's lack of memory of sexual identity and her self identification when it's learned she's formerly female, etc. Sexuality and sexual identity, including orientation, is a bid deal across the board in DA:O.

Alistair's orientation was irrelevant to his upbringing, and Morrigan's orientation is barely relevant to her weaponized sex thing. It would have been trivial to add one or two lines of her with women, or possibly something with a female Warden saying that she'd never gotten to try that sex before. Sexuality being part of background is a good thing, but it's not necessary for them to be straight.

If the option is defined or hero-sexual, I choose defined. If the option is hero-sexual or nothing, I choose to add variable depth. Otherwise I get restricted, more shallow characterization. And everybody is concerned with their sexuality. It's a basic core part of who we are, and sexuality is wrapped up in a great swath of our psyche, how we experience the world and express ourselves in it. I don't see sexuality nearly so narrowly as people like to pretend it to be. Obviously, I'm not just talking about orientation, but that too is an important part of who we are. It doesn't define us, just like no single trait does, but it's integral to our personal experience.

Throw away the toggle, it's unnecessary. Just have their dialogue differ depending on which sex romances them. Personally, I'd rather that they all be bisexual instead of worrying about this "herosexual" claptrap, though. To be frank, I wasn't worried about Leliana still being attracted to men, and I don't need to be about Merrill either.

I agree. If it brings people's mind at easy, then let's just have them be bi-sexual.

[Lotion Soronarr]

esper wrote...
And I am saying for others emoitional/intellectual attraction may be just as hard wired as sexual oritation if not more if you sexual oritation happens to be bi/pan.

Nope.
I talk about proven bilogical facts.

Emotional attraction is hardwired for me and other who falls in my specific sprectrum of sexuality.  is a requiriment for sexual attraction. I cannot feel sexual attraction unless I feel an emotional first.

Then you are by definition not a normal human being.
Have a nice day.