311 réponses à ce sujet

[Dirgegun]

Reaverwind wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

If Bioware turns everyone BI then frak you Bioware. And EA.
And all those championing "choices" and "player freedom" (in case you missed it, those were air quotes)
You don't want player choice and freedom. You want the game kissing your ass. You want the "freedom" of the world bending over to your whims.

No romance for Cullen.
But I wouldn't say no to a bromance. I need a good drinking buddy and someone to smite mages with.

The "bi" romances should be referred to as "generic", because that's precisely what they are - bland, and very unconvincing. I couldn't stand them in DA2. I'd much rather Bioware stick to hetero-/******- sexual characters and put some believeability and depth into them, then taking shortcuts with their absurd one-size fits-all approach which ends up shattering immersion.

I always find this argument rather funny, as I doubt a LOT of people play through both the female/male AND the male/male option for the same character, so they don't actually know what differences might be there and what might not be. Also DA II suffered from time, so it wasn't so much the 'their all bi' being at fault, rather than time restrictions on the writers as they had to have their job done before other sections of the game could be done.

Also... the romances are optional 'side quests' if you will. Do a lot of people enjoy them and do they enrich the game and the role play aspect? Of course. That doesn't mean Bioware should feel obligated to spend a lot of rescources on them, however, when they have a whole game worth of story to write.  

[Kidd]

I'm a boring and generic person, cause I don't have the fantastic character trait of finding half the Earth's population romantically uninteresting because of their gender. Duly noted.

Fenris wouldn't romance my first Hawke cause they weren't compatible. I wasn't going for that romance, but from meta knowledge and hindsight I know it would've been impossible. Cause my Hawke and Fenris weren't compatible. The idea that the companions fall for just anyone just because there is no gender check holds no ground.

And if it was true that they fell for any PC at all, then inputting a gender check simply makes them picky about gender and nothing else. Does that really make the character and their arc that much more interesting? Your opinion may not match mine, I'm sure, but don't be afraid to frame the discussion the right way.

[Reaverwind]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

I'm a boring and generic person, cause I don't have the fantastic character trait of finding half the Earth's population romantically uninteresting because of their gender. Duly noted.

Fenris wouldn't romance my first Hawke cause they weren't compatible. I wasn't going for that romance, but from meta knowledge and hindsight I know it would've been impossible. Cause my Hawke and Fenris weren't compatible. The idea that the companions fall for just anyone just because there is no gender check holds no ground.

And if it was true that they fell for any PC at all, then inputting a gender check simply makes them picky about gender and nothing else. Does that really make the character and their arc that much more interesting? Your opinion may not match mine, I'm sure, but don't be afraid to frame the discussion the right way.

And do you relate to males the same way as you do to females? Didn't think so. The problem lies with Bioware's writing shortcuts, so stop taking offense where none was intended.

[The Hierophant]

Plaintiff wrote...

Bisexual people can't be "deep" or "believable" either, apparently. In order to develop the superpower of finding both genders attractive, you have to sacrifice your individuality to the dark gods that slumber beneath the Earth.

That's why Anders and Fenris have the exact same personality and opinions.

And Zevran and Leliana too. Might as well just be two heads on one body.

From what i 've seen of the romances the issue is that they have no preferences whatsoever. I doesn't matter if Hawke is a blonde or a brunette with brown, green or blue eyes, a douchebag or a goody two shoes, pretty/handsome or a butter face/fugly, supportive or antagonistic, they'll still hook up. 

Modifié par The Hierophant, 13 mars 2013 - 05:04 .

[BeatoSama]

Anders will break it of with you if you deal with Torpor though so that's not entirely true.

[The Hierophant]

BeatoSama wrote...

Anders will break it of with you if you deal with Torpor though so that's not entirely true.

Yet you could play a Templar supporter, side with Meredith, and still be in a relationship with Anders. That's a little inconsistent.

[Ryzaki]

The Hierophant wrote...

BeatoSama wrote...

Anders will break it of with you if you deal with Torpor though so that's not entirely true.

Yet you could play a Templar supporter, side with Meredith, and still be in a relationship with Anders. That's a little inconsistent.

Even the hardest templar supporter Hawke has clear boundaries. (he/she doesn't give Anders/Merril/Bethany over to the templars). Arguably the only people templar Hawke give to the templars are mages who are either untrained or a threat (or just plain idiots DuPuis would've gotten himself killed easily talking about being a bloodmage to pick up chicks like a twit).

So it's not like s/he's a mustace twirling templar supporter giving up pretty young mages to be made into tranquil sex slaves. And Anders himself admits the templars serve a purpose (him liking it on the other hand...).

Modifié par Ryzaki, 13 mars 2013 - 05:06 .

[BeatoSama]

The Hierophant wrote...

BeatoSama wrote...

Anders will break it of with you if you deal with Torpor though so that's not entirely true.

Yet you could play a Templar supporter, side with Meredith, and still be in a relationship with Anders. That's a little inconsistent.

Though as long as you kept spamming them with gifts/didn't bring them you could do the same thing in DAO. This definetly is a problem though and something I hope they'll adress in future games.

Modifié par BeatoSama, 13 mars 2013 - 05:13 .

[The Hierophant]

Ryzaki wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

BeatoSama wrote...

Anders will break it of with you if you deal with Torpor though so that's not entirely true.

Yet you could play a Templar supporter, side with Meredith, and still be in a relationship with Anders. That's a little inconsistent.

Even the hardest templar supporter Hawke has clear boundaries. (he/she doesn't give Anders/Merril/Bethany over to the templars). Arguably the only people templar Hawke give to the templars are mages who are either untrained or a threat (or just plain idiots DuPuis would've gotten himself killed easily talking about being a bloodmage to pick up chicks like a twit).

So it's not like s/he's a mustace twirling templar supporter giving up pretty young mages to be made into tranquil sex slaves. And Anders himself admits the templars serve a purpose (him liking it on the other hand...).

The problem is that Hawke's relationship is rarely impacted by their stances. I'd figure that since Anders is a hardcore freedom fighter who bombs Chantry buildings, that any positive relationship Hawke has towards the Templars, would be met with a refusal to continue the relationship, while not to divulging any harmful information that might impact his cause. Heck he can still side with you as you slaughter the circle mages who had nothing to do with his terrorrist attack in Act3. 

Also i can't remember but does Fenris still continue his relationship with Hawke if the latter accepts Orana as a slave?

[Battlebloodmage]

Can someone tell me how this thread gonna be different from 10,000 other threads on this topic?

[Wulfram]

The Hierophant wrote...

Yet you could play a Templar supporter, side with Meredith, and still be in a relationship with Anders. That's a little inconsistent.

Not entirely.  It suggests Anders is capable of loving someone who disagrees with him out of principle, even if those principles directly oppose his own, but not someone who does something truly abhorrent merely out of greed and lack of scruple.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Plaintiff wrote...
I mistranslated nothing. You just don't like me reducing your posts down to the core sentiment being expressed.

In that case, let me extract the core of your posts:

"DUUUurRRRr. DERP!"

There.

You said it would be bad for Bioware to make the romances "all-bi", because that would just be "kissing the ass" of the people who like the romances that way. In fact, you complain that Bioware is already pandering to every "Tom Dick and Harry". The notion that Bioware might genuinely be choosing to be inclusive of their own volition is not even acknnowledged as a possibility.

Meanwhile, if Bioware does what you want, that's not pandering at all, for some reason.

The difference, my fine fethered friend, is that I am not asking for adition of anything. I'm nto demanding nor campaigning nor starting petitions and threads with that purpose.
I would prefer for the world to be designed first and foremost without the PC as the center of the universe, and FRAK the player who doesn't like it.

Altough I find the romances themselves in games overblown and not worth the effort, the idea that all romancable companions are BI is perposterous. If Bio does it "of their own violion" (Atlough given they are a slave to EA and the masses, thats a longshot), I'd call it stupid.

[Xilizhra]

The difference, my fine fethered friend, is that I am not asking for adition of anything. I'm nto demanding nor campaigning nor starting petitions and threads with that purpose.
I would prefer for the world to be designed first and foremost without the PC as the center of the universe, and FRAK the player who doesn't like it.

Actually, you're asking for a feature that already exists to be removed, whereas the ones who want romance inclusiveness are with the status quo.

[Kidd]

Reaverwind wrote...

And do you relate to males the same way as you do to females? Didn't think so. The problem lies with Bioware's writing shortcuts, so stop taking offense where none was intended.

How do you mean "relate" in this context? I am seemingly attracted to the same traits in people of both genders if that's what you're asking.

The Hierophant wrote...

From what i 've seen of the romances the issue is that they have no preferences whatsoever. I doesn't matter if Hawke is a blonde or a brunette with brown, green or blue eyes, a douchebag or a goody two shoes, pretty/handsome or a butter face/fugly, supportive or antagonistic, they'll still hook up.

The Hierophant wrote...

Yet you could play a Templar supporter, side with Meredith, and still be in a relationship with Anders. That's a little inconsistent.

Both of these things are completely irrelevant to a gender check. Well, perhaps the first one could be considered related, but if a gender check is the only check there is then I don't see how the character is picky enough to feel picky.

Of course, they are pickier than this. Like I mentioned earlier, my first Hawke wouldn't have been able to romance Fenris because Fenris never managed to get any kind of romantic feelings going (he would not become fully friendship nor fully rivalry due to my Hawke's opinions and actions). This is irrelevant to said Hawke's gender, their personas simply weren't compatible.

[syllogi]

Filament wrote...

I like how David Gaider locking the actual thread about all-bi rustled someone's jimmies enough to drag this thread off-topic to complain about it.

It was necroed anyway, so it was bound to be locked, but yeah, this is no longer even pretending to be about a specifically Cullen related romance.

Poor Cullen has way too much baggage made of preconceived notions.  If/when he's announced as a party member in DA3, people will immediately love or hate the idea, long before they've seen anything substantial from the new game.  And if he is a potential love interest for both genders, well, we'll have a ton more threads like this one...

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

The difference, my fine fethered friend, is that I am not asking for adition of anything. I'm nto demanding nor campaigning nor starting petitions and threads with that purpose.
I would prefer for the world to be designed first and foremost without the PC as the center of the universe, and FRAK the player who doesn't like it.

Actually, you're asking for a feature that already exists to be removed, whereas the ones who want romance inclusiveness are with the status quo.

Nope, I'm not askign for anything.

And you do realise we're talking about a feature that has been added and featured ever more heavily because of ever more demands by a loud few?


You want inclusiveness. Then how about including more?
Let's make all characters transexuals...you wont' mind.

No, wait, let's make all characters transexual furries....we wouldn't want the bestiality gang to be excluded..right? And that shoudln't bother you either. After all, animalistic features arne't a big deal.

[The Hierophant]

Wulfram wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

Yet you could play a Templar supporter, side with Meredith, and still be in a relationship with Anders. That's a little inconsistent.

Not entirely.  It suggests Anders is capable of loving someone who disagrees with him out of principle, even if those principles directly oppose his own, but not someone who does something truly abhorrent merely out of greed and lack of scruple.

Anders is heavily invested in supporting mage rights/autonomy, and truly believes that he is fighting against a corrupt regime of oppressors. It's one thing for Hawke to express a different opinion on the matter, but full on supporting a faction that Anders actively opposes(Mage Underground) somehow doesn't create mistrust, or hamper their relationship to the point that he avoids the player, or calls it off.

After Karl was forcibly made tranquil, shouldn't Anders be openly mistrustful and antagonistic towards a Templar supporting Hawke to the point that he doesn't help them after Act1?

It's comparable to Craig Boone still being a companion of the PC after they've sided with Caesar's Legion along with them having low NCR rep.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 13 mars 2013 - 06:22 .

[Ryzaki]

The Hierophant wrote...

The problem is that Hawke's relationship is rarely impacted by their stances. I'd figure that since Anders is a hardcore freedom fighter who bombs Chantry buildings, that any positive relationship Hawke has towards the Templars, would be met with a refusal to continue the relationship, while not to divulging any harmful information that might impact his cause. Heck he can still side with you as you slaughter the circle mages who had nothing to do with his terrorrist attack in Act3. 

Also i can't remember but does Fenris still continue his relationship with Hawke if the latter accepts Orana as a slave?

Except if you actually play the rivalry mance you see this is not the case. While he disagrees with what Haweks doing ultimately Hawke is just trying to keep the peace. And yes he doesn't divulge any harmful information. He does know however even a pro templar Hawke will stop templar abuses (if only to bring the mage safely back to the circle). So him divulging some information isn't at all unusual or illogical. (for instance the Alrik situation seemed to me just the sort of thing Anders would bring to a pro-templar Hawke as a "see see your solution doesn't work!")

In act 3 he's so horrified by what Justice has done that he's willing to go along with Hawke's sacrifices for the greater good (better that innocent mages die then dangerous ones escape (he sees firsthand the damage and chaos an abomination can cause) and best to contain his attempt at sparking a war) doesn't work but I feel that was the idea.

(That said I really do wish there was a way to simply attack Meredith and try to contain the situation. Your choices being KILL ALL THE THINGS or release all the mages regardless of them being dangerous bloodmages or no leaves a bad taste in my mouth).

Fenris yep and I thought that was odd til I realize Orana has NOTHING ELSE. (and Hawke can not abuse Orana in any way shape or form). She is a lone elf and without Hawke would most likely end up a servant (if she's lucky) or worse. She has never lived alone and lacks basic self sufficency skills. Hawke maybe making her a slave but he's saving her life and sparing her a worse fate. Fenris most likely can see that. She's feed, clothed and unabused. It's not anywhere near as bad as it could be.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 13 mars 2013 - 06:30 .

[Wulfram]

@The Hierophant: I'm not invested enough in Anders' character to argue whether or not it's good characterisation, I'm just saying it's not necessarily inconsistent.

Modifié par Wulfram, 13 mars 2013 - 06:26 .

[ScarMK]

BeatoSama wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

BeatoSama wrote...

Anders will break it of with you if you deal with Torpor though so that's not entirely true.

Yet you could play a Templar supporter, side with Meredith, and still be in a relationship with Anders. That's a little inconsistent.

Though as long as you kept spamming them with gifts/didn't bring them you could do the same thing in DAO. This definetly is a problem though and something I hope they'll adress in future games.

I'm getting rather sick how people always say that the gifts forced you to use them.  They are as optional as the romances themselves, barring morrigans' book.  Don't want to "cheat" the system, then don't use them.  But no, people still use them then moan over how it's gaming the system. <_< However, I do agree on the last part, you would think the other companions would talk to each other about it.

[BeatoSama]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

The difference, my fine fethered friend, is that I am not asking for adition of anything. I'm nto demanding nor campaigning nor starting petitions and threads with that purpose.
I would prefer for the world to be designed first and foremost without the PC as the center of the universe, and FRAK the player who doesn't like it.

Actually, you're asking for a feature that already exists to be removed, whereas the ones who want romance inclusiveness are with the status quo.

Nope, I'm not askign for anything.

And you do realise we're talking about a feature that has been added and featured ever more heavily because of ever more demands by a loud few?


You want inclusiveness. Then how about including more?
Let's make all characters transexuals...you wont' mind.

No, wait, let's make all characters transexual furries....we wouldn't want the bestiality gang to be excluded..right? And that shoudln't bother you either. After all, animalistic features arne't a big deal.

This is one of the most awful heartless things I have read lately.
You just compared being transexual and/or homosexual with being into furries (which does not mean that you are into bestiality mind you). Suggesting that's its a mere kink.
You should be ashamed.

[Battlebloodmage]

This thread is getting more offensive the more I read. People slinging personal insult, use profanity, compared homosexuality to bestiality.

[The Hierophant]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...
Both of these things are completely irrelevant to a gender check. Well, perhaps the first one could be considered related, but if a gender check is the only check there is then I don't see how the character is picky enough to feel picky.

All of the romanceable companions being pc sexual seems lazy to me, but the main issue i have with them are that they lack any sort of preferences of their own.(gender be damned at this point when given the devs stance on the subject)

Of course, they are pickier than this. Like I mentioned earlier, my first Hawke wouldn't have been able to romance Fenris because Fenris never managed to get any kind of romantic feelings going (he would not become fully friendship nor fully rivalry due to my Hawke's opinions and actions). This is irrelevant to said Hawke's gender, their personas simply weren't compatible.

That's some nice rping, but it doesn't change the fact that the flirt option was available to your pc regardless of how they looked or carried themselves up until that point.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 13 mars 2013 - 06:41 .

[Xilizhra]

Battlebloodmage wrote...

This thread is getting more offensive the more I read. People slinging personal insult, use profanity, compared homosexuality to bestiality.

Isn't this just about every single homosexuality thread ever? If everyone posting was civilized, there'd be no need to have a thread.