150 réponses à ce sujet

[cephasjames]

Rawgrim wrote...

as I said earlier (since you missed that bit) : Metagaming doesn`t happen in the first playthrough. But seeing the love icons isn`t metagaming. And yes, the Aveline romance has plot armour. No matter what happens, that romance will go through. Even if she screws up her dating. Nothing in-game will ever change that from happening.

But when you are combining elements from more than one playthrough (ex: in this playthrough Anders was gay and in this playthrough Anders was straight) then you are metagaming. If you only do one playthrough, then you have nothing to combine. The purpose of telling a story is that, as that story is being told, you focus on just that story. You don't bring bits and pieces from other stories (which is what another playthrough is) and combine them to the story you're bing told... that's metagaming.

[happy_daiz]

This kind of argument kind of makes Skyrim-esque relationships seem like the way to go. No muss, no fuss, and thanks for the cash, hubby/wifey-dear.

Back on topic, I'm cool either way, as long as LI interaction is coherent and meaningful.

Modifié par happy_daiz, 28 novembre 2012 - 07:00 .

[Rawgrim]

RinjiRenee wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

He was sensetive about it wrecking (possibly) the character and the immersion. Not the fact that a gay character hit on him.

I can 100% guarantee you that if Anders was female, he wouldn't have cared.

I suspect he would have reacted the same way if female Anders was straight, and then just became a lesbian if he played a female.

[Battlebloodmage]

RinjiRenee wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

He was sensetive about it wrecking (possibly) the character and the immersion. Not the fact that a gay character hit on him.

I can 100% guarantee you that if Anders was female, he wouldn't have cared.

Why didn't he bring up Isabela hitting on Hawke? hmmm

[Rinji the Bearded]

Solmanian wrote...

Since your party is usually a demographic slice of the people of thedas... And if everyone in your party turns out to be bisexual it means one of two possibilities:

either
1. A large part  (maybe even majority) of thedasian population are bisexual.

or
2. Your protagonist has very questionable recruiting methods

1. Thedas has different ideas about sexuality to begin with

2. Hawke never took sexuality of characters into account while recruiting them.

[Rinji the Bearded]

Rawgrim wrote...

I suspect he would have reacted the same way if female Anders was straight, and then just became a lesbian if he played a female.

Anders was never straight.  He never said so, did he?

[Rawgrim]

cephasjames wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

as I said earlier (since you missed that bit) : Metagaming doesn`t happen in the first playthrough. But seeing the love icons isn`t metagaming. And yes, the Aveline romance has plot armour. No matter what happens, that romance will go through. Even if she screws up her dating. Nothing in-game will ever change that from happening.

But when you are combining elements from more than one playthrough (ex: in this playthrough Anders was gay and in this playthrough Anders was straight) then you are metagaming. If you only do one playthrough, then you have nothing to combine. The purpose of telling a story is that, as that story is being told, you focus on just that story. You don't bring bits and pieces from other stories (which is what another playthrough is) and combine them to the story you're bing told... that's metagaming.

I am talking about the first playthrough. Where 100 percent of the love interests are into me, no matter what gender I am.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I fully support having the romanceable companions prefer whatever gender the PC happens to be in that playthrough.

That does not make them all bi. Herosexual is not the same as bisexual. Some of them might be bi. Some of them might be bi on some playthroughs only.

Why does anyone think all of the DA2 romanceable companions were always bi? There's no evidence at all to support this.

[Mad Cassidy]

I am not so arrogant as to want to deprive others of their preferred romanceable character simply because I desire exclusivity for its own sake. I fail to understand how character integrity suffers because of sexual orientation. It has no bearing on their in-game philosophy or worldview. It is essentially invisible until you want it to be otherwise.

Furthermore, I acknowledge that this is an interactive GAME that is enjoyed by a multitude of people with tastes and desires that differ from my own. Why should I want to limit their choices? I don't gain anything by it, and others stand to lose. Making all LIs bi or hero-sexual has a much greater chance of pleasing a larger number of people, simply because their options are expanded and they aren't shoe-horned into that one token romance that would otherwise be available to them.

Modifié par Mad Cass, 28 novembre 2012 - 07:03 .

[CuriousArtemis]

Battlebloodmage wrote...

motomotogirl wrote...

Yes all bi ... because it's really annoying having to mod your game so that you can romance Alistair, and even then, he still refers to your Warden as a woman lol So annoying.

Doesn't get any funnier when he asks the male warden to bear his children. 

OMG I've heard about that  I haven't reached that point in the story yet LOL Cue my Warden beotch-slapping him. Or running to Wynne and complaining about Alistair still thinking he's a girl haha

Warden: He still thinks I'm a girl, Wynne!
Wynne: Now, now. Have you thought this through rationally, young man?
Warden: HE ASKED ME TO BEAR HIS CHILDREN.
Wynne: Oh my...

[Solmanian]

Battlebloodmage wrote...

Solmanian wrote...

Where does it stop? do you make the mabari hound romanceble?

Have to go straight to bestiality, haven't you? <_<

I like for just one conversation about homosexuality to not result in bestiality or pedophilia.

It's the logical continuation of the "make everything romancable by everyone" approach.

[Volus Warlord]

RinjiRenee wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

You did jump to homophobia accusations right away. Seems like the same argument style to me.

Nope.  You being sensitive about a "gay" man hitting on you is thinly veiled homophobia.  You brought up the beastiality thing all on your own.

Hey now, beastiality wasn't me, and the Anders thing was just kinda like 'Really?' But that does not justify your accusation. Here's a nice counter-example for your bigotryaccusationitis:

Say you got a male character and a companion is this smoking hot lesbian, which could be expressed implicitly or explicitly. Then, out of nowhere, she starts hitting on you.

You'd think. "What? That makes no sense. That is inconsistant to your character. I thought you were a lesbian and I wasn't interested in you and now all the sudden the game's forcing the question." 

Cmon. No.

RinjiRenee wrote...

I can 100% guarantee you that if Anders was female, he wouldn't have cared.

Suck it.

Modifié par Volus Warlord, 28 novembre 2012 - 07:04 .

[Rawgrim]

Battlebloodmage wrote...

RinjiRenee wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

He was sensetive about it wrecking (possibly) the character and the immersion. Not the fact that a gay character hit on him.

I can 100% guarantee you that if Anders was female, he wouldn't have cared.

Why didn't he bring up Isabela hitting on Hawke? hmmm

he was clearly playing as a male character, since he reffered to Anders as gay. Had he played a female character, and Isabela hit on him, he might have used that example? If you look for homophobia you will find it everywhere.

[Rinji the Bearded]

Rawgrim wrote...


he was clearly playing as a male character, since he reffered to Anders as gay. Had he played a female character, and Isabela hit on him, he might have used that example? If you look for homophobia you will find it everywhere.

You'll find it in people who make up strawmen to explain their discomfort.

[cephasjames]

Rawgrim wrote...

cephasjames wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

seeing the love icon in your first playthrough is not metagaming.

Correct. And if you are a male PC receiving the love icon from Anders that means he's gay. If you are a male PC receiving the love icon from Merrill that means she's straight. How the PC reacts has nothing to do with either's sexuality in that playthrough.

Wich means the game has changed in order to cater to the PC. The player "choses" the sexuality of the character.

Only if you are looking at it over multiple playthroughs and metagaming it. In one playthrough the LI is what the LI is, nothing else.

You don't seem to be getting the difference between individual stories and mutiple playthroughs, which is where your whole argument breaks down.

[CuriousArtemis]

RinjiRenee wrote...

2. Hawke never took sexuality of characters into account while recruiting them.

I think you must not have been around when my Hawke recruited Fenris 

[Rawgrim]

Mad Cass wrote...

I am not so arrogant as to want to deprive others of their preferred romanceable character simply because I desire exclusivity for its own sake. I fail to understand how character integrity suffers because of sexual orientation. It has no bearing on their in-game philosophy or worldview. It is essentially invisible until you want it to be otherwise.

Furthermore, I acknowledge that this is an interactive GAME that is enjoyed by a multitude of people with tastes and desires that differ from my own. Why should I want to limit their choices? I don't gain anything by it, and others stand to lose. Making all LIs bi or hero-sexual has a much greater chance of pleasing a larger number of people, simply because their options are expanded and they aren't shoe-horned into that one token romance that would otherwise be available to them.

I think you are missing the point abit. Its not about limiting the choices just for the sake of it. This whole thing also means my own choices should get limited, if a character is pure lesbian or whatever. in the long run it adds replayability as well.

[Rawgrim]

RinjiRenee wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...


he was clearly playing as a male character, since he reffered to Anders as gay. Had he played a female character, and Isabela hit on him, he might have used that example? If you look for homophobia you will find it everywhere.

You'll find it in people who make up strawmen to explain their discomfort.

Well his post never struck me as homophobic.

[Nevara]

cephasjames wrote...

Nevara wrote...

I think there should be a more noticeable segue from friendship to romance. Not just flirt, flirt, (maybe) flirt, and then knock boots. It should be "realistic" because time is passing at a much faster rate in-game than the real world just don't let me get boinked with it. And like Cid said friendly compliments shouldn't set off a romance like an M-80.

The bold is, imo, a completely seperate topic than calling LIs bisexual. In real life, straight men are friends with gay men without any issues whatsoever. And sometimes gay men are just friends with gay men. It would be nice if there was a way for "potential lovers" to just be friends and nothing more.

That wasn't my point.  I'm talking about romance in general.  It doesn't matter if they are bi gay or straight.  I've been ninja manced or gave a person the wrong impression in game.  They need to improve the dynamic instead of the extremes.

[d4eaming]

What would you prefer? Certain people having no viable options? I am queer/fluid and trans. If I play a male PC, I can't romance Alistair because he's written as straight. I am forced to play a female character that I can't identify with in order to romance him. Morrigan is straight- but she isn't a viable romance option for me because I greatly dislike her personality and smarmy attitude. I had one PC that romanced her, that PC was played as a self-interested ****** using her to learn shapeshifting, but I didn't really enjoy it because I don't enjoy Morrigan the character, and if I decided I wanted to, for example, play a female mage who looks up to Morrigan and admires her- the way Merril would toward a female Hawke- well that option is gone from me, too, because she's straight. I have to play a character, in this case a male, regardless of if I want to or not, specifically catered toward Morrigan so I can even have an option to romance her.

That is restricting my choices in how I want to play my game. What if my canon Dalish elf rogue, who is male, has a mad crush on Alistair? Hell, I can't even try to tell Alistair my feelings and get shot down. Same with Morrigan and a female PC. Options are taken away from me in who I can romance.

Sure, Leliana and Zev are options, but what if they don't work for me in that playthrough? What if I don't like those characters? Well, now I can't romance anyone at all because the one I'm interested in has a sexuality set in stone.

Rawgrim wrote...

The love icon is still there. that tells me that if I pick that option, the characters sexuality will be catered to me. Its like a spotlight. If you want decide this characters sexuality, press this button.

In that case, you're metagaming. That option is there as an option, nothing more. If your character chooses not to flirt, then nothing will happen. How does it effect your game at all just knowing the option is there? That totally reminds me of straight people who whine because they know gay people have sex, and that's just yucky, but they don't have enough self-control to simply ignore it since it's not for them. So, a gay Anders isn't your thing. Shoot him down when he tries and don't flirt. It's an option. You have the option of flirting with Fenris- it is a you problem that you can't handle the fact that in some other game with some other PC played by some other person that Fenris ends up being gay. All because, the horror, there is an option to flirt with him, and if you don't, he never says one word about whether or not he wants in your pants.

I simply cannot wrap my brain around the entire idea. People are whining about the option to have a romance.

If I play a gay PC in DAO, I have one option- Zevran. If you play a straight PC in DAO, you have TWO- Morrigan and Leliana. How is that fair? Why can't I have the same number of options? Why should my options be taken away because you can't handle, through metagaming, the fact that in some alternate universe, one of the NPCs is gay?

By writing the characters in such a way that they can be viable options for both genders, no one is getting left out. And if a straight person can't handle there being an icky bisexual in their game because they only want straight characters to romance (because, somehow, this makes the romance different or something)- that is a straight person problem, and not one that should be imposed on everyone else.

Bioware wants to be inclusive. I like that. I like having options. I like having as many options as straight people- not half as many options, such as the case in DAO. In DA2, I can choose from the same number of characters as a straight person of either gender (I am purposefully ignoring Sebastian, as his character somewhat annoys me anyway and his romance isn't fully implemented like the other NPCs' are).

[Rinji the Bearded]

Rawgrim wrote...

Well his post never struck me as homophobic.

Equating bisexual people with "classless tramps" and ******s and being uncomfortable when a "gay" man hits on him doesn't strike you as a little homophobic?

[Rawgrim]

cephasjames wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

cephasjames wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

seeing the love icon in your first playthrough is not metagaming.

Correct. And if you are a male PC receiving the love icon from Anders that means he's gay. If you are a male PC receiving the love icon from Merrill that means she's straight. How the PC reacts has nothing to do with either's sexuality in that playthrough.

Wich means the game has changed in order to cater to the PC. The player "choses" the sexuality of the character.

Only if you are looking at it over multiple playthroughs and metagaming it. In one playthrough the LI is what the LI is, nothing else.

You don't seem to be getting the difference between individual stories and mutiple playthroughs, which is where your whole argument breaks down.

Its about 100 percent f the love interests being available to me. The whole thing reeks of catering to my needs. And this I got from the first playthrough. Been trying to say this several times now, you just chose to ignore it.

[Allan Schumacher]

Rawgrim wrote...
seeing the love icon in your first playthrough is not metagaming.

With the exception of Aveline of course.  Except you then decided to go "Oh well she was in love with Donnic so it doesn't count" and then still judged us on it purely based on a make believe situation that didn't happen.


Unfortunately what you've done is held us to the gun based purely on your imagination.  At this point, your feedback becomes compromised because you've already demonstrated that you're willing to ignore points that undermine your perspective.

I can't accurately discern your critique because you've demonstrated that you aren't willing to respond rationally to what has been provided.  As such, it becomes meaningless.  You've already made up your mind and the stuff that would go against it just doesn't count.

Do you have a link, or something? I'm not discrediting you, I just want to know how you found out?

There is no source, as we didn't say anything like that.

Where does it stop? do you make the mabari hound romanceble?

This type of commentary is inappropriate.

And yes, the Aveline romance has plot armour. No matter what happens,
that romance will go through. Even if she screws up her dating. Nothing
in-game will ever change that from happening.

At this point you're just being a straight up contradictory.

You fault us for the game being deterministic by the game player's choices.  And then fault us for a situation where the game isn't.

Since your party is usually a demographic slice of the people of
thedas... And if everyone in your party turns out to be bisexual it
means one of two possibilities:

either
1. A large part  (maybe even majority) of thedasian population are bisexual.

or
2. Your protagonist has very questionable recruiting methods

And on this note, I get very angry.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 28 novembre 2012 - 07:12 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Locking thread now.

[Rawgrim]

RinjiRenee wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Well his post never struck me as homophobic.

Equating bisexual people with "classless tramps" and ******s and being uncomfortable when a "gay" man hits on him doesn't strike you as a little homophobic?

Not really. Since those particular characters were tramps. And being uncomfy about being hit on by a gay man isn`t homophobic. If a black man yells something to you, and you feel uncomfortable by it, does this make you a racist?