270 réponses à ce sujet

[Harle Cerulean]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Danny Boy 7 wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

SweQue wrote...

"2) I dislike the idea of every character being sexually available to the player."

yet half the party members are like bisexuals?

He doesn't want all characters to be romanceable but he wants romancable characters to be available to all genders.

Which is essentially a moot point since non-romanceable characters have never be an option at all in every games including dating simulation games regardless whether the character is "sexually available" or "racial available" or "cultural and religional available" or "species available" or "whatever bull**** available." I do not see the reason for Gaider to include non-romanceable characters into his equotation. If he wants to talk about romance option, then let's start with romance-able characters. Why the need to include the non-romanceable characters?

Because the question he was replying to asked if he would be up for making every companion romanceable if in a perfect world he had the rescources to do so. He said no because that's not what the game (Dragon Age) is for and if they were to do that they'd be taking the focus of the game away from the plot and moving it towards the romances which is not what they want to do.

And yet he make comparison with The Witchers' followers when the Witcher's  followers are all romanceable and  "sexually available", which is actually what he did with DA 2. All romanceable followers in DA 2 are sexually available. If he want to talk about non-romanceable companions as "sexually available", The Witcher 2 also feature non "sexually available" and non-romanceable companions, even better than DA 2, because Geralt is heterosexual.

Do you even know what you're arguing?  Because I can tell you, I'm having a very hard time understanding what you're getting at.  If it's that it's 'ironic' that he says he doesn't want all companions to be sexually available to the PC, but has all bi LIs in DA2?  That's not ironic.  Guess what, not all your companions are romanceable in DA2.  He didn't say "I don't think all LIs should be sexually available," he said companions.  Which, despite your attempt to claim otherwise, does include non-romanceable companions.  If they're not available, they're not romanceable.  (Save Sebastian, who has his vows, and also, incidently, isn't available to both sexes.) 

Seriously, untwist your underpants.  You're making zero sense.

[Dhiro]

After reading this post I can safely say that the next protagonist will be a fixed white, homosexual male married to Anders.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Harle Cerulean wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Danny Boy 7 wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

SweQue wrote...

"2) I dislike the idea of every character being sexually available to the player."

yet half the party members are like bisexuals?

He doesn't want all characters to be romanceable but he wants romancable characters to be available to all genders.

Which is essentially a moot point since non-romanceable characters have never be an option at all in every games including dating simulation games regardless whether the character is "sexually available" or "racial available" or "cultural and religional available" or "species available" or "whatever bull**** available." I do not see the reason for Gaider to include non-romanceable characters into his equotation. If he wants to talk about romance option, then let's start with romance-able characters. Why the need to include the non-romanceable characters?

Because the question he was replying to asked if he would be up for making every companion romanceable if in a perfect world he had the rescources to do so. He said no because that's not what the game (Dragon Age) is for and if they were to do that they'd be taking the focus of the game away from the plot and moving it towards the romances which is not what they want to do.

And yet he make comparison with The Witchers' followers when the Witcher's  followers are all romanceable and  "sexually available", which is actually what he did with DA 2. All romanceable followers in DA 2 are sexually available. If he want to talk about non-romanceable companions as "sexually available", The Witcher 2 also feature non "sexually available" and non-romanceable companions, even better than DA 2, because Geralt is heterosexual.

Do you even know what you're arguing?  Because I can tell you, I'm having a very hard time understanding what you're getting at.  If it's that it's 'ironic' that he says he doesn't want all companions to be sexually available to the PC, but has all bi LIs in DA2?  That's not ironic.  Guess what, not all your companions are romanceable in DA2.  He didn't say "I don't think all LIs should be sexually available," he said companions.  Which, despite your attempt to claim otherwise, does include non-romanceable companions.  If they're not available, they're not romanceable.  (Save Sebastian, who has his vows, and also, incidently, isn't available to both sexes.) 

Seriously, untwist your underpants.  You're making zero sense.

Gaider argue every followers is "sexually available" to the player in The Witcher 2. He forget that Geralt is heterosexual. You can't romance male companions in The Witcher 2 like Dandelion. Thus, Not all followers are romanceable and every romanceable followers in The Witcher 2 is "sexually available" to the player, which is essentially the same as what Gaider did with DA 2, Not all companions are romanceable but every romanceable followers in DA 2 is sexually available to the player regardless they're male or female. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 20 janvier 2013 - 10:33 .

[Plaintiff]

SweQue wrote...

"2) I dislike the idea of every character being sexually available to the player."

yet half the party members are like bisexuals?

Half the party is not every character. In fact, it's a tiny fraction of the characters. There is no contradiction.

[batlin]

So to Gaider, romancing someone is the same thing as objectifying them.

Seriously?

[Sutekh]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Gaider argue every followers is "sexually available" to the player in The Witcher 2.

No. He argues that every female Geralt meets in the Witcher 1 is "romanceable"*, which is the case, although "doable" would be more accurate, since there's only two actually romanceable characters in the Witcher 1, while all female who are the right age are fair game to Geralt's Awesome Manly Manliness, and you even get a card for that, as in Pokemon's Gotta Catch'em All.

Edit * Actually, he doesn't even say that. "Sexually available". Se he's right all the way.

Modifié par Sutekh, 20 janvier 2013 - 10:41 .

[Dhiro]

batlin wrote...

So to Gaider, romancing someone is the same thing as objectifying them.

Seriously?

No, but giving you a card everytime you have sex with them and never having most of them appearing again sounds pretty objectifying to me.

But that's like, my opinion. Even if it's always right.

*rolls away*

[Bfler]

A person, who refuses the PC like Serana in Dawnguard would be nice. Until now, every char in DA is either not a romance or a full Sex romance.

And there has to be a limit with all that bisexual and gay stuff. I want also interesting straight chars. In reality only a minority is gay or bi, but it seems that some people here want, that everybody in DA3 is at least a bi.

Modifié par Bfler, 20 janvier 2013 - 10:58 .

[Herr Uhl]

batlin wrote...

So to Gaider, romancing someone is the same thing as objectifying them.

Seriously?

What did you read?

[Herr Uhl]

Bfler wrote...

A person, who refuses the PC like Serana in Dawnguard would be nice. Until now, every char in DA not a romance of full a Sex romance.

You mean like Sebastian doesn't put out or how Aveline doesn't want you in DA2?

[Bfler]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Bfler wrote...

A person, who refuses the PC like Serana in Dawnguard would be nice. Until now, every char in DA not a romance of full a Sex romance.

You mean like Sebastian doesn't put out or how Aveline doesn't want you in DA2?

Sebastian does refuse you? Didn't know that. And Aveline is in the cathegory no romance, she doesn't really refuse you.

Modifié par Bfler, 20 janvier 2013 - 10:52 .

[Herr Uhl]

Bfler wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

Bfler wrote...

A person, who refuses the PC like Serana in Dawnguard would be nice. Until now, every char in DA not a romance of full a Sex romance.

You mean like Sebastian doesn't put out or how Aveline doesn't want you in DA2?

Sebastian does refuse you? Didn't know that. And Aveline a in the cathegory no romance, she doesn't realiy refuse you.

Sebastian doesn't put out due to wows. He isn't a "true" romance. Haven't played dawnguard, so I'm not sure what Serana does.

[Dhiro]

Bfler wrote...

A person, who refuses the PC like Serana in Dawnguard would be nice. Until now, every char in DA either not a romance of full a Sex romance.

And there has to be a limit with all that bisexual and gay stuff. I want also interesting straight chars. In reality only a minority is gay or bi, but it seems that some people here want, that everybody in DA3 is at least a bi.

Yes.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

simfamSP wrote...

And yet he make comparison with The Witchers' followers when the Witcher's followers are all romanceable and "sexually available", which is actually what he did with DA 2

No he didn't.

. All romanceable followers in DA 2 are sexually available

But not all companions are romancable which is what he's trying to avoid.

The Witcher 2 did same thing. You can't romance Dandelion and every male companions because Geralt is heterosexual just like you can't romance Sebastian. So he is wrong to assume that every followers in The Witcher 2 is "sexually available" to the player. If he meant "every characters" as "every female characters" then he is wrong either, since you can't romance the elders in the Witcher 2. The Witcher 2 doesn't have that many  female followers characters to be sexually available to the player, compare to DA 2's 2 males and  2 females romanceable companions who are all sexually available to the players. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 20 janvier 2013 - 10:50 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

simfamSP wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

And yet he make comparison with The Witchers' followers when the Witcher's followers are all romanceable and "sexually available", which is actually what he did with DA 2

No he didn't.

. All romanceable followers in DA 2 are sexually available

But not all companions are romancable which is what he's trying to avoid.

The Witcher 2 did same thing. You can't romance Dandelion and every male companions because Geralt is heterosexual just like you can't romance Sebastian. So he is wrong to assume that every followers in The Witcher 2 is "sexually available" to the player. If he meant "every characters" as "every female characters" then he is wrong either, since you can't romance the elders in the Witcher 2. The Witcher 2 doesn't have that many  female followers characters to be sexually available to the player, compare to DA 2's 2 males and  2 females romanceable companions who are all sexually available to the players. 

HE DIDN'T BLOODY MENTION THE WITCHER 2 YOU MORON <_< "The FIRST Witcher game." Go read it again!

So what? He's still wrong. You can't romance any followers whether it's The Witcher 1 or 2. Hell you can't romance every female characters whether it's The witcher 1 or 2. And you better watch your tongue when you want to argue. If you can't take the heat then do not reply. Calling a forumer a moron is a serious offense and you are violating the forum rule.

[Harle Cerulean]

simfamSP wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

And yet he make comparison with The Witchers' followers when the Witcher's followers are all romanceable and "sexually available", which is actually what he did with DA 2

No he didn't.

. All romanceable followers in DA 2 are sexually available

But not all companions are romancable which is what he's trying to avoid.

The Witcher 2 did same thing. You can't romance Dandelion and every male companions because Geralt is heterosexual just like you can't romance Sebastian. So he is wrong to assume that every followers in The Witcher 2 is "sexually available" to the player. If he meant "every characters" as "every female characters" then he is wrong either, since you can't romance the elders in the Witcher 2. The Witcher 2 doesn't have that many  female followers characters to be sexually available to the player, compare to DA 2's 2 males and  2 females romanceable companions who are all sexually available to the players. 

HE DIDN'T BLOODY MENTION THE WITCHER 2 YOU MORON <_< "The FIRST Witcher game." Go read it again!

Reading comprehension?  You must be joking, this is the BSN!

[Herr Uhl]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

So what? He's still wrong. You can't romance any followers whether it's The Witcher 1 or 2. Hell you can't romance every female characters whether it's The witcher 1 or 2. And you better watch your tongue when you want to argue. If you can't take the heat then do not reply. Calling a forumer a moron is a serious offense and you are violating the forum rule.

He didn't use romance. He used sexually available. You could shag damn near every named female character in W1. Only prominent ones I can think of the top of my head that you can't are Carmen and the chick that becomes a noon-wraith.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Harle Cerulean wrote...

Reading comprehension?  You must be joking, this is the BSN!

You fail to counter argue The first Witcher's characters being every characters sexually available to the player so you attack my reading comprehension. Oh well.. at least you're right about one thing. This is BSN, people resort to personal attack instead of his argument. 

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

So what? He's still wrong. You can't romance any followers whether it's The Witcher 1 or 2. Hell you can't romance every female characters whether it's The witcher 1 or 2. And you better watch your tongue when you want to argue. If you can't take the heat then do not reply. Calling a forumer a moron is a serious offense and you are violating the forum rule.

He didn't use romance. He used sexually available. You could shag damn near every named female character in W1. Only prominent ones I can think of the top of my head that you can't are Carmen and the chick that becomes a noon-wraith.

That's right. This characters are not "sexually available" to the player. Therefore there is no such things as, "every characters are sexually available to the player in the first Witcher". Once again, Gaider is wrong.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 20 janvier 2013 - 11:11 .

[Herr Uhl]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

That's right. This characters are not "sexually available" to the player. Therefore there is no such things as every characters are sexually available to the player in the first Witcher. Once again, Gaider is wrong.

He didn't say that every character was sexually available.

[Plaintiff]

Bfler wrote...

A person, who refuses the PC like Serana in Dawnguard would be nice. Until now, every char in DA is either not a romance or a full Sex romance.

And there has to be a limit with all that bisexual and gay stuff. I want also interesting straight chars. In reality only a minority is gay or bi, but it seems that some people here want, that everybody in DA3 is at least a bi.

If we're going to start limiting the types of charactersthat can be in videogames, based on their proportional presence in the real world, then we should start by drastically cutting down on caucasian male protagonists and start introducing a buttload of Indian and Asian ones. And while you're at it, alter the biological sex of male characters until the gender ratio in videogames is roughly fifty percent.

[Maria Caliban]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

SweQue wrote...

"2) I dislike the idea of every character being sexually available to the player."

yet half the party members are like bisexuals?

He doesn't want all characters to be romanceable but he wants romancable characters to be available to all genders.

Which is essentially a moot point since non-romanceable characters have never be an option at all in every games including dating simulation games regardless whether the character is "sexually available" or "racial available" or "cultural and religional available" or "species available" or "whatever bull**** available." I do not see the reason for Gaider to include non-romanceable characters into his equotation. If he wants to talk about romance option, then let's start with romance-able characters. Why the need to include the non-romanceable characters?

Because the question was whether he'd want *every companion* to be romancable. He was explaining why he wouldn't want that.