642 réponses à ce sujet

[Battlebloodmage]

jillabender wrote...

With respect, draken-heart, I'm don't quite understand what your reasoning is for wanting exclusively gay romances to be restricted to non-companion NPCs.

Is it because you strongly prefer for all romanceable companion characters to be romanceable by characters of any gender, but don't mind the idea of exclusively gay or straight romances for non-companion characters? I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

He wants NPC LI to be homosexuals because he doesn't want them to make the majority of the people who play the game uncomfortable with the idea of having gay companions.

[draken-heart]

jillabender wrote...

With respect, draken-heart, I'm don't quite understand what your reasoning is for wanting exclusively gay romances to be restricted to non-companion NPCs.

Is it because you strongly prefer for all romanceable companion characters to be romanceable by characters of any gender, but don't mind the idea of exclusively gay or straight romances for non-companion characters? I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

I like the Idea of inclusion, but not the idea of messing with a character idea by adding a same sex romance option. Origins had the best compromise: 3 each, 2 opposite sex, and 1 same sex. I just felt like adding another same sex option without messing with the set up of some potential romace options per gender and the rest of the party being like mentors/comrades.

[catharsisboo]

draken-heart wrote...
How would exclusively gay companions be recieved by the Majority/main target audience? This is where it needs to be taken in stride, build an image that makes one feel like they should have that companion before revealing "I am gay/lesbian."

Boo hoo if they have a problem with it. Why should bigots who would shoot a character down because "oh no, s/he's gay/lesbian!" be coddled into tolerating him or her?

No. If they take issue with it (which is imo extremely weird, considering Dragon Age has been inclusive for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and straight players since DAO, and even more so in DA2), Bioware shouldn't have to hold their hand through the game.

[Battlebloodmage]

draken-heart wrote...

jillabender wrote...

With respect, draken-heart, I'm don't quite understand what your reasoning is for wanting exclusively gay romances to be restricted to non-companion NPCs.

Is it because you strongly prefer for all romanceable companion characters to be romanceable by characters of any gender, but don't mind the idea of exclusively gay or straight romances for non-companion characters? I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

I like the Idea of inclusion, but not the idea of messing with a character idea by adding a same sex romance option. Origins had the best compromise: 3 each, 2 opposite sex, and 1 same sex. I just felt like adding another same sex option without messing with the set up of some potential romace options per gender and the rest of the party being like mentors/comrades.

The best compromise would be two opposites and 2 sames.

[draken-heart]

catharsisboo wrote...

draken-heart wrote...
How would exclusively gay companions be recieved by the Majority/main target audience? This is where it needs to be taken in stride, build an image that makes one feel like they should have that companion before revealing "I am gay/lesbian."

Boo hoo if they have a problem with it. Why should bigots who would shoot a character down because "oh no, s/he's gay/lesbian!" be coddled into tolerating him or her?

No. If they take issue with it (which is imo extremely weird, considering Dragon Age has been inclusive for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and straight players since DAO, and even more so in DA2), Bioware shouldn't have to hold their hand through the game.

read above post. Now I am saying I would rather have S/S as NPCs to go back to the Origins style of Companion set-up (4 party members romanceable, the rest unromanceable) while adding another option.

[catharsisboo]

draken-heart wrote...

catharsisboo wrote...

draken-heart wrote...
How would exclusively gay companions be recieved by the Majority/main target audience? This is where it needs to be taken in stride, build an image that makes one feel like they should have that companion before revealing "I am gay/lesbian."

Boo hoo if they have a problem with it. Why should bigots who would shoot a character down because "oh no, s/he's gay/lesbian!" be coddled into tolerating him or her?

No. If they take issue with it (which is imo extremely weird, considering Dragon Age has been inclusive for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and straight players since DAO, and even more so in DA2), Bioware shouldn't have to hold their hand through the game.

read above post. Now I am saying I would rather have S/S as NPCs to go back to the Origins style of Companion set-up (4 party members romanceable, the rest unromanceable) while adding another option.

I did read your post. I just don't understand it because I can't see a reason why you would want S/S LIs downgraded to NPCs instead of party members for reasons other than "because it wrecks their character!" (somehow?) or "because the straight bigots will have a problem with it!"

[Battlebloodmage]

Those options are 2 straight NPC LIs, right?

Modifié par Battlebloodmage, 15 février 2013 - 10:54 .

[draken-heart]

Battlebloodmage wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

jillabender wrote...

With respect, draken-heart, I'm don't quite understand what your reasoning is for wanting exclusively gay romances to be restricted to non-companion NPCs.

Is it because you strongly prefer for all romanceable companion characters to be romanceable by characters of any gender, but don't mind the idea of exclusively gay or straight romances for non-companion characters? I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

I like the Idea of inclusion, but not the idea of messing with a character idea by adding a same sex romance option. Origins had the best compromise: 3 each, 2 opposite sex, and 1 same sex. I just felt like adding another same sex option without messing with the set up of some potential romace options per gender and the rest of the party being like mentors/comrades.

The best compromise would be two opposites and 2 sames.

which is what I was suggesting, while keeping the rest of the party as mentors/Comrades, instead of ruining that balance with 6 romanceable which would likely be 90-100% of the party.

[Battlebloodmage]

draken-heart wrote...


which is what I was suggesting, while keeping the rest of the party as mentors/Comrades, instead of ruining that balance with 6 romanceable which would likely be 90-100% of the party.

We are in the same page then, 2 gays, 2 bis, and 2 straight NPCs.

[catharsisboo]

draken-heart wrote...

Battlebloodmage wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

jillabender wrote...

With respect, draken-heart, I'm don't quite understand what your reasoning is for wanting exclusively gay romances to be restricted to non-companion NPCs.

Is it because you strongly prefer for all romanceable companion characters to be romanceable by characters of any gender, but don't mind the idea of exclusively gay or straight romances for non-companion characters? I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

I like the Idea of inclusion, but not the idea of messing with a character idea by adding a same sex romance option. Origins had the best compromise: 3 each, 2 opposite sex, and 1 same sex. I just felt like adding another same sex option without messing with the set up of some potential romace options per gender and the rest of the party being like mentors/comrades.

The best compromise would be two opposites and 2 sames.

which is what I was suggesting, while keeping the rest of the party as mentors/Comrades, instead of ruining that balance with 6 romanceable which would likely be 90-100% of the party.

But you just said you liked Origins the best (which has only one S/S option per gender). I can't exactly figure out what you're advocating here.

[draken-heart]

catharsisboo wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

catharsisboo wrote...

draken-heart wrote...
How would exclusively gay companions be recieved by the Majority/main target audience? This is where it needs to be taken in stride, build an image that makes one feel like they should have that companion before revealing "I am gay/lesbian."

Boo hoo if they have a problem with it. Why should bigots who would shoot a character down because "oh no, s/he's gay/lesbian!" be coddled into tolerating him or her?

No. If they take issue with it (which is imo extremely weird, considering Dragon Age has been inclusive for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and straight players since DAO, and even more so in DA2), Bioware shouldn't have to hold their hand through the game.

read above post. Now I am saying I would rather have S/S as NPCs to go back to the Origins style of Companion set-up (4 party members romanceable, the rest unromanceable) while adding another option.

I did read your post. I just don't understand it because I can't see a reason why you would want S/S LIs downgraded to NPCs instead of party members for reasons other than "because it wrecks their character!" (somehow?) or "because the straight bigots will have a problem with it!"

party dynamics=mentor-pupil romance? ewww. lol. I would now rather keep the origins party dynamics with some romanceable party member and some not, just adding the NPC as an extra option.

[draken-heart]

catharsisboo wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Battlebloodmage wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

jillabender wrote...

With respect, draken-heart, I'm don't quite understand what your reasoning is for wanting exclusively gay romances to be restricted to non-companion NPCs.

Is it because you strongly prefer for all romanceable companion characters to be romanceable by characters of any gender, but don't mind the idea of exclusively gay or straight romances for non-companion characters? I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

I like the Idea of inclusion, but not the idea of messing with a character idea by adding a same sex romance option. Origins had the best compromise: 3 each, 2 opposite sex, and 1 same sex. I just felt like adding another same sex option without messing with the set up of some potential romace options per gender and the rest of the party being like mentors/comrades.

The best compromise would be two opposites and 2 sames.

which is what I was suggesting, while keeping the rest of the party as mentors/Comrades, instead of ruining that balance with 6 romanceable which would likely be 90-100% of the party.

But you just said you liked Origins the best (which has only one S/S option per gender). I can't exactly figure out what you're advocating here.

adding the S/S NPC option. 2 opposite gendered, and 2 same gendered, just origins style.

[Battlebloodmage]

draken-heart wrote...



adding the S/S NPC option. 2 opposite gendered, and 2 same gendered, just origins style.

Why couldn't it be 2 straight NPC?

[catharsisboo]

Okay. I am obviously misinterpreting you because I have no clue what you just and how it pertained to what I am saying.

Here is what I think you are saying: you want party member LIs to be the same as Origins: 4, with 2 straight, and 2 bi (one for each gender, thus making the total number of S/S party member options, say, for a fem Inquisitor, 1). You want NPC romances to be the ones who are exclusively gay, as you think it would offend the target audience/cause them to dislike/not recruit a gay party member.

[draken-heart]

Battlebloodmage wrote...

draken-heart wrote...



adding the S/S NPC option. 2 opposite gendered, and 2 same gendered, just origins style.

Why couldn't it be 2 straight NPC?

because Origins had 2 straight party members. Switching things around does nothing for the style if it is not the same.

[draken-heart]

catharsisboo wrote...

Okay. I am obviously misinterpreting you because I have no clue what you just and how it pertained to what I am saying.

Here is what I think you are saying: you want party member LIs to be the same as Origins: 4, with 2 straight, and 2 bi (one for each gender, thus making the total number of S/S party member options, say, for a fem Inquisitor, 1). You want NPC romances to be the ones who are exclusively gay, as you think it would offend the target audience/cause them to dislike/not recruit a gay party member.

just trying to combine the ME3 NPC romance thing. plus some people may not want to take their LI with them, treating them like a real romance. adding a potential S/S romance option adds to the idea that homosexuals are romantic/love eachother as much as straight romance options.

Modifié par draken-heart, 15 février 2013 - 11:03 .

[Battlebloodmage]

What does sexuality has to do with it? Everyone has their own defined sexuality. It seems to me that you just don't want to get the short end of the straw when it comes to romance.

[Renmiri1]

mentor - pupil romance = eww ?

You have just rejected 90% of yaoi 

http://tvtropes.org/...Main/MentorShip

You have some issues with alternate sexualities and it seems to me you are trying to make a game where you never feel challenged and offended.

I don't think you will go far with Bioware, Gaider and others have repeatedly said challenging and expanding people's perceptions is one of the reasons they like writing for video games

Modifié par Renmiri1, 15 février 2013 - 11:07 .

[catharsisboo]

draken-heart wrote...

catharsisboo wrote...

Okay. I am obviously misinterpreting you because I have no clue what you just and how it pertained to what I am saying.

Here is what I think you are saying: you want party member LIs to be the same as Origins: 4, with 2 straight, and 2 bi (one for each gender, thus making the total number of S/S party member options, say, for a fem Inquisitor, 1). You want NPC romances to be the ones who are exclusively gay, as you think it would offend the target audience/cause them to dislike/not recruit a gay party member.

just trying to combine the ME3 NPC romance thing...and it wont matter, you alresdy have your interpretation of what I was trying to say and that is your right.

No, I actually do want to know if there is a miscommunication here because I am interested in what you have to say.

To reiterate, this is what I think you are saying, and please correct me if I am wrong: If our total party members end up being 10, you want 4 of them to be LIs, 2 of those LIs to be o/s only, 2 to be both o/s and s/s, therefore making the party member LI makeup for one playthrough: 2 o/s, 1 s/s. You want the remaining 6 party members to be unromanceable. Finally, you want there to be 2 s/s only NPCs, like Sam and Steve.

[draken-heart]

Battlebloodmage wrote...

What does sexuality has to do with it? Everyone has their own defined sexuality. It seems to me that you just don't want to get the short end of the straw when it comes to romance.

As a male gamer, my primary/canon characters in Bioware games are female who romance females, and I do not really care what happens to the romance, but I would feel better knowing that the LI is safe at the home base of the PC than with the PC on the battle field where they hurt, and I, as my PC would worry about them, all while knowing it is a game.

[draken-heart]

Renmiri1 wrote...

mentor - pupil romance = eww ?

You have just rejected 90% of yaoi 

http://tvtropes.org/...Main/MentorShip

I was joking. I have no problem with Guy on guy, but only feel that the mentor should be there to guide and help the hero, not to fall in love with them.

[jillabender]

draken-heart wrote...

jillabender wrote...

With respect, draken-heart, I'm don't quite understand what your reasoning is for wanting exclusively gay romances to be restricted to non-companion NPCs.

Is it because you strongly prefer for all romanceable companion characters to be romanceable by characters of any gender, but don't mind the idea of exclusively gay or straight romances for non-companion characters? I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

I like the Idea of inclusion, but not the idea of messing with a character idea by adding a same sex romance option. Origins had the best compromise: 3 each, 2 opposite sex, and 1 same sex. I just felt like adding another same sex option without messing with the set up of some potential romace options per gender and the rest of the party being like mentors/comrades.

Is your reasoning, then, that you prefer for each companion character to have a clearly defined sexual orientation, whether gay, straight or bi, and you see exclusively gay romances with non-companion characters as a way to do that without having markedly fewer same-sex romances compared to hetero ones?

I can understand that, but it's not something I would like to see, because many people don't seem to enjoy NPC romances as much as companion romances, partly for the reason that the time spent with the character tends to feel like less when they don't accompany the PC on missions, even when the amount of dialogue is the same.

If there were both gay and straight non-companion romances, I wouldn't mind it, but I don't like the idea of treating gay and straight romances differently when it comes to which are companions and which aren't.

Modifié par jillabender, 15 février 2013 - 11:12 .

[draken-heart]

jillabender wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

jillabender wrote...

With respect, draken-heart, I'm don't quite understand what your reasoning is for wanting exclusively gay romances to be restricted to non-companion NPCs.

Is it because you strongly prefer for all romanceable companion characters to be romanceable by characters of any gender, but don't mind the idea of exclusively gay or straight romances for non-companion characters? I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

I like the Idea of inclusion, but not the idea of messing with a character idea by adding a same sex romance option. Origins had the best compromise: 3 each, 2 opposite sex, and 1 same sex. I just felt like adding another same sex option without messing with the set up of some potential romace options per gender and the rest of the party being like mentors/comrades.

Is your reasoning, then, that you prefer for each companion character to have a clearly defined sexual orientation, whether gay, straight or bi, and you see exclusively gay romances with non-companion characters as a way to do that without having markedly fewer same-sex romances compared to hetero ones?

I can understand that, but it's not something I would like to see, because many people don't seem to enjoy NPC romances as much as companion romances, partly for the reason that the time spent with the character tends to feel like less when they don't accompany the PC on missions, even when the amount of dialogue is the same.

If there were both gay and straight NPC romance options, I wouldn't mind it, but I don't like the idea of treating gay and straight romances differently when it comes to which are companions and which aren't.

well, I can understand that. IF they could do S/S companions while making that companion feel like someone i would want to have at my side before they say they are gay/lesbian, I will drop the idea.

that and Liara's change in ME2&3 and Anders's change in DA2 from Awakening actually irked me, as they were some of my favorite characters in their respective franchises until those changes. Reason I chose Samantha in ME3, she was like Liara was in ME1

Modifié par draken-heart, 15 février 2013 - 11:13 .

[Battlebloodmage]

draken-heart wrote...

Battlebloodmage wrote...

What does sexuality has to do with it? Everyone has their own defined sexuality. It seems to me that you just don't want to get the short end of the straw when it comes to romance.

As a male gamer, my primary/canon characters in Bioware games are female who romance females, and I do not really care what happens to the romance, but I would feel better knowing that the LI is safe at the home base of the PC than with the PC on the battle field where they hurt, and I, as my PC would worry about them, all while knowing it is a game.

You may not care, but there are others who do care, and they don't want their romance to be limited just because there are people who are uncomfortable with gay companions. Under your proposal, gay characters are being treated worse for no reason other than discrimination for discrimination's sake. 

[draken-heart]

Battlebloodmage wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Battlebloodmage wrote...

What does sexuality has to do with it? Everyone has their own defined sexuality. It seems to me that you just don't want to get the short end of the straw when it comes to romance.

As a male gamer, my primary/canon characters in Bioware games are female who romance females, and I do not really care what happens to the romance, but I would feel better knowing that the LI is safe at the home base of the PC than with the PC on the battle field where they hurt, and I, as my PC would worry about them, all while knowing it is a game.

You may not care, but there are others who do care, and they don't want their romance to be limited just because there are people who are uncomfortable with gay companions. Under your proposal, gay characters are being treated worse for no reason other than discrimination for discrimination's sake. 

And you would do the same to straight romances. I do not see how that is fair to those who want straight companions as romances only to find their only options for non-bi/non-gay options are NPCs. so is heterosexual/homosexual companions with Bisexual NPCs.

the all NPC romances feel like Bioware is disciminating against romance lovers. and ALL companions would make it feel like a dating sim.

Modifié par draken-heart, 15 février 2013 - 11:19 .