596 réponses à ce sujet

[LPPrince]

TheBlackAdder13 wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

SongstressKitsune wrote...

and rather happy that the trend of "playersexual" LIs is going to continue into Inquisition.

Do we know that for a certainty?

The devs have said they're happy with the system and in previous discussions stated that a system with individualized sexual orientations for LIs isn't feasible from a resource angle so it's a safe extrapolation to make. 

So its just an extrapolation then?

[Neon Rising Winter]

LPPrince wrote...

So its just an extrapolation then?

The noises that have been made imply that's the way it's going, but yeah, haven't seen any flat out confirmation. Put it this way, I'd put a tenner on it, but not fifty.

[Saibh]

Honestly, I'd like a bit more definition in taste anyway. If, say, Velanna were romanceable, it would make sense for her to refuse to date a non-elf (or at least a human). I wouldn't mind if Fenris didn't want to date a mage, or at least if it took a lot more cajoling (even if I think that DAII makes it clear that's not the kind of guy he is), or if Anders absolutely wouldn't date someone who hated mages. I wouldn't see someone like Aveline dating a lawbreaking jackass, etc.

I do wish there were more definition to who a romanceable character is will to date or not, but I understand that it's simply not something that would be received well by the player base. So long as companions don't seem to have strong external desires not controlled by the PC, I don't think anyone has a leg to stand on when they complain about bi companions.

[Winterz]

Actually that was exactly what they intended and it's perfect if you ask me. Mr. Gaider told somewhere that they aren't all bi but they have"subjective sexuality"(with the exception of Isabela and Anders)

Modifié par HolySmite, 20 mars 2013 - 02:10 .

[Neon Rising Winter]

krul2k wrote...

ohh dont know bout a tenner either, thats a coupla bottles of the ole cheapo wine right ther

But if I'm right it's four bottles...

[lady_v23]

Why is this an issue? Is It?

[SongstressKitsune]

LPPrince wrote...

TheBlackAdder13 wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

SongstressKitsune wrote...

and rather happy that the trend of "playersexual" LIs is going to continue into Inquisition.

Do we know that for a certainty?

The devs have said they're happy with the system and in previous discussions stated that a system with individualized sexual orientations for LIs isn't feasible from a resource angle so it's a safe extrapolation to make. 

So its just an extrapolation then?

Perhaps I should have said "is likely to continue." All noise made from devs on the topic so far seems to indicate such.

[lady_v23]

Fiacre wrote...

Personally, I find the idea that a character has to explicitly show interest in both sexes for them to be considered a "true bisexual" somewhat uncomfortable and... offensive.

A *lot* of bi/pansexuals don't do that, and their sexualities aren't any less valid simply because they don't overtly show them. A lot also have preferences -- it's perfectly possible, for example, that Merrill is bisexual, but has a preference for men and is more likely to indicate attraction to them as a result.That doesn't invalidate her sexuality -- she can still be attracted to females, still be *romantically* attracted to females -- and it doesn't invalidate her relationship with a female Hawke. It simply means she has a preference.

To be bi/pan, you don't have to go around and talk about who you're attracted to just to prove to others that your bi/pan. I don't. I've been friends with people for years, and yet have never talked with them about my sexuality. It doesn't make me any less pansexual. It doesn't make any potential character not bi/pan. There's no set of behaviour that come with sexuality, no rule that you must indicate that you're interested in two genders just to be considered bisexual. Saying there has to be is *not* helping representation.

THIS!  spot on.

[Saibh]

HolySmite wrote...

Actually that was exactly what they intended and it's perfect if you ask me. Mr. Gaider told somewhere that they aren't all bi but they have"subjective sexuality"(with the exception of Isabela and Anders)

He's said the opposite, in fact. 

[LPPrince]

SongstressKitsune wrote...

Perhaps I should have said "is likely to continue." All noise made from devs on the topic so far seems to indicate such.

Hmm. I'd hope not. I'd rather they write more strongly defined characters that won't have feelings for the PC depending on gender, opinion on certain subjects, attitude, etc etc.

For example, Merrill not falling in love with an Aggressive Hawke because thats not her thing and its a turn off(though dominant tone being removed is confirmed so this particular example isn't exactly possible going forward).

But you catch my drift.

Modifié par LPPrince, 20 mars 2013 - 02:19 .

[Winterz]

Saibh wrote...

HolySmite wrote...

Actually that was exactly what they intended and it's perfect if you ask me. Mr. Gaider told somewhere that they aren't all bi but they have"subjective sexuality"(with the exception of Isabela and Anders)

He's said the opposite, in fact. 

No he didnt.

http://social.biowar...4520/4#11788060

I'l try to find the other post where he said it again and said that they'll keep with it.

Modifié par HolySmite, 20 mars 2013 - 02:24 .

[Darth Krytie]

Fiacre wrote...

Personally, I find the idea that a character has to explicitly show interest in both sexes for them to be considered a "true bisexual" somewhat uncomfortable and... offensive.

A *lot* of bi/pansexuals don't do that, and their sexualities aren't any less valid simply because they don't overtly show them. A lot also have preferences -- it's perfectly possible, for example, that Merrill is bisexual, but has a preference for men and is more likely to indicate attraction to them as a result.That doesn't invalidate her sexuality -- she can still be attracted to females, still be *romantically* attracted to females -- and it doesn't invalidate her relationship with a female Hawke. It simply means she has a preference.

To be bi/pan, you don't have to go around and talk about who you're attracted to just to prove to others that your bi/pan. I don't. I've been friends with people for years, and yet have never talked with them about my sexuality. It doesn't make me any less pansexual. It doesn't make any potential character not bi/pan. There's no set of behaviour that come with sexuality, no rule that you must indicate that you're interested in two genders just to be considered bisexual. Saying there has to be is *not* helping representation.

This is exactly the best post I've seen on the matter. I'm pan and I don't go around with the "Hello, my name is Darth Krytie and I'm Pansexual" sticker on my shirt. I think that it's fine if you don't have your all bi-love interests give you a spreadsheet of who they found attractive and what they did about it as proof they are bisexual.

[LPPrince]

HolySmite wrote...

Saibh wrote...

HolySmite wrote...

Actually that was exactly what they intended and it's perfect if you ask me. Mr. Gaider told somewhere that they aren't all bi but they have"subjective sexuality"(with the exception of Isabela and Anders)

He's said the opposite, in fact. 

No he didnt.

http://social.biowar...4520/4#11788060

I'l try to find the other post where he said it again and said that they'll keep with it.

David Gaider wrote...

Whether or not we'll change our approach in the future depends mostly on time/resources. The "spread" of options that gets mentioned from time to time is probably the ideal in terms of options/verisimilitude, but it's also the most expensive in terms of resources... which is why it gets mentioned so often on forums, as resources are never an issue here.  

Hopefully they got more money

[Saibh]

HolySmite wrote...
No he didnt.

http://social.biowar...4520/4#11788060

I'l try to find the other post where he said it again and said that they'll keep with it.

Huh. Interesting. I interpreted this as being a defense of the 'they're all bisexual' idea. It's a bit odd, that's a much weaker argument when they are specifically making it inconsistent. But that's an argument for another thread.

[LPPrince]

Hell, if the spread of options(hetero, ******, bi) is expensive(I imagine because more options equals more happy players), I'd think about reducing the amount of options.

2 heterosexuals, 2 homosexuals, and 2 bisexuals=6 romanceable squadmates, which could be too much

so why not 1 heterosexual, 1 homosexual, and 1 bisexual? Yeah, its only three, but then does the game really need a ton of romance options?

[BlueMagitek]

Saibh wrote...

Honestly, I'd like a bit more definition in taste anyway. If, say, Velanna were romanceable, it would make sense for her to refuse to date a non-elf (or at least a human). I wouldn't mind if Fenris didn't want to date a mage, or at least if it took a lot more cajoling (even if I think that DAII makes it clear that's not the kind of guy he is), or if Anders absolutely wouldn't date someone who hated mages. I wouldn't see someone like Aveline dating a lawbreaking jackass, etc.

I do wish there were more definition to who a romanceable character is will to date or not, but I understand that it's simply not something that would be received well by the player base. So long as companions don't seem to have strong external desires not controlled by the PC, I don't think anyone has a leg to stand on when they complain about bi companions.

If I recall correctly, this is how it was back in BG2.  Certain characters weren't attracted to certain races and whatnot.  But you're right, doing that now would result in quite a few angry forummites (well, Bioware doing just about anything does that anyway).  I mean, Ashley is nearly crucified for being a "fundy racist" (to be fair, more emphasis is put on the racist part) as a more prominant example (and some people were livid that Tali wouldn't romance femShep). 

Could you imagine the outrage if, say, we had a Chantry member (not someone like Leliana, but perhaps a fullblown Mother) who refuses to romance a Mage player character not only because of the Chantry laws (see Mage Origin) but also because she just doesn't want to get involved with a Mage?  Or a blood mage who would refuse to sully himself with a less being (a non mage)?  Yes, you could argue that these are flaws, but the vitrol that would be leveled at them (and Bioware) would be enormous.  They'd have to create a character forum just to shut it down.

To be honest, I would have liked to see something like that for Merrill's romance.  Girl, you being around humans supposedly makes you live less, why on earth would you date one? ~_~

[Neon Rising Winter]

LPPrince wrote...

Hell, if the spread of options(hetero, ******, bi) is expensive(I imagine because more options equals more happy players), I'd think about reducing the amount of options.

2 heterosexuals, 2 homosexuals, and 2 bisexuals=6 romanceable squadmates, which could be too much

so why not 1 heterosexual, 1 homosexual, and 1 bisexual? Yeah, its only three, but then does the game really need a ton of romance options?

Because at that point heterosexual people of one gender will complain they only have one option, while the other gets two. Likewise homosexual people of one gender will have one option while the other has two. And if you managed a really unfortunate combination of LIs then bisexual people of one gender would have three options while the other has one. At this point hilarity ensues and you have to give the board moderator hazard pay.

[BlueMagitek]

LPPrince wrote...

Hell, if the spread of options(hetero, ******, bi) is expensive(I imagine because more options equals more happy players), I'd think about reducing the amount of options.

2 heterosexuals, 2 homosexuals, and 2 bisexuals=6 romanceable squadmates, which could be too much

so why not 1 heterosexual, 1 homosexual, and 1 bisexual? Yeah, its only three, but then does the game really need a ton of romance options?

I believe Jade Empire had, for males, 1 heterosexual (open to a threesome) and 2 bisexuals (1m, 1f).
For women this translated to 2 bisexual love interests (1m, 1f).

Modifié par BlueMagitek, 20 mars 2013 - 02:50 .

[LPPrince]

People are gonna complain no matter what in the end of the day.

Even if everything was as close to perfect as you can get, perfect doesn't exist so someone out there would have a problem with something.

[LPPrince]

Narrow Margin wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Hell, if the spread of options(hetero, ******, bi) is expensive(I imagine because more options equals more happy players), I'd think about reducing the amount of options.

2 heterosexuals, 2 homosexuals, and 2 bisexuals=6 romanceable squadmates, which could be too much

so why not 1 heterosexual, 1 homosexual, and 1 bisexual? Yeah, its only three, but then does the game really need a ton of romance options?

Because at that point heterosexual people of one gender will complain they only have one option, while the other gets two. Likewise homosexual people of one gender will have one option while the other has two. And if you managed a really unfortunate combination of LIs then bisexual people of one gender would have three options while the other has one. At this point hilarity ensues and you have to give the board moderator hazard pay.

My bad, should've done 1 heterosexual option, 1 homosexual option, and 2 bisexual options, one of each gender.

Then whether male or female the PC has three options.

[LPPrince]

DAMN IT I CONFUSED MYSELF

I'M GONNA LET OTHER PEOPLE DO THE TALKY TALKY

[Winterz]

HolySmite wrote...

Saibh wrote...

HolySmite wrote...

Actually that was exactly what they intended and it's perfect if you ask me. Mr. Gaider told somewhere that they aren't all bi but they have"subjective sexuality"(with the exception of Isabela and Anders)

He's said the opposite, in fact. 

No he didnt.

http://social.biowar...4520/4#11788060

I'l try to find the other post where he said it again and said that they'll keep with it.

Found it.

http://social.biowar...5183/4#15117521

[LPPrince]

krul2k wrote...

there there LP welcome to my world

HOLD ME