596 réponses à ce sujet

[LPPrince]

HolySmite wrote...

Found it.

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

David Gaider wrote...

The companions are not "all bisexual", and the idea that some people (who can only come to this realization with either outside knowledge or upon repeated play) don't like the supposed subjective sexuality of romance characters is less important than fairness and fun gameplay. As I've said repeatedly, unless we possessed the resources to do a wider array of romance characters this will indeed be the way to go.

"upon repeated play"

I thought that was the point of Bioware games

Modifié par LPPrince, 20 mars 2013 - 02:59 .

[Neon Rising Winter]

I think words are the problem, what we need to illustrate this is a diagram, or maybe some kind of interpretive dance. Actually maybe those two bottles of cheap wine would help.

[slimgrin]

This is how DA became a dating sim.

[LPPrince]

Narrow Margin wrote...

I think words are the problem, what we need to illustrate this is a diagram, or maybe some kind of interpretive dance. Actually maybe those two bottles of cheap wine would help.

*sounds heard in the background*

Squadmate-"THE SONG OF MY PEOPLE."

*hurriedly shuffles away*

PC-"What the hell"

*insert interpretive dance*

Squadmate-"I LOVE GIRLS, GIRLS ARE GREAT. I LOVE GIRLS, THEY'RE MY MATES!"

*PC stares with O_o expression, possibly joins in on dance and song based on player's decision*

[Neon Rising Winter]

slimgrin wrote...

This is how DA became a dating sim.

What? Interpretive dance, cheap booze, and suggesting we show each other our etchings?

[LPPrince]

Lemme try to rapidly bring this back on topic-

What are the chances Bioware's been given the necessary funds to give the "optimal" solution of an equal amount of hetero, ******, and bisexual options instead of making every option playersexual?

[Paul E Dangerously]

I can't stand the fact that every single LI in DA2 ('cept Sebastian, but considering that's DLC) was playersexual, but it's one of those areas where people want something, but not something.

"More developed characters! More choice and consequence! But only if it doesn't block me from romancing my favorite character because they might actually have some sort of preference!"

[SongstressKitsune]

LPPrince wrote...

Narrow Margin wrote...

I think words are the problem, what we need to illustrate this is a diagram, or maybe some kind of interpretive dance. Actually maybe those two bottles of cheap wine would help.

*sounds heard in the background*

Squadmate-"THE SONG OF MY PEOPLE."

*hurriedly shuffles away*

PC-"What the hell"

*insert interpretive dance*

Squadmate-"I LOVE GIRLS, GIRLS ARE GREAT. I LOVE GIRLS, THEY'RE MY MATES!"

*PC stares with O_o expression, possibly joins in on dance and song based on player's decision*

Aaannnddd I had to look away from my laptop to avoid spitting my drink on it.

Well played.

[Fiacre]

LPPrince wrote...

Lemme try to rapidly bring this back on topic-

What are the chances Bioware's been given the necessary funds to give the "optimal" solution of an equal amount of hetero, ******, and bisexual options instead of making every option playersexual?

What about everyone being bisexual? As in, officially such, rather than two of them being "playersexual", but without making them "prove" their sexuality in some forced way?

[sharkboy421]

Sopa de Gato wrote...

I can't stand the fact that every single LI in DA2 ('cept Sebastian, but considering that's DLC) was playersexual, but it's one of those areas where people want something, but not something.

"More developed characters! More choice and consequence! But only if it doesn't block me from romancing my favorite character because they might actually have some sort of preference!"

I personally felt all the companions in DA2 were really well developed and were one of the best parts of the game.  The fact that Merrill, Fenris and Anders had no defined orientation (Izzy is cool with everyone), for me at least, detracted nothing from their overall character.  Merrill is Merrill whether she is romancing Lady Hawke, romancing male Hawke or just a companion to Hawke.

And I guess its how you look at it but the characters do have a preference.  The Fenris romancing male Hawke in game A prefers males.  The Fenris in game B who romances Lady Hawke prefers females.  Different game, its a different Fenris.

[mesmerizedish]

slimgrin wrote...

This is how DA became a dating sim.

You've never actually played a dating sim, have you 

[dragondreamer]

 If they had the extra funds, I'd rather have non-human race options back.  I'm perfectly happy with the "playersexual" solution.  

[Saibh]

HolySmite wrote...

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

Actually, I found the link I was originally thinking of: he has in the past seemed to have indicated otherwise. 

"My point is that their actions don't change, yet some people are deciding that their inference is enough to suggest the characters alter their preferences at the player's whim.

Even if they did, I'm not sure that would be a crime. Regardless, it's not the case."

It's very carefully worded, so I get the feeling there was a lot hesitance on the writer's parts to clarify what they meant in the face of ire. 

[ScarMK]

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.

I don't care what their preferences are, I want restrictions similiar to this.  Being able to romance anyone I want, no matter what kind of character I make, makes me feel like a sexual mary-sue.

[Darth Krytie]

ScarMK wrote...

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.

I don't care what their preferences are, I want restrictions similiar to this.  Being able to romance anyone I want, no matter what kind of character I make, makes me feel like a sexual mary-sue.

I'd rather have something based on a player's action restrict a romance over a gender-based issue.  I wouldn't have had an issue if Fenris refused to date a mage or Anders refused to date a Templar-supporter.  That sort of restriction makes actual sense to me instead of an arbitrary sexuality based one.

[Saibh]

Darth Krytie wrote...

I'd rather have something based on a player's action restrict a romance over a gender-based issue.  I wouldn't have had an issue if Fenris refused to date a mage or Anders refused to date a Templar-supporter.  That sort of restriction makes actual sense to me instead of an arbitrary sexuality based one.

I don't know if many people would call their sexuality and the decisions they make in a partner arbitrary. Being alright with all sexualities is about inclusiveness, not because those who like it or don't mind it think of sexuality as arbitrary.

[Darth Krytie]

Saibh wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...

I'd rather have something based on a player's action restrict a romance over a gender-based issue.  I wouldn't have had an issue if Fenris refused to date a mage or Anders refused to date a Templar-supporter.  That sort of restriction makes actual sense to me instead of an arbitrary sexuality based one.

I don't know if many people would call their sexuality and the decisions they make in a partner arbitrary. Being alright with all sexualities is about inclusiveness, not because those who like it or don't mind it think of sexuality as arbitrary.

Well, many people probably wouldn't. For me? I'm attracted to a person's personality first. I don't care what genitals a person has at all. So, to me, it is completely arbitrary. Though, I do understand most people don't function as I do.

Edit. In this context, the arbitrary comment was referring to the characters. Since they're not actual people, most times deciding their sexuality as a creator is arbitrary and quite often secondary to their characterizations.

Modifié par Darth Krytie, 20 mars 2013 - 04:14 .

[dragondreamer]

Darth Krytie wrote...

ScarMK wrote...

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.

I don't care what their preferences are, I want restrictions similiar to this.  Being able to romance anyone I want, no matter what kind of character I make, makes me feel like a sexual mary-sue.

I'd rather have something based on a player's action restrict a romance over a gender-based issue.  I wouldn't have had an issue if Fenris refused to date a mage or Anders refused to date a Templar-supporter.  That sort of restriction makes actual sense to me instead of an arbitrary sexuality based one.

I understand making these relationships more difficult if you don't align well to their opinions (which is already true), but at least with Fenris (I haven't tried romancing Anders yet) I thought the relationship was more interesting if you romance him with a mage.  Feelings aren't always convenient, and the more complicated emotions make for a better story.   And piling irony on Fenris is just all kinds of fun.

Being able to romance a character doesn't necessarily mean the relationship always ends well, however.  My second mage Hawke was apparently not enough of a sexual Mary Sue to keep Fenris.  

Having choices doesn't mean the outcome will always be favorable.  But it's very nice to have choices. 

[Darth Krytie]

dragondreamer wrote...



I understand making these relationships more difficult if you don't align well to their opinions (which is already true), but at least with Fenris (I haven't tried romancing Anders yet) I thought the relationship was more interesting if you romance him with a mage.  Feelings aren't always convenient, and the more complicated emotions make for a better story.   And piling irony on Fenris is just all kinds of fun.

Being able to romance a character doesn't necessarily mean the relationship always ends well, however.  My second mage Hawke was apparently not enough of a sexual Mary Sue to keep Fenris.  

Having choices doesn't mean the outcome will always be favorable.  But it's very nice to have choices. 

I totally romanced Fenris as a mage and Anders as a templar supporter. It was interesting. I was just saying I wouldn't have minded if I couldn't. I wouldn't mind if there were restrictions based on your actions. Because for me? Someone's actions always matter more to me than their gender.

[Rinji the Bearded]

slimgrin wrote...

This is how DA became a dating sim.

Ah yes, a dating sim without being anything like a dating sim.  Makes perfect sense.

[Rinji the Bearded]

Darth Krytie wrote...

I totally romanced Fenris as a mage and Anders as a templar supporter. It was interesting. I was just saying I wouldn't have minded if I couldn't. I wouldn't mind if there were restrictions based on your actions. Because for me? Someone's actions always matter more to me than their gender.

There are certain actions you can take in the game that will end a romance with either of them, I believe.

[Volus Warlord]

LPPrince wrote...

HolySmite wrote...

Found it.

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

David Gaider wrote...

The companions are not "all bisexual", and the idea that some people (who can only come to this realization with either outside knowledge or upon repeated play) don't like the supposed subjective sexuality of romance characters is less important than fairness and fun gameplay. As I've said repeatedly, unless we possessed the resources to do a wider array of romance characters this will indeed be the way to go.

"upon repeated play"

I thought that was the point of Bioware games

I'm.. just gonna go to bed.