173 réponses à ce sujet

[ElitePinecone]

IceHawk-181 wrote...


I significantly preferred the manner in which DA:O handled this issue; Heterosexual characters (2), Homosexual Characters (2), and Bisexual (2) characters. 

DAO only had two bisexual and two straight characters. There was only one option in the game for male/male and female/female romances.

[sandalisthemaker]

IanPolaris wrote...

Battlebloodmage wrote...

What's the difference between how DA handle herosexuality with the way other games like Skyrim and Dragon's Dogma handle herosexuality? You don't see as much complain on those games as you do on Dragon's Age.

I don't know about Dragon's Dogma, but I can speak for Skyrim.  Skyrim handles this completely differently.  LI's in Skyrium are NOT herosexual.  They prefer men, women, or both.  Also Skyrium tends to be very sketchy at best when handling romance (i.e. talk, get a marriage quest, buy a funny amulet, get married, and then have the S.O. make you an occassional mean).

So Skyrim is not a good example of hero-sexual coding, and Skyrim doesn't bother with interesting romances anyway.

-Polaris

No.
Everyone in Skyrim available for marriage will marry you regardless of your gender or species as long as you complete their favor quest and have an amulet of Mara on you.

[Ianamus]

IanPolaris wrote...

I disagree.  I find player-sexuality to be a significant minus especially since in many cases it's a simple substitution of the gender pronoun, and that does (IMHO) does the different sexual orientations a gross disservice.  I dislike the notion of sacrificing good background and good game play on the alter of "fairness" (or shall I simply be blunt and call it political correctness).

I didn't see too many people up in arms about Samantha and Steve being exclusive ******-sexual relationships.

-Polaris

So a relationship between two women or two men is fundamentally different than a relationship between a man and a woman? A relationship between the player charcter and an LI has to be completely rewritten depending on the player characters gender?

The way Bioware does it at the moment implies that the only thing that changes in the relationship based on the player characters gender is the player charcters gender. In my opinion, when one of the largest issues is people viewing s/s relationships as unequal or fundamentally different to m/f relationships this is the best thing they can do. 

Modifié par EJ107, 13 juin 2013 - 07:12 .

[IanPolaris]

IceHawk-181 wrote...

And to the concept of "re-writing" Morrigan or Alistair to suddenly be Bi-Sexual...What? Is it offensive to have hetero-sexual characters now?

Apparently it is.  Notice the hew and cry when some of us suggest that some LIs be gender exclusive, but no one that's part of that hew and cry complains when two new relationships in ME3 (Steve and Samantha) are exclusive.....but homosexually exclusive.

I smell political correctness.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Battlebloodmage wrote...

What's the difference between how DA handle herosexuality with the way other games like Skyrim and Dragon's Dogma handle herosexuality? You don't see as much complain on those games as you do on Dragon's Age.

I don't know about Dragon's Dogma, but I can speak for Skyrim.  Skyrim handles this completely differently.  LI's in Skyrium are NOT herosexual.  They prefer men, women, or both.  Also Skyrium tends to be very sketchy at best when handling romance (i.e. talk, get a marriage quest, buy a funny amulet, get married, and then have the S.O. make you an occassional mean).

So Skyrim is not a good example of hero-sexual coding, and Skyrim doesn't bother with interesting romances anyway.

-Polaris

No.
Everyone in Skyrim available for marriage will marry you regardless of your gender or species as long as you complete their favor quest and have an amulet of Mara on you.

No they are not unless you mode-code them to do so (at least when I played Skyrim out of the box there was a definate list of LIs that were male only, female only, or both).  Yes it's trivial to mode the LIs go the other way, but I definately recall that Skyrim was NOT a herosexual world.

Edit: If you aren't the right gender, you don't get the correct favor quest.  I do agree that species is overlooked in Skyrim.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 13 juin 2013 - 07:13 .

[GodWood]

Would love the "playersexual" bull**** to be scrapped but I completely expect it to return.

It's a shame really, I much prefer characters to be independent from the PC as opposed to props that contort to their desires.

[IceHawk-181]

ElitePinecone wrote...

IceHawk-181 wrote...

(BTW, making all LI's Hero-Sexual is not "inclusiveness," its lazy writing. 

This is simply not true. You can repeat that a thousand times and it doesn't change that the motivation for having all love interests open to both genders of player-character is so that people can romance who they like, and to give equal options for opposite-sex and same-sex romance. 

You might not consider it inclusive - and you might not even value inclusiveness - but that's the reason they're doing it. Laziness has nothing to do with it, unless you'd prefer the game divert resources away from other areas to focus on romance dialogue. 

Is Dragon Age Inquisition a High-Fantasy RPG or a Romance Simulator?

If it is the former I would expect well-defined individual characters that have set concepts of self and identities that do not bend to the will of the PC just because a portion of the player base wants to be able to bed one particular character.
 
It is not realistic even within this fantasy setting that every single individual regardless of race or sex wants to romance the player character.
 
Inclusiveness is introducing a believable non-caricatured LI of each particular persuasion; ridiculous laziness is making every single NPC suddenly smitten with the PC.
 
I remember a time when we could manage to make it through a game without being able to kill or sleep with every single character we wanted to and people recognized it as realistic restrictions within a supposedly (SOD-willing) believable world without it being some great restriction on our moral cosmology.

Modifié par IceHawk-181, 13 juin 2013 - 07:13 .

[Maclimes]

wright1978 wrote...

Personally i can compartmentalise my universes. The sexuality of a companion in one playthrough being different is no different to me than all of the details of the protaganist i'm roleplaying being different. In a world of limited resources i'd prefer the element of choice this system provides rather than fixed companion sexuality with no choice or negligent resources per choice.

There are a lot of things I disliked about the DA2 Anders (by comparison to DAA Anders).

His sexuality is not even on the list. It never bugged me at all.

[Battlebloodmage]

IanPolaris wrote...

IceHawk-181 wrote...

And to the concept of "re-writing" Morrigan or Alistair to suddenly be Bi-Sexual...What? Is it offensive to have hetero-sexual characters now?

Apparently it is.  Notice the hew and cry when some of us suggest that some LIs be gender exclusive, but no one that's part of that hew and cry complains when two new relationships in ME3 (Steve and Samantha) are exclusive.....but homosexually exclusive.

I smell political correctness.

-Polaris

If they could give everyone equal amount then I don't think a lot of people would complain. The main problem many people have with DAO is that they have to stuck with one LI if they choose to romance the S/S. 

[IceHawk-181]

GodWood wrote...

Would love the "playersexual" bull**** to be scrapped but I completely expect it to return.

It's a shame really, I much prefer characters to be independent from the PC as opposed to props that contort to their desires.

 But that would be wrong....

 Shale

[IanPolaris]

Battlebloodmage wrote...

If they could give everyone equal amount then I don't think a lot of people would complain. The main problem many people have with DAO is that they have to stuck with one LI if they choose to romance the S/S. 

I actually sympathize with that.  Of course if this was a huge concern the best solution is to remove party romance entirely.  Then it's equal, right?

-Polaris

[Battlebloodmage]

IanPolaris wrote...

Battlebloodmage wrote...

If they could give everyone equal amount then I don't think a lot of people would complain. The main problem many people have with DAO is that they have to stuck with one LI if they choose to romance the S/S. 

I actually sympathize with that.  Of course if this was a huge concern the best solution is to remove party romance entirely.  Then it's equal, right?

-Polaris

Meh, I don't really mind. Romance is Bioware enhanced the game, but it's not a must for me. 

[Maclimes]

Battlebloodmage wrote...
If they could give everyone equal amount then I don't think a lot of people would complain. The main problem many people have with DAO is that they have to stuck with one LI if they choose to romance the S/S. 

I believe that's what i boils down to.

If I'm a straight male, I have three choices:
1. Morrigan
2. Leliana
3. No one

If I'm gay, I have only two choices:
1. Zevran
2. No one

There don't need to be a million different options across all possible configurations of sexual preference. But having at least two choices available for each is fair. And by doing the "player-sexual" route, you are able to do so with far less resources. It's not "lazy", it's "economical".

[sandalisthemaker]

IanPolaris wrote...

Battlebloodmage wrote...

If they could give everyone equal amount then I don't think a lot of people would complain. The main problem many people have with DAO is that they have to stuck with one LI if they choose to romance the S/S. 

I actually sympathize with that.  Of course if this was a huge concern the best solution is to remove party romance entirely.  Then it's equal, right?

-Polaris

No.
The best solution is to make everyone available.
If you feel it does a "disservice to heterosexual relationships," then don't romance anyone.

[IanPolaris]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

No.
The best solution is to make everyone available.
If you feel it does a "disservice to heterosexual relationships," then don't romance anyone.

I disagree.  Making everyone available and hero-sexual damages the integrity of the game world (willing suspension of disbelief) and IMHO it also comes across as pandering (which I'll be blunt: Bioware has done a lot of that lately).  Simply removing the romance options is expressly fair and equal and doesn't hurt the integrity of the game world.  It's also more cost effective since it involves removing non-essential items and actually makes the game easier to code.

Thus it would seem to be the better solution.

-Polaris

[IceHawk-181]

Again, I ask what was wrong with the DA:O or ME2 models?

Morrigan, Miranda, Jack, and Tali were not interested in a FemPC.
Alistair, Garrus, Jacob, and Thane were not interested in a MalePC.

Oghren, Sten, Shale, Wynne, Varric, and Aveline were not interested in anybody.

Why is that suddenly a problem?

[sandalisthemaker]

IanPolaris wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

No.
The best solution is to make everyone available.
If you feel it does a "disservice to heterosexual relationships," then don't romance anyone.

I disagree.  Making everyone available and hero-sexual damages the integrity of the game world (willing suspension of disbelief) and IMHO it also comes across as pandering (which I'll be blunt: Bioware has done a lot of that lately).  Simply removing the romance options is expressly fair and equal and doesn't hurt the integrity of the game world.  It's also more cost effective since it involves removing non-essential items and actually makes the game easier to code.

Thus it would seem to be the better solution.

-Polaris

This is laugable.

Modifié par sandalisthemaker, 13 juin 2013 - 07:22 .

[GodWood]

sandalisthemaker wrote...
The best solution is to make everyone available.

Or come to terms with the fact that not everyone wants the player's dick.

Honestly I miss the days where there were more restrictions such as race and morality.

Modifié par GodWood, 13 juin 2013 - 07:23 .

[Medhia Nox]

@IanPolaris: Same kind of equal destroying all magic on Thedas would be.

@Battlebloodmage: Equal amounts is really unfair to ask for. There are not equal amounts of straight/gay gamers - and this is a business, not a charity.

Note: I am gay (shouldn't have mattered, but I suspect what the comeback would be). Not providing equal amounts is NOT the same as homophobia. (You didn't say it was - but I feel it needs to be asserted.)

====

That being said - while I would like some representation - these games are not about relationships to me, and those represented are puerile representations at their best (opinion). So - not having one hardly feels missed to me. DA has yet to provide anything resembling a relationship I'd be interested in.

If the game were about a romance (and the trials and tribulations of that romance in an adventure) - I'd have a very different opinion - but video games haven't grown up yet, so we've got some time before that argument needs to be made.

[Battlebloodmage]

IceHawk-181 wrote...

Again, I ask what was wrong with the DA:O or ME2 models?

Morrigan, Miranda, Jack, and Tali were not interested in a FemPC.
Alistair, Garrus, Jacob, and Thane were not interested in a MalePC.

Oghren, Sten, Shale, Wynne, Varric, and Aveline were not interested in anybody.

Why is that suddenly a problem?

If they could give more option to everyone then not a lot of people would complain as stated many times when this topic comes up. Even Mr. Gaider stated that it would be something he prefers to do if there are enough resources to go around.

[Nerdage]

EJ107 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I disagree.  I find player-sexuality to be a significant minus especially since in many cases it's a simple substitution of the gender pronoun, and that does (IMHO) does the different sexual orientations a gross disservice.  I dislike the notion of sacrificing good background and good game play on the alter of "fairness" (or shall I simply be blunt and call it political correctness).

I didn't see too many people up in arms about Samantha and Steve being exclusive ******-sexual relationships.

-Polaris

So a relationship between two women or two men is fundamentally different than a relationship between a man and a woman? A relationship between the player charcter and an LI has to be completely rewritten depending on the player characters gender?

The way Bioware does it at the moment implies that the only thing that changes in the relationship based on the player characters gender is the player charcters gender. In my opinion, when one of the largest issues is people viewing s/s relationships as unequal or fundamentally different to m/f relationships this is the best thing they can do. 

Freakin' hats off to you; succinctly put.

It never fails to annoy me when people seem to suggest a character isn't gay enough to be gay, I really don't know what they expect. Then, if s/g and o/g relationships are fundamentally the same, and a fair chunk of the content is already there for a romance, I don't really see the case for a gender-check when they could create a new choice for the player instead.

Modifié par nerdage, 13 juin 2013 - 07:24 .

[IanPolaris]

Maclimes wrote...

Battlebloodmage wrote...
If they could give everyone equal amount then I don't think a lot of people would complain. The main problem many people have with DAO is that they have to stuck with one LI if they choose to romance the S/S. 

I believe that's what i boils down to.

If I'm a straight male, I have three choices:
1. Morrigan
2. Leliana
3. No one

If I'm gay, I have only two choices:
1. Zevran
2. No one

There don't need to be a million different options across all possible configurations of sexual preference. But having at least two choices available for each is fair. And by doing the "player-sexual" route, you are able to do so with far less resources. It's not "lazy", it's "economical".

What DAO needed to do (if they were going to keep romances) would have been to have two more romance options, one ******-sexual exclusive female and one ******-sexual exclusive male.  Add those two in, and it's fair for everyone without resorting to hero-sexuality (which I regard as a copout).

-Polaris

[Battlebloodmage]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@IanPolaris: Same kind of equal destroying all magic on Thedas would be.

@Battlebloodmage: Equal amounts is really unfair to ask for. There are not equal amounts of straight/gay gamers - and this is a business, not a charity.

Note: I am gay (shouldn't have mattered, but I suspect what the comeback would be). Not providing equal amounts is NOT the same as homophobia. (You didn't say it was - but I feel it needs to be asserted.)

====

That being said - while I would like some representation - these games are not about relationships to me, and those represented are puerile representations at their best (opinion). So - not having one hardly feels missed to me. DA has yet to provide anything resembling a relationship I'd be interested in.

If the game were about a romance (and the trials and tribulations of that romance in an adventure) - I'd have a very different opinion - but video games haven't grown up yet, so we've got some time before that argument needs to be made.

I think my problem is more about having choices in LI rather than equal amount. I just don't want to get stuck with just one LI like I did in DAO, I just don't like Zevran, so I don't have anyone else to pick. For others, if they don't like Lelianna, they still have Morrigan. 

[Maclimes]

GodWood wrote...

Or come to terms with the fact that not everyone wants the player's dick.

Honestly I miss the days where there were more restrictions such as race and morality.

In an IDEAL world, the romances available to the player would be restricted by more complex attributes than "male" or "female".

Character A is a female, and likes only warrior men.
Character B is a male, and likes men or women, but they must be dark skinned.
Character C is a female, and likes men or women, but they must be from nobility or wealth.
Character D is a male, and likes only men who are vocal in support of mages.

HOWEVER, that level of realism and complexity is beyond us for now. FOR THE MOMENT, let's just be happy with what we have. As resources and technology improves, we can look at more complex systems for modelling human interaction.

[sandalisthemaker]

GodWood wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...
The best solution is to make everyone available.

Or come to terms with the fact that not everyone wants the player's dick.

Honestly I miss the days where there were more restrictions such as race and morality.

Apparently they do.
I'm curious. What do you mean by "restrictions such as race."
Your 'morality' has no bearing on Thedas' , nor does it affect Bioware's stance.