1981 réponses à ce sujet

[daaaav]

Silfren wrote...

daaaav wrote...

Silfren wrote...


I guess I don't see anything in DA2 that implies that the companions are ever defined by the character.  There is a heavily implied flirtation between Merrill and Carver.  Isabela and Fenris have a sexual relationship if neither are involved with the player.  Anders is the only one that comes close to what you describe, but his own story refutes the idea that his sexuality is defined by the player: he acknowledges a previous relationship with Karl to a male Hawke, and to either Hawke makes it clear that he avoided committed relationships for his own reasons, plus we know from Awakening that he had sexual relationships with women...not to mention he alludes to sex in DA2. 

What, about any of that, suggests that they have no sexuality except according to the PC?

Nicely put. Your question does however highlight that Bioware have been able to develop the  bisexual characters (Anders and Isabella) to a greater extent (in terms of their sexualities) than the more "player sexual" ones (Fenris and Merrill). As I said before, the impact of this varies with the natures of each character and I am not saying that Bioware CANNOT make this work in DAI but I will say that Isabella and Anders felt like more complete characters than Fenris or Merrill. 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say since I just refuted the idea that either Merrill or Fenris are playersexual, if we define that by whether they have sexual expressions outside of the PC.  This is objectively demonstated with Fenris in concrete terms, and Merrill's is strongly implied.  So my question doesn't highlight what you think it does, I'm afraid.  It actually shows that these allegedly playersexual characters ARE defined separately from the PC in terms of their sexuality.

Not really. Your example with Fenris only occurs if he isn't in a relationship with the PC. As this state of affairs must be given some time to develop, the writer is limited in what he can write for Fenris until it is determined. Merril is given one piece of dialogue... You can objectively see a difference between these two pairs of characters. 

Once again not all characters are required to extrude Isabella levels of sexuality from the moment you meet them, but this does cause real limitations. Ofcourse, the writers could make all characters explicitly bisexual, which would eleminate this particular problem - and introduce new ones...

Modifié par daaaav, 29 juin 2013 - 05:38 .

[LarryDavid]

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...

LarryDavid wrote...
The filter you use result in 1 LI in DAO ad 2 in DA2. Some people want LIs that are solely straight and hence they had 1 option in DAO and 0 in DA2. So why would the implementation of DA2 be the fairest? What is you moral ground to make absolute statements about what is fairest for everyone?

Do you know what "tyranny of the majority" means?  

If what was "fair" was to "proportionally represent" the player base (as iirc your previous posts suggested), that would challenge the very meaning of the word "fair."  Countries around the world have so strongly reacted to the failings of catering to the majority that they have legislated equal protection and equal treatment of minorities into their legal systems, strictly because acting in a way that only fulfills the need and wants of a "majority" (which that majority might mistakenly call "fair") results in an unjust and unconscionable detriment to minorities.  Things are far from perfect in terms of equality, but in a fantasy game, where it's easy to implement equal treatment, what compelling reason is there not to?  "Unrealistic," "uncomfortable," "not ideal," and similar arguments are reasons, but at least by my judgment, are not compelling reasons, and do not defeat the reason of equality.

I'm not saying that BioWare owes me anything, but if we're going to discuss what would be "fair," let's not muddy the waters between what is subjectively satisfying and what is equal.

I remember saying that in this discussion one can envision several valid definitions of fair. Everyone uses his own definition which is based on their own preferences. But most people consider their definition as something objective and use it to make absolute statements and to label other people as unfair. What I am saying is that (in most cases) those other people also have a valid definition for what is fair and come to a different conclusion than you. So you have no bases whatsoever to say thing like "IS fair", "equal treatment MEANS ..."

Furtermore, no matter what definition for fair you use, you still need objective information to say "I think that this solution IS fair". In most cases people who use the 'majority' definition can make such statements because the majority is known. What I also said is that I haven't seen objective facts to backup the other definitions of fairness. Most of the people that complain about making every LI bi, will still romance these characters. But there are also people that only want LIs that are solely romancable by the gender they play. And I guess they are a minority too. So what is your moral basis to say that one minority is more important than an other minority. Is it fair to argue for a system where some people get access to more LIs while others get none (DA2) or is it fair to argue for a system where they both had at least 1 option (DAO)?

5+2 equals 7. If I give Bob 2 breads and John 2 breads I have given them an equal amount of bread. But if Bob asked for 1 bread and john asked for 3 breads, have I'm treated them equally? I'm a Phd student and when I started I got about 1800EUR just like every other Phd student. But if I had gone to the private sector I would have started with 2000 or something like that, while phd students who have a different degree than mine would start with 1400. So is this equal treatment? Is it fair that I get paid less than my market value whereas others get paid a lot more than their market value? I am completely biased and I think that the wage of a phd student should somehow reflect the economic market. But at least I realise that my definition of fairness in this case is not objective.

So what bothers me is that people from your side of the argument, consider their subjective definitions of 'fair' and 'equal' to be the moral ones and accordingly act like they have all the justice in the world to back them up. In an argument like this, where 'fairness' is extremely relative the only thing you can do is nicely try to make your oponnents understand that your definition of 'fair' is a valid one. Someone did just that and I was convinced. But when I'm reading topics like this I'm starting to change my mind because I don't want people making that kind of arguments to get their way.

[Fredward]

LarryDavid wrote...
Someone did just that and I was convinced. But when I'm reading topics like this I'm starting to change my mind because I don't want people making that kind of arguments to get their way.

For a post that quite eloquently expresses your views on fairness this last bit seems really out of place.

[LPPrince]

Silfren wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Where's that quote of Gaider saying that if the resources were there and they could do it, he'd prefer to have equal measures of straight, same and bisexual romance options, rather than all available to everyone? But that if the resources for that aren't there, they'll go with all romances available to everyone?

I wouldn't know where to look but its out there somewhere, probably in this thread already.

I remember that quote, yes. And in a way, I think it's disappointing that Bioware feels romances, an arguably small facet of their games, must cater equally to all sexual orientations. Even if they do manage this one day it won't make everyone happy because you'll inevitably have people claim they don't like the LIs open to them and would prefer to romance that LI over there who's just not into them because the PC's gender isn't what gets them interested.

In short, they can't win.

This...doesn't really make any sense, given the way Bioware makes its LIs all-inclusive right now means that they ARE managing to do it, right now, and all the LIs already ARE available to the PC regardless of gender. 

Bioware is not attempting to make everyone happy. That never has been their goal, probably because I'm sure they all already know that it isn't humanly possible.  But they do strive to make as many people as possible happy, and the all-inclusive approach they take to the LIs is the best option.

Well, I got to say I hope they get the necessary resources for Gaider to get what he would've preferred as of that quote(wherever it is), rather than the next best thing which is what DA2 ended up getting.

[Ghost Lightning]

I'm sorry, but looking at the title of this thread is like playing one of those "One of these things is not like the others" games...

[Fredward]

Ghost Lightning wrote...

I'm sorry, but looking at the title of this thread is like playing one of those "One of these things is not like the others" games...

Yeah. No idea what characterization is doing there.

[Silfren]

LPPrince wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Where's that quote of Gaider saying that if the resources were there and they could do it, he'd prefer to have equal measures of straight, same and bisexual romance options, rather than all available to everyone? But that if the resources for that aren't there, they'll go with all romances available to everyone?

I wouldn't know where to look but its out there somewhere, probably in this thread already.

I remember that quote, yes. And in a way, I think it's disappointing that Bioware feels romances, an arguably small facet of their games, must cater equally to all sexual orientations. Even if they do manage this one day it won't make everyone happy because you'll inevitably have people claim they don't like the LIs open to them and would prefer to romance that LI over there who's just not into them because the PC's gender isn't what gets them interested.

In short, they can't win.

This...doesn't really make any sense, given the way Bioware makes its LIs all-inclusive right now means that they ARE managing to do it, right now, and all the LIs already ARE available to the PC regardless of gender. 

Bioware is not attempting to make everyone happy. That never has been their goal, probably because I'm sure they all already know that it isn't humanly possible.  But they do strive to make as many people as possible happy, and the all-inclusive approach they take to the LIs is the best option.

Well, I got to say I hope they get the necessary resources for Gaider to get what he would've preferred as of that quote(wherever it is), rather than the next best thing which is what DA2 ended up getting.

*sigh* The quote you're looking for is in this thread, actually, exactly as you said it would be the first time you mentioned it. If you want it that badly, go through each page of the thread and do a cntrl+f search for "gaider."  It isn't that hard, and it won't take that much time. 

That said, I think it's been made clear that we can expect DA:I to continue the trend.  And for what it's worth, I think DA2's method IS the best way to handle it. Why does everyone manage to forget that having a larger pool of LIs does not solve the entirety of the issue?  Even if you have two LIs each for the three primary orientations, as I've already pointed out once, this does not remove the problem of players being locked out of any LIs that they can't romance unless they choose a particular gender; i.e. if a player wants to romance Morrigan they have to roll a male Warden even if they don't want to play that gender, or if they just want to experience her LI as a female Warden. 

To me, this is no less exclusionary than it would be to have no non-hetero options at all, and it seems like an obvious flaw in the "just increase the number of LIs available" solution, but it gets consistently overlooked.  Or maybe it really is just something obvious only to those of us who only ever want to play a PC of a particular gender and kind of resent being locked out of romance content that could easily be made available.

The path of greatest inclusion strikes me as far superior to any recommended solution that involves putting constraints on how players can experience the game.  Not everyone is going to be satisfied by any one solution, so why not privilege the solution that maximizes inclusiveness for players over the one that only potentially affects realism, the latter being an entirely subjective issue, after all?

[Rixatrix]

Sorry for the long post, btw...

LarryDavid wrote...
What I also said is that I haven't seen objective facts to backup the other definitions of fairness.

Facts are, by definition, objective.

What "other definitions" of "fair" are you talking about?  "Fair" has official definitions, and at least in this context, we are talking about it meaning "equitable" and not "moderately good" or "promising" (or any of the other 10 definitions in the dictionary, even if I like the Black's Law Dictionary definition best).  You need "objective facts to backup" an official definition of a word?

I consider myself open-minded, but I don't play the "accept people's subjective interpretations of words" game.  Perhaps it is my background, but "fairness" is pretty cut and dry.  In any case, it isn't "fairness" upon which you should be basing an exclusionary argument.

Most of the people that complain about making every LI bi, will still romance these characters. But there are also people that only want LIs that are solely romancable by the gender they play. And I guess they are a minority too.  So what is your moral basis to say that one minority is more important than an other minority.

One is seeking to gain equality, while the other seeks to take equality away.  Minorities of any particular thing, by simple virture of being minorities, do not demand protection.  Pardon the specifics, but for example, white supremacist organization members are a minority of the population; however, they are not covered by, say, the Equal Protection clause.  This is because the very characteristic that makes them a minority does not put them at a disadvantage.  If you were to balance their interests with the interests of a minority race, the scales would tip very heavily in favor of the minority race.  So, I suppose, being not only desirous of equality but owed it rather than seeking to limit it would be my moral basis, besides, of course, my conscience.  Not that BioWare owes anyone equality (or that anyone here is entitled to it in their games), but I am appreciative of their progressive efforts.  

Saying you want separate LIs for different orientations, but equal numbers of them may seem like a good idea, but implementations of similar concepts have infamously gone awry.  Saying, "You can have this, but not that" is exclusion at its worst.  What BioWare has done here is said, "Everyone can have access to the same things."  And I am glad for it.

So what bothers me is that people from your side of the argument, consider their subjective definitions of 'fair' and 'equal' to be the moral ones and accordingly act like they have all the justice in the world to back them up.

I do.  Fling "SJW" all you like, but if we're picking and choosing definitions of "fair," I'm going to go with the most brilliant legal minds and, you know, the dictionary.

In an argument like this, where 'fairness' is extremely relative the only thing you can do is nicely try to make your oponnents understand that your definition of 'fair' is a valid one. Someone did just that and I was convinced. But when I'm reading topics like this I'm starting to change my mind because I don't want people making that kind of arguments to get their way.

[emphasis added]

This is very unfortunate.  I appreciate that you have made your points in a civil manner, but as above, I disagree that the definition of "fair" is subjective.  Maybe instead of arguing about subjective definitions of "fair" (not even considering what little sense such a discussion has), you could just discuss your preferences.  What is fair in this case should be obvious - an equitable distribution with equal access - but it isn't BioWare's responsibility to deliver "fair" content.  Even if they are not particularly convincing to me (the romances seem rooted in the concept of "competitive advantage," IMHO), there are far more meritorious arguments for limiting inclusiveness of LI content, such as financial savings, customer demographics, and industry trends.  Fairness is probably the weakest of all grounds.

That said, I do understand your preferences, and I am sorry that you feel the game is not satisfactory on that dimension.  I don't want others to not be able to enjoy the game as I do, and I wish everyone had the opportunity to be as happy with it as anyone else.  Wouldn't you agree that it's nice when others enjoy a game as much as you do?  It's in my nature.  Perhaps that is why I am for inclusiveness.

Silfren wrote...
Why does everyone manage to forget that having a larger pool of LIs does not solve the entirety of the issue?  Even if you have two LIs each for the three primary orientations, as I've already pointed out once, this does not remove the problem of players being locked out of any LIs that they can't romance unless they choose a particular gender

[snip]

The path of greatest inclusion strikes me as far superior to any recommended solution that involves putting constraints on how players can experience the game.  Not everyone is going to be satisfied by any one solution, so why not privilege the solution that maximizes inclusiveness for players over the one that only potentially affects realism, the latter being an entirely subjective issue, after all?

[emphasis added]

THIS.  SO MUCH THIS.

Modifié par BlueMoonSeraphim, 29 juin 2013 - 07:01 .

[Hazegurl]

Some people talk of characters like Fenris and Merrill as being playersexual and lacking development or something as compared to a character like Isabella or Anders but I have yet to see any examples of how Isabella or Anders are more developed romantically over Fenris and Merrill. Nor do I see how Fenris or Merrill are considered playersexual characters. I can't speak about Merrill but Fenris has quite a bit of development it's just that none of it is defined by his sexuality. His past with Danarious has nothing to do with his sexuality, even the possibility of him being raped has nothing to do with sexuality. I just think that a character like Isabella is considered more developed based solely on the player knowing she is bisexual. I find that strange.

I agree about the flaws of the "more LIs" suggestion. It still locks players out of a romance they may want based on the gender they wish to play. Even if Origins had two gay men my gay warden can chose from, Alistair would still be out of the question and therefore I wouldn't be romancing an important LI figure in the story...which is what I had to deal with anyway and thus it isn't even a solution. Players will have to resort to modding to romance the one they want. Why do that to an entire fanbase when you can just unlock those options for them?

Modifié par Hazegurl, 29 juin 2013 - 07:15 .

[daaaav]

Hazegurl wrote...

Some people talk of characters like Fenris and Merrill as being playersexual and lacking development or something as compared to a character like Isabella or Anders but I have yet to see any examples of how Isabella or Anders are more developed romantically[/b] over Fenris and Merrill. Nor do I see how Fenris or Merrill are considered playersexual characters. I can't speak about Merrill but Fenris has quite a bit of development it's just that [b]none of it is defined by his sexuality. His past with Danarious has nothing to do with his sexuality, even the possibility of him being raped has nothing to do with sexuality. I just think that a character like Isabella is considered more developed based solely on the player knowing she is bisexual. I find that strange.

Please explain how these two phrases are in perfect agreement with each other...


Edit:

But I use the broader meaning of the word sexuality, not limited to sexual orientation.

My point is that it is difficult to explore a characters sexuality without divulging their sexual orientation. Merrill and Fenris are affected by this while Anders and Isabella are not.

Modifié par daaaav, 29 juin 2013 - 07:48 .

[ParatrooperSean]

Silfren wrote...

I notice that in the threads pertaining to whether or not LIs should be playersexual or bisexual or whatever, a fairly common complaint is that by having LI companions available to all genders, characterization and story are both somehow watered down.  Some people seem to think that having romances at all brings down the quality of the writing, but most often I've noticed that the concern is specific toward the LIs being bisexual.  Personally I don't honestly see how simply making all the LIs available to any gender will affect either the overall story or the characterization of the Companions, so I'm curious why some people seem to think it's a given.  How were the DA2 characters unbelievable, and how can this be blamed on their availability as LIs.  For that matter, what about the bi characters from Origins?  Were they better written, or were they equally watered down? 

Please note: I am creating this topic in good faith; I am not asking about whether it is realistic to have all the LIs be playersexual/bisexual.  I don't care about whether people find it annoying to be hit on by opposite-gender Companions.  I don't really want to read about how Bioware is just pandering.  None of these are relevant to what I'd like to discuss, so please refrain from the off-topic comments or the childish potshots.  Thank you.

I have no problem with anyone's sexual orientation, but having every other character be gay or bisexual is unrealistic and detracts a bit from the realism. I think gays comprise about 3% of the population.

With that being said, I understand the desire to allow members of all sexual orientations and genders to get the full game experience, so I don't complain.

[Eveangaline]

Ghost Lightning wrote...

I'm sorry, but looking at the title of this thread is like playing one of those "One of these things is not like the others" games...

Yeeeep.

[LarryDavid]

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...
That said, I do understand your preferences, and I am sorry that you feel the game is not satisfactory on that dimension.  I don't want others to not be able to enjoy the game as I do, and I wish everyone had the opportunity to be as happy with it as anyone else.  Wouldn't you agree that it's nice when others enjoy a game as much as you do?  It's in my nature.  Perhaps that is why I am for inclusiveness.

To be honest I have not stated my point of view at all I think. So let's start with that :

I'm a selfish person and I only care about my own happiness, which is of cource tied with the happiness of other people, especially the ones around me. If there are 4 LIs it is sufficient for me that there are 2 female ones. I have my own set of principles and values and in that I'm not indifferent to the happiness of people I don't know. For me, the benefit of having an additional female LI at the cost of a male LI does not outweight the feeling I have by what I think the impact is on players who want male LIs. So I am for the 2/2 gender split of LIs solely for my own selfish reasons.

When that person explained why she liked the all Bi approach of DA2 and asked nicely for it to return I was convienced because (a) I'm totally indifferent to the sexuallity of the LIs. I will most likely replay DA:I more than 15 times with both male as female characters so no matter what, all female LIs will be romancable for me at some point. And ( she seemed a lot nicer than the people who were arguing against her. And hence from that moment I liked DA2's implementation more than DA:Os one. Once again, the only reason being that it makes me feel slightly better than otherwise. Now if I observe people arguing for DA2's option in a way that annoyes me terribly (not you), the implementation I want will change.

Have to go now, I'll come back to address the other things in your post!

[Hazegurl]

daaaav wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

Some people talk of characters like Fenris and Merrill as being playersexual and lacking development or something as compared to a character like Isabella or Anders but I have yet to see any examples of how Isabella or Anders are more developed romantically[/b] over Fenris and Merrill. Nor do I see how Fenris or Merrill are considered playersexual characters. I can't speak about Merrill but Fenris has quite a bit of development it's just that none of it is defined by his sexuality. His past with Danarious has nothing to do with his sexuality, even the possibility of him being raped has nothing to do with sexuality. I just think that a character like Isabella is considered more developed based solely on the player knowing she is bisexual. I find that strange.

Please explain how these two phrases are in perfect agreement with each other...


Edit:

But I use the broader meaning of the word sexuality, not limited to sexual orientation.

My point is that it is difficult to explore a characters sexuality without divulging their sexual orientation. Merrill and Fenris are affected by this while Anders and Isabella are not.

[b]Romance is the umbrella term for the overall experience with the LI(story, personality, dialouge,  sex, etc). IMO, Sex is a sub catagory, otherwise you would just have sex with the LI and nothing else in the game. So when I say "more developed romantically" I mean as a LI overall while "None of it is defined by his sexuality" is me saying that it is my opinion that Fenris' sexuality or lack thereof (in your opinion) has nothing at all to do with the LI's story or the character's personality that makes me (the player) want to romance him.

Give examples of how Isabella and Anders is far more developed as a LI in DA2 over Fenris and Merrill. Then explain how knowing their sexual orientation ties into it. Or at least how their sexuality is more meaningful to the aspects you have listed that make them more developed over Fenris and Merrill. You claim Fenris and Merrill are affected by the lack of them revealing their sexuality, but I see no examples of how this statement is true or how you have arrived at this conclusion based on your experience in game.

In short, what difference does it truly make during any of the LI interactions in game if you know Isabella is bisexual and don't know if Fenris is bisexual?

[daaaav]

Hazegurl wrote...



Romance is the umbrella term for the overall experience with the LI(story, personality, dialouge,  sex, etc). IMO, Sex is a sub catagory, otherwise you would just have sex with the LI and nothing else in the game. So when I say "more developed romantically" I mean as a LI overall while "None of it is defined by his sexuality" is me saying that it is my opinion that Fenris' sexuality or lack thereof (in your opinion) has nothing at all to do with the LI's story or the character's personality that makes me (the player) want to romance him.
Give examples of how Isabella and Anders is far more developed as a LI in DA2 over Fenris and Merrill. Then explain how knowing their sexual orientation ties into it. Or at least how their sexuality is more meaningful to the aspects you have listed that make them more developed over Fenris and Merrill. You claim Fenris and Merrill are affected by the lack of them revealing their sexuality, but I see no examples of how this statement is true or how you have arrived at this conclusion based on your experience in game.

In short, what difference does it truly make during any of the LI interactions in game if you know Isabella is bisexual and don't know if Fenris is bisexual?

First of all, sexuality encompasses more than the act of sex and whatever label one wants to give oneself regarding ones choice of romantic or sexual partners. Romance also encompasses more than these two things and you will have a hard time convincing anyone that it is independant of ones sexuality. My contention is, that it is difficult to explore a characters overall sexuality without defining their sexual orientation.

For whatever reason, Bioware wanted Fenris and Merrills sexual orientation to be unclear or not defined. This means that unlike Anders or Isabella, they have very little in their backstories or plot lines that would define their orientations. I don't know why Bioware decided that this was preferable to making them all essentially bisexual and I wont make assumptions. Specific examples are Anders and Isabella having romantic relationships INDEPENDANT of the player character with Isabella and... well a few people... and Anders and Karl.

I agree with you that sexuality is only a part of someones character and I also agree that not all characters need to be overtly sexual, but I don't see why the writers must limit themsleves in this way.

[kinderschlager]

OP created one hell of a monster thread. people are really pasionate about this apperently.

so long as Bioware makes a good story line for a change, i'll be happy.

never personally noticed the Bisexuality of the companions. it was there to allow you to play the story YOUR way, instead of being limited in Li's by DEV design.

[kinderschlager]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Dobbysaurus wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Dobbysaurus wrote...

Just remove romances all together. There, problem solved. Equality for everyone.

This adds nothing to the discussion. 

It seems like nothing adds to the discussion according to you. So maybe, just go talk to yourself? 

It is somewhat like solving the problem by nuking the site from orbit.  I suppose it's the only way to be sure, but (by your own admission) it's a solution that isn't what many people would like.

Your hostility to end your sentence, however, is unwarranted.  Please do not do that again.

you can never satisfy all your customers. though this is a guaranteed way to ****** everyone off together.  which i guess sorta works

[Sable Rhapsody]

kinderschlager wrote...
never personally noticed the Bisexuality of the companions. it was there to allow you to play the story YOUR way, instead of being limited in Li's by DEV design.

Same here.  I'm firmly of the John Watson school of thought: "It's ALL fine."

Then again, I'm a (mostly) heterosexual female who's never really had a difficult time with sexuality or gender identity, so that might just be my privilege talking.

[kinderschlager]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Dobbysaurus wrote...
It doesn't have to strip away the LGBT presence altogether.

But it would. That is exactly what would happen. To pretend otherwise is foolish.

The difference being that romance content is the only place where LGBT characters and themes are present, whereas removing straight romance options still leaves a plethora of straight characters whose sexuality is clearly demonstrated. Like Aveline, who is first seen fighting alongside her lover, who is a man.

As much as I stinkeye the nuking of the site from orbit solution, I do have to come to his defense here.

It's perfectly valid to still have LGBT characters and themes without romances.  It just means that we'd have to do it differently.  Steve Cortez would be a great example, if his content remained the same but he was simply not a romanceable character.  He'd be a person that had a husband, and would occasionally talk up all the cute guys in the pub with Shepard (a depiction I would say would actually be quite natural, in my own personal experiences).


I think to require that LGBT can only be done via romance is a rather rigid way of thinking.  [/b]Ideally, we're at a point where LGBT content can exist everywhere and [b]everyone just doesn't even bat an eye at it, because it's considered normal and inoffensive to everyone.

you're new to america, arn't you.

i applaud the idealism, but humans are stupid, stubor, viel things. we as a race will sadly never get to that point

[kinderschlager]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Cleaned up some posts.

Please do not attempt to derail this thread.

now you're just teasing me:P

[SeismicGravy]

I'd just like to say for those that are not to happy about having bisexual LI's:

Go on the internet and count how many times you see a post complaining that they couldn't romance Traynor with Manshep, or Miranda with Femshep.

You may be surprised.

The cruel truth is that having bisexual Li's is pretty much the only way to please the majority of players these days.

[kinderschlager]

Ninja Stan wrote...

This discussion is getting a mite rocky, as do most discussions where people start getting defensive or become unwilling to accept that different people have different perspectives. If y'all can't discuss this topic with civility and mutual respect, particularly if and when you disagree, then it will be locked.

EDIT: Bans have been handed out.

humanity in a nutshell.....

[kinderschlager]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Let's try and keep the real world sociopolitical arguments out of the discussion, please. Thedas is fictional.

the problem is that your games touch on real world issues that are no where NEAR beingresolved. it opens the door to relating how the game portrays these ideas to how the world currently handles the ideas. the length this thread has reached in such a short time makes it quite obvious people have many different views on this particular topic and this forum provides a place for them to discuss it

EDIT: yes, i am ONLY responding to moderator and DEV posts, threadsnoughts take too long otherwise

[kinderschlager]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

kinderschlager wrote...
never personally noticed the Bisexuality of the companions. it was there to allow you to play the story YOUR way, instead of being limited in Li's by DEV design.

Same here.  I'm firmly of the John Watson school of thought: "It's ALL fine."

Then again, I'm a (mostly) heterosexual female who's never really had a difficult time with sexuality or gender identity, so that might just be my privilege talking.

same here, i have never had a problem with Bi/gay/whatever stuff in RPG's. it's there to provide CHOICE and personalization. if it's NOT my thing, i don't have to do it, no skin off my nose.

the game isn't made to be custom tailored to any one person, from having played a good sample size of bioware games, it seems instead to be made so YOU can custom tailor the story to YOURSELF. IMO that's why in DA2 all four Li's were Bi, so that anyone who picked up the game had all four as options no matter who they themselves are.

(i WOULD like another foursome though, comic relief is always great)

[Rixatrix]

LarryDavid wrote...
So I am for the 2/2 gender split of LIs solely for my own selfish reasons.

Ah, I thought you were arguing on the side of "defined orientation" LIs, and I replied from there.

When that person explained why she liked the all Bi approach of DA2 and asked nicely for it to return I was convienced because (a) I'm totally indifferent to the sexuallity of the LIs. I will most likely replay DA:I more than 15 times with both male as female characters so no matter what, all female LIs will be romancable for me at some point. And ( she seemed a lot nicer than the people who were arguing against her. And hence from that moment I liked DA2's implementation more than DA:Os one. Once again, the only reason being that it makes me feel slightly better than otherwise. Now if I observe people arguing for DA2's option in a way that annoyes me terribly (not you), the implementation I want will change.

I think it's refreshing that you are indifferent to the LIs sexual orientations; it seems pretty rare, at least in threads like this.  I agree that how someone presents an argument is important.  However, I can't control how others who share the same substantive view that I do present their cases.  Of course, I rarely jump into a fray to argue a point that I am ambivalent about - unless, of course, someone pays me to. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/grin.png[/smilie]  

I do few playthroughs (I don't get to game as much as I would like!), and being limited, I generally play a female character.  I tend to play my PCs as straight-leaning bisexual.  At least for the Dragon Age series, that pretty much covers all LIs but Morrigan.  I've liked the ones I've played so far, and I would be disappointed if they had been unavailable.  

I support full availability of LIs for a lot of reasons, but at least one involves a short anecdote.  When I was a preteen, I was into video games, but I remembered feeling disappointed about the potential of my sex portrayed in video games.  Females were relegated to support classes and characters, or worse, objects and victims.  The message I received was, "You can be this, but not that," where "that" was the hero.  I just wanted the same thing boys were already getting out of games.  Although that has already long since been addressed for me, I suppose I see some of that feeling in having only certain LIs be available to LGBT PCs - "You can have this, but not that."