1981 réponses à ce sujet

[Sjpelke]

kinderschlager wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

TsadeeHekate wrote...

On a side note; as the setting is medieval(ish) historical facts from that period are applicable.

No, they're not. It is entirely possible for societies in a fictional world to have different views on sexuality than we do, or did 900 years ago. One of the biggest things that informed, and still informs, our view on things is that all major religions are patriarchal, whereas in Thedas the major religion, Andrastianity, is matriarchal. Putting women in leadership roles elevates their position in society in a way that has never been experienced with the real world on a large scale. That issue alone is enough to render any real world historical comparisons moot.

careful, you are using logic, people hate when you do that

Added the 'ish' after medieval which applied to the setting in general, not being specific about a particular subject.

Modifié par TsadeeHekate, 29 juin 2013 - 04:13 .

[Xilizhra]

This is the part where we have to go back to the statement that we should all be careful of what we presume someone else to mean as thats how threads break down.

Because that is not at all what I was implying.

I'm not completely sure what else you'd get from "if I meet a bunch of bisexuals, they've been placed there to cater to my romantic whims."

I specifically want characters that will in fact engage in a romance with my character under different circumstances than the one my character is currently in.

Rivalry was a problem there. This is easily doable with relationship values that have nothing to do with gender.

[LPPrince]

Ahem. I didn't say that, did I?

Let me bow out before my stuff gets misconstrued further.

[Xilizhra]

LPPrince wrote...

Ahem. I didn't say that, did I?

Let me bow out before my stuff gets misconstrued further.

If I've misinterpreted, I apologize, but why does having romance equality seem like pandering in and of itself? There are other means to achieve being turned down.

[Sutekh]

TsadeeHekate wrote...

Thedas is fictional and as there are no historical facts and written testimonies, modern times are the only reference which they can relate to.

It is documented. Not in stats form, but the issue is addressed in World of Thedas (and probably from there right into the Wiki, so accessible to everyone). And the devs have expressed themselves on the issue numerous times, including in this very thread, albeit briefly. 

On a side note; as the setting is medieval(ish) historical facts from that period are applicable.

Too many fondamental differences between Western Medieval period and Thedas, starting with a total lack of homosexuality condemnation from the Chantry, which is kinda instrumental when it comes to this topic.

[Sjpelke]

Sutekh wrote...

TsadeeHekate wrote...

Thedas is fictional and as there are no historical facts and written testimonies, modern times are the only reference which they can relate to.

It is documented. Not in stats form, but the issue is addressed in World of Thedas (and probably from there right into the Wiki, so accessible to everyone). And the devs have expressed themselves on the issue numerous times, including in this very thread, albeit briefly. 

On a side note; as the setting is medieval(ish) historical facts from that period are applicable.

Too many fondamental differences between Western Medieval period and Thedas, starting with a total lack of homosexuality condemnation from the Chantry, which is kinda instrumental when it comes to this topic.

Exactly.

When a fictional world is shaped a starting point for it is needed. How far the world is advanced in technological sense for example and what races inhabit the world with their own cultures and believes.

From there on the sky is in theory the limit IF things are written/explained in a way that make sense.

Whatever preferences people have regarding their sexuality is not related to the actual setting; which is how the world LOOKS like and provides the tools the inhabitants have to work with. My intention was not to comment on the religious views in Thedas compared to the medieval point of view of the church in Western Europe in that time. That is why the Thedas world is fictional; the writers can shape the world in or from whatever point of view they want.

Modifié par TsadeeHekate, 29 juin 2013 - 04:12 .

[LobselVith8]

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. 

I don't think it's disappointing that Bioware is inclusive for people of different sexual orientations; I think it's a very positive facet of Dragon Age that we can play as a straight or gay main character, and that there is more than one single romance option available.

As I said previously, I can understand taking issue with the companions being so malleable that they will romance the main character even if the protagonist has ethics and morals that completely contradict their own (i.e. Fenris being in a romance a pro-slavery Hawke, for example), but I don't see the problem with Dragon Age being inclusive for people who are typically marginalized in many areas.

[Tarek]

I find it odd that a romance like Steve in ME3 made feel so good and so amazing it actually encouraged me to out out there and start dating, in fact I'm actually trying to have a long term thing with a guy now *fingers crossed*, in less than one year (after playing ME3) I was transformed from 29 year old virgin to 29 year old guy with an actually love life.

its all thanks to a game.... imagine that, so, no, romances in Bioware games are not bad, or unimportant they are very important indeed,

I'm sure im not the only one

bioware

[Olwydd]

I don't think player-sexuality waters down characters at all. They should be able to stand on their own merits outside of who they want to take to their beds. If sexuality is their only defining feature, then that's a sign of poor writing. Sure, some people think that character sexuality is a huge and vital  part of their identity, but unless it actually comes up as part of their narrative arc, I don't really see how it matters. And since homosxuality and bisexuality aren't really taboo in DA, it's really  never going to come up as a story- or character-driving element.  If being gay were a big deal in Thedas, I could maybe understand having different characters of set orientations because it would be part of fleshing out their backstories. But it's not, so there's really no point. It adds nothing to the narrative. (Note: I'm talking strictly about LI characters here.)

For instance, Merril wasn't defined by her sexuality. Her main character arc had no relation to her attraction to a male or female Hawke. It made not one iota of defference to her arc or her world-view. Had she been of a set (non-bi) orientation, it would have simply removed the opportunity for certain Hawkes to romance her, for really no good reason other than 'just 'cause'. I could see a pro-Templar Hawke being turned down, because it may have made sense for her demon-bargaining character to take issue with such a Hawke. But because of sex? Why? What could that have possibly added to her character?

I also don't really see how it matters that a character may appear as  one sexuality or another depending on the player's sex; it's not as  though they're getting a personality re-write (and if you think they  are, either you put waaaay too much weight on sexuality, or they're so  increadibly poorly written that sexuality is the only thing that stands  out). I *like* player-sexual characters. It means I don't lose content  arbitrarily for chosing one option in the character creator over  another. It means I can play my game my way, which is far more important to me than experiencing a "realistic" scenario. It also means I can envision that character as gay, or straight, or bi to suite my character's perception. And no, I don't think  it detracts from replayability either, escpecially since you can really  only romance one character per play-through anyway. I don't want to have to replay the game so I can chose the "correct" sex at character  creation in order to romance an NPC I like. I don't have time to replay  games ad-nauseum, so I'd rather be able to experience as much as I can  the first time 'round.

If I wanted to prioritize realism in my videogames over everything else, I'd go outside and play real life. Making every potential LI character player-sexual may not be realistic, but then realism can go jump in a lake. I play videogames to have fun and escape real life, not to experience a re-emphasis of socio-political mores. I get that enough from other sources.

Removing arbitrary restrictions appeases more people. It means more people have a higher chance of enjoying the content. I like enjoying content. You like enjoying content. I'm sure other people also like enjoying content. I think we should all be able to enjoy content together.

Edit: Grammar!

Modifié par Olwydd, 29 juin 2013 - 04:43 .

[Ziggeh]

Olwydd wrote...

It means more people have a higher chance of enjoying the content. I like enjoying content. You like enjoying content. I'm sure other people also like enjoying content. I think we should all be able to enjoy content together.

That's a really important point.

While I can definitely see the value in the characters being entirely defined (they appear stronger without apparent contradiction), that value comes at the cost of arbitrarily gated content.

[kinderschlager]

Olwydd wrote...

.

Removing arbitrary restrictions appeases more people. It means more people have a higher chance of enjoying the content. I like enjoying content. You like enjoying content. I'm sure other people also like enjoying content. I think we should all be able to enjoy content together.

agreed

[Il Divo]

Olwydd wrote...

I don't think player-sexuality waters down characters at all. They should be able to stand on their own merits. If sexuality is their one big defining feature, then that's a sign of poor writing. Sure, some people think that character sexuality is a huge and vital

Well, I'd wouldn't say that it is their one big defining feature. But it is a part of the their identity, as per anything else. People's likes and dislikes make them more interesting, like how Sten develops a love for cookies.

Basic example can be seen in party banter: Wynne constantly rejecting Zevran's advances as per his jokes about wanting to put his head in her bosom. Or Traynor's reaction to Shepard attempting to shower with her in ME3.

For myself, the goal is to design a world that the player is inserted into, not a world that revolves around them. It's the same basic problem I have with concepts like level scaling or leveled loot. It's a constant reminder that the game is tailoring itself to my player, rather than focusing on developing a coherent world/setting. 

Characters should be able to reject the PC based on sexuality, morality, or something as simple as "hey, I'm just not into you" as per Varric/Aveline. I don't think the solution is to create a one size fits all: "Hey, all characters can romance or no characters can romance".

Modifié par Il Divo, 29 juin 2013 - 04:13 .

[Olwydd]

Il Divo wrote...

Characters should be able to reject the PC based on sexuality, morality, or something as simple as "hey, I'm just not into you" as per Varric/Aveline. I don't think the solution is to create a one size fits all: "Hey, all characters can romance or no characters can romance".

And in an ideal world with infinite zots, sure, we could try that. But  we don't live in that world. Here, there are severe resource limitations. If there are only four or five possible LIs, you want to make them as available as possible in order to maximize player enjoyment.

And even if you were to gate romances, I would hope that the gating would be prioritized to fit the context of the game. Sexuality in Thedas is a vrtual non-issue. It should fall somewhere very near the bottom of the list, perhaps somewhere just between *blue vs. brown eyes* and *human vs. elf*. More relevant would be issues of player morality, because it has greater ramifications over the course of the game, and is based on player choices. It is not arbitrary; it is directed and intentional, and it is something that may very well conflict with an LI's interests. SIding with the Templars should cause tension between the player and Merrill or Anders, because it's relevant to their personalities and character arcs. Denying a romance between them and a same-sex Hawke has no such value. There's no in-game reason to do so, and no out-of-game reason other than 'we felt like it'.

I do have to disagree with you on the character-tailoring aspect. I want the world to be tailored to my character. It maximizes my enjoyment to be able to experience the most out of the game, because ultimately it's more about fun than realism. Sure, some things ought to be different between playthroughs, but I'd rather those things be reactive to my character's decisions and not to the character creator 'PC sex' button.

[Hazegurl]

daaaav wrote...

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.

I'm referring to the in game romance and sex in game not romance and sex in general. In game, what proof do you have that Isabella and Anders is more developed than Fenris and Merrill where knowing their sexual orientation plays a major factor in that development.

As for what I have bolded. How is it difficult to explore Fenris' sexuality in game? If you flirt with him as a man he will flirt back. If you persue him he will come to you. In some cases(rival) he will be the aggressor. Now are you saying that you would NEED Fenris to tell you which sex attracts him? You would need the info on his orientation to fully explore his overall sexuality? When would you have time for all that in game? What conversations do you hope to have with Fenris or Merrill if they were to say "I am X" Cause I don't see how Anders or Isabella have been fully explored in game. Isabella sleeps with anybody. I don't consider that character development but that's just me. IMO, that's just her personality. She's a free spirit. 

I'm just not getting it cause Fenris or Merrill could be anything other than the gay, straight, bi terms so I'm not getting how knowing their sexual orientation will help you explore them more. It would be cliche if they all acted like Isabella.

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 disagree with you. How do you explore Anders sexuality more than Fenris in game? If you're MHawke Anders tells you one tale of how Karl was his lover. He mentions later about mages getting it on in the Circles but that's mages in general. You can determine whether or not Fenris was raped based on Fenris' interactions with his former master, MHawke can even ask Fenris if it was strange sleeping with another man to which he replies with a no. I'm not saying Fenris possiblity getting rape defines his sexuality, I just mention it cause it is a possible sexual backstory of his character. I can't speak for Merrill cause I never romance her but comparing her to isabella in terms of sexual backstory is insane, IMO. Merrill has lived with the Dalish studying a mirror and trying to become a Keeper. Islabella has been sailing the seas and banging everything at port. Personality wise, why would Merrill go into great detail of her sexuality or regal you with stories of conquests? She could be a virgin for all you know.

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.

Fenris has been running from slavers for a long time and before then was a slave for years. Merrill was working to become a Dalish Keeper. There are so many other factors that go into this. You have to take into acount Merrill and Fenris' personality, lifestyle, overall past etc compared to Isabella and Anders.  Isabella is a freak (I love her character but seriously) it's not going to take much to know her sexual backstory. Anders gives you one story of how Karl is his lover. When would Fenris have time to have lovers while running from slavers? Even as a slave his master kept a tight leash on him and made him lose his memories, that alone means you won't be getting a grand sexual backstory out of him. Merrill had been shunned by her people for a long time. I doubt anyone would take the time to want to have sex with her in the middle of thinking she's a monster.

I think that what we have is a case of two LIs who have had time for some side action and two LIs who most likely have never had time for anything else than what they were doing until they meet Hawke. Merrill can leave her clan and finally live on her own and Fenris can finally get some relief from his former master.

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.

What I don't understand is how are they limiting themselves? It's like you're saying two different things. On one hand you say sexuality is only a part or that it is more than just the act of sex then you say that by virtue of the act of sex (Anders with Karl and Isabella with everyone) they are more defined sexually than Fenris and Merrill.

[Hazegurl]

Olwydd wrote...

I don't think player-sexuality waters down characters at all. They should be able to stand on their own merits outside of who they want to take to their beds. If sexuality is their only defining feature, then that's a sign of poor writing. Sure, some people think that character sexuality is a huge and vital  part of their identity, but unless it actually comes up as part of their narrative arc, I don't really see how it matters. And since homosxuality and bisexuality aren't really taboo in DA, it's really  never going to come up as a story- or character-driving element.  If being gay were a big deal in Thedas, I could maybe understand having different characters of set orientations because it would be part of fleshing out their backstories. But it's not, so there's really no point. It adds nothing to the narrative. (Note: I'm talking strictly about LI characters here.)

For instance, Merril wasn't defined by her sexuality. Her main character arc had no relation to her attraction to a male or female Hawke. It made not one iota of defference to her arc or her world-view. Had she been of a set (non-bi) orientation, it would have simply removed the opportunity for certain Hawkes to romance her, for really no good reason other than 'just 'cause'. I could see a pro-Templar Hawke being turned down, because it may have made sense for her demon-bargaining character to take issue with such a Hawke. But because of sex? Why? What could that have possibly added to her character?

I also don't really see how it matters that a character may appear as  one sexuality or another depending on the player's sex; it's not as  though they're getting a personality re-write (and if you think they  are, either you put waaaay too much weight on sexuality, or they're so  increadibly poorly written that sexuality is the only thing that stands  out). I *like* player-sexual characters. It means I don't lose content  arbitrarily for chosing one option in the character creator over  another. It means I can play my game my way, which is far more important to me than experiencing a "realistic" scenario. It also means I can envision that character as gay, or straight, or bi to suite my character's perception. And no, I don't think  it detracts from replayability either, escpecially since you can really  only romance one character per play-through anyway. I don't want to have to replay the game so I can chose the "correct" sex at character  creation in order to romance an NPC I like. I don't have time to replay  games ad-nauseum, so I'd rather be able to experience as much as I can  the first time 'round.

If I wanted to prioritize realism in my videogames over everything else, I'd go outside and play real life. Making every potential LI character player-sexual may not be realistic, but then realism can go jump in a lake. I play videogames to have fun and escape real life, not to experience a re-emphasis of socio-political mores. I get that enough from other sources.

Removing arbitrary restrictions appeases more people. It means more people have a higher chance of enjoying the content. I like enjoying content. You like enjoying content. I'm sure other people also like enjoying content. I think we should all be able to enjoy content together.

Edit: Grammar!

Pretty much all this!

[LarryDavid]

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...

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.

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.

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.

[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.

Of course 'fair' has a dictionary-like definition, just like 'big' and 'small' have a definition. Suppose we have a quantum physicist, a cosmologist and a tennisball . The physicist says "that is a big ball" and the cosmologist says "that is a small ball". Now, who is right?

The same goes with 'equal'. Like I said before; if you have 4 breads and Bob asks for 1 bread and john asks for 3 breads. What does it mean to treat them equally? Is it about giving them exactly the same amount of bread or is it about giving them exactly the amount they asked for? I haven't seen a dictionary yet that unambiguously answers this question. Now using the definition of 'fair'; is it unfair to give one more than the other or is it unfair to give one more than he asked for at the cost of giving someone less than he asked for? In a discussion like this the usage of the words 'fair' and 'equal' allways reflect the bias of the person using them because 'equal treatment' is open for several valid conflicting interpretations.So one can't make absolute statements like "this solution is the fairest for everyone".

Also, I guess some differences arise from how we look at this 'problem'. Lets say that a 'cookie' represents (a female LI) available to the opposite gender and 'topping' stands for available to the same gender. So in DAO you had a cookie (Morrigan) and a cookie with topping (Leliana), whereas in DA2 you had 2 cookies with topping (Isabela and Merrill). From your point of view DA2 is better because people who love cookies and people who love toppings have the same amount of choses. With that perspective in mind, I understand very well why one would assume that 'fair', 'inclusion', ... are words which can be used objectively. Now, I don't think this is an exclusion versus inclusion argument but an exclusion versus exclusion argument. If you argue for cookies with toppings only, you exclude all people who solely want a cookie or solely want topping.

So, what is your moral basis to say that it is fair to include people that are fine with a cookie with topping at the cost of people who like cookies only? How do you justify something like that? Is it because people who like cookies or toppings only are a minority compared to people who are fine with cookies with toppings? 'Fair' is a subjective term in this discussion and it is your own bias that determines its meaning.

I think your 'definition' of fair is a very reasonable and a valid one. But you should realise that there also exists valid 'definitions' that result in different conclusions. The best thing you can achieve in a discussion like this, is to make your opponent understand your view on 'fairness' and hope that he says 'maybe some topping on my cookie isn't that bad after all'. And it seems to me that this can't be achieved by unjustified taking the moral high ground (not you), at least it has the opposite effect on me.

[Xilizhra]

Also, I guess some differences arise from how we look at this 'problem'. Lets say that a 'cookie' represents (a female LI) available to the opposite gender and 'topping' stands for available to the same gender. So in DAO you had a cookie (Morrigan) and a cookie with topping (Leliana), whereas in DA2 you had 2 cookies with topping (Isabela and Merrill). From your point of view DA2 is better because people who love cookies and people who love toppings have the same amount of choses. With that perspective in mind, I understand very well why one would assume that 'fair', 'inclusion', ... are words which can be used objectively. Now, I don't think this is an exclusion versus inclusion argument but an exclusion versus exclusion argument. If you argue for cookies with toppings only, you exclude all people who solely want a cookie or solely want topping.

Your analogy is, regrettably, terrible, because it's physically impossible to eat both the cookie and the topping with one person, as one person can't be both physical sexes at once (thus far, anyway). No matter what, you'll only be consuming one confection. As such, no one is harmed regardless of what confections are on which person, provided one can sample said confections from whatever tray they like. And for those people who can't stand the thought of toppings having ever touched their cookies even if they don't eat the toppings themselves... well, they can get a life, quite frankly.

[Iakus]

Olwydd wrote...
Removing arbitrary restrictions appeases more people. It means more people have a higher chance of enjoying the content. I like enjoying content. You like enjoying content. I'm sure other people also like enjoying content. I think we should all be able to enjoy content together.

I think this is the first time I've ever heard gender being called "arbitrary" 

[Xilizhra]

iakus wrote...

Olwydd wrote...
Removing arbitrary restrictions appeases more people. It means more people have a higher chance of enjoying the content. I like enjoying content. You like enjoying content. I'm sure other people also like enjoying content. I think we should all be able to enjoy content together.

I think this is the first time I've ever heard gender being called "arbitrary" 

In game terms, it is.

[Il Divo]

Olwydd wrote...

And in an ideal world with infinite zots, sure, we could try that. But  we don't live in that world. Here, there are severe resource limitations. If there are only four or five possible LIs, you want to make them as available as possible in order to maximize player enjoyment.

Or, we could try it in this world.

Maximizing player enjoyment assumes that all players enjoy the "one size fits all" approach. I do not, and others clearly do not, hence this thread. For example, you say "only four or five LIs". This is a huge step up from the one option per gender which Bioware games previously offered. And in many ways, I enjoyed the content where my PC would be rejected, as per Traynor or Samara. I think it adds to their respective characters, seeing them assert themselves in such a way. I'd rather not see Traynor converted to purposely bisexual to account for the fact that some fans want to romance her.

Denying a romance between them and a same-sex Hawke has no such value. There's no in-game reason to do so, and no out-of-game reason other than 'we felt like it'.

Beyond, potentially ruining or denying a character interesting interactions? There is also content I enjoy seeing or would like to see. Zevran flirting with Alistair and upsetting him who might feel uncomfortable with the idea of a M/M relationship. That would be amusing to watch. The PC having the ability to slowly convince Ashley to open herself up to a same sex relationship, much like how you can make her more friendly to alien races in ME1. That would be a fun dynamic to explore.

This is the type of content which I would find interesting. Your one size fits all approach can't do this. As Iakus pointed out much earlier, if we're going to have 8 combinations of romances (two genders, four companions), I want 8 different romances. Otherwise, get out the chopping block. Hell, I'll be fair and say let's start cutting out the heterosexual relationships, if it means I get a few scenes like Shepard trying to invite Traynor into the shower.

I do have to disagree with you on the character-tailoring aspect. I want the world to be tailored to my character. It maximizes my enjoyment to be able to experience the most out of the game, because ultimately it's more about fun than realism. Sure, some things ought to be different between playthroughs, but I'd rather those things be reactive to my character's decisions and not to the character creator 'PC sex' button.

And I personally view it as a form of pandering, with all due respect. Characters, as in real life, are people. I see nothing wrong with enjoying escapism, but we don't all want the same. I want to be dropped into a living, breathing world with its own rules and consistency. Everyone jumping all over my PC because I'm some crazed sex God is exactly what I want Bioware avoiding.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 29 juin 2013 - 06:11 .

[The Hierophant]

Olwydd wrote...
Removing arbitrary restrictions appeases more people. It means more people have a higher chance of enjoying the content. I like enjoying content. You like enjoying content. I'm sure other people also like enjoying content. I think we should all be able to enjoy content together.

Excluding a character's sexual orientation i have to disagree. The li should have their own prefernces that are based on their likes, dislikes and beliefs along with the ability to shut the pc out when their actions and words flat out antagonizes the li's ideals. The autonomy of DA2's li is comparable to a KKK member romancing a CV supporter, and successfully continuing the relationship despite the latter witnessing the former lynching fellow AA on a regular basis. The companions shouldn't be treated like they're dishes from an all you can eat buffet as it only leads to their objectification (too late) where reactions to the dismissal of the pc's advances/relationship is akin to a slave master's.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 29 juin 2013 - 06:33 .

[Windninja47]

It bothers me when people say stuff like 'Yeah, it makes sense for Isabelle to be bisexual, but not Merril.' I don't follow the logic behind that.
I don't mind if Bioware keep the 'everyone is player sexual' approach or go back to Origins style romance. However, if they do this then I feel there should be an equal number of gay and straight relationships available, it must have sucked for people who wanted a gay male warden but didn't like Zevran.

[Silfren]

daaaav wrote...

My contention is, that it is difficult to explore a characters overall sexuality without defining their sexual orientation.

This is an illusion.  It is ENTIRELY possible to explore a person's sexuality without ever once bringing up their orientation.  The fixation on orientation labels is a recent development due to our cultural obsession with it. 

[Silfren]

LPPrince wrote...

Silfren wrote...

*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?

No need to sigh, I'm just not wanting the same thing that you do. S'all good. But anyway-

Do we reaaally know if DA:I will go that route? Its not a trend if its only happened in DA2. And if the resources are there, it seems things would be closer to DAO than DA2.

The issue you have(presumably) is that you want to romance whoever you want no matter what.

My issue is I don't want to romance whoever I want no matter what. I want some characters to turn me down for reasons like their sexuality and the type of character I'm playing. Because that feels like the characters were written more as real people I can believe in, with differences between one another, like their preferences in who they potentially care for(same sex, both sexes, opposite sex, someone who agrees with their ideals, someone who challenges them, someone who cares for them, etc etc).

I want more Traynors and Cortezes. Specifically if, like Traynor's turning down ManShep, I can have a character refuse my advances because of who they are, or rather, who I am(in the context of the game).

If I really want to experience the romance of a character that was previously unavailable to me, I'd make a new PC that better fit that character's preferences(gender, type of outlook, etc etc).

I'm the kind of person who really just likes to play as one canon PC(of my own making), and if a character is locked off to me romantically, I say kudos. They feel like they were written for the sake of themselves, rather than for the sake of me.

I have been very clear in stating that I have no issue with being locked out of certain LIs due to my background or choices made in the game.  But this is an entirely separate issue from the question of orientation, and people really need to stop conflating the two.  So no, I don't want to be able to romance who I want however I want.  I just don't want any LIs to be off-limits to any gender.  Again, these are two separate issues being inappropriately conflated.

[Silfren]

Windninja47 wrote...

It bothers me when people say stuff like 'Yeah, it makes sense for Isabelle to be bisexual, but not Merril.' I don't follow the logic behind that.
I don't mind if Bioware keep the 'everyone is player sexual' approach or go back to Origins style romance. However, if they do this then I feel there should be an equal number of gay and straight relationships available, it must have sucked for people who wanted a gay male warden but didn't like Zevran.

What about people who wanted to romance Morrigan as a female Warden or Alistair as a male Warden? It astounds me how many people are overlooking this.  I only ever play a female PC.  A couple of times I've tried to roll a male PC in order to experience the exclusive (albeit limited) content you get with that incarnation, but I never last more than a few minutes because I just don't enjoy it.  I assure you, I'm not alone in this, I'm not even all that rare.