1981 réponses à ce sujet

[PsychoBlonde]

Ryzaki wrote...

Though I didn't play a femShep. I heard that Kaidan wasn't subtle?

Mm, I only played the first one, mind you, but while he was up-front about finding you attractive he also instantly said "but this is a highly inappropriate relationship so we should cool it".

To me, "I find you attractive" is not the same as "You. Bed. Now." which is what I'd consider "pushy".  Apparently, to some people even admitting that you like someone or find them attractive regardless of context or how insistant you are about it is equivalent to humping their leg.

Alistair was actually MUCH more pushy than Zevran with that whole rose business and the fact that Ali gets mad at you if you seem to prefer Zevran over him.  Zevran just wants you to be clear, Alistair is actually *hurt* by it.

But Ali was my least favorite Origins character; he grated on me intensely.

[TK514]

LobselVith8 wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

Some people believe characters should be able to stand on their own merits and not have every piece of them bound to the PC.

An example of it done well is in Viconia; you can change her alignment, to an extent, but she'll never be good. And there are consequences for doing so.

An example of where it is explained is in KotOR 2: The Exile's literally mind controlling the characters. One of them even has a slight breakdown over it.

So for every character to be interested in the player character just rubs people the wrong way. Very rarely does it have to do with the character being bi. And the lack of indication of bisexuality outside of the PC.

I wonder how players would have responded to companions shutting them down romantically if their protagonist was too different (or offensive) to them, like having Anders or Merrill resist the romantic advances of a pro-templar Hawke because they don't like him, or having Fenris cut ties with a pro-slavery Hawke. I can understand the criticism about the player having too much sway over the companions.

I wish.

Some things should have drastic and lasting results.  Taking the elf as a slave, for example, should have ended that mission and removed Fenris from the party permanently.

[JWvonGoethe]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

A common complaint I constantly read is that it is "lazy writing."
The character's sexuality does not affect their personality/characterization/development at all. They would be the same regardless of their sexuality.

(Emphasis added.)

I don't think that is necessarily true. As an example: if Leliana had been exclusively heterosexual, she would never have entered into a relationship with Marjolaine. The fact that she is bisexual meant she could enter into a particular same sex relationship that happened to have a significant impact on her character development. Hence, Leliana's sexuality does in fact indirectly affect her personality/characterisation/development.

Anyway, this is what I preferred in DA:O - Leliana and Zevran both had sexual histories, and when the player learned about them it added to their personality. Alistair also had a sexual history in a way, though in his case it was that he had never slept with anyone, which also added to his characterisation. Only Morrigan was silent about hers, but that made sense within the context of her secretive personality. By contrast, in DA2 it felt like none of the LIs other than Isabella had a sexual history until the moment that they hit on the PC, at which point Hawke's gender would determine that character's sexual preference. It made the characters seem less fleshed out.

I actually don't have a problem with companions being 'playersexual', however, but I would like to see it done slightly differently (though only very slightly.) Give all characters a sexual history, eg past relationships, experiences and encounters which they talk about. Then if a character who has previously only been in heterosexual relationships subsequently gets into a relationship with a same sex PC, just make it not a big deal. Maybe it would be realistic to have them comment (however subtly) on the fact that this is the first time they have entered into a same sex relationship, but that's all you need to do.

[Maria Caliban]

If the character is going to shut down the PC, I'd rather it be because of my PC's words and actions, not because I hit the wrong button at character creation.

[PsychoBlonde]

While we're on the topic, I think it'd be cool if you could express a *preference* for someone regardless of whether they've hit on you yet or at all. I would have loved to have the option in Origins when Ali got all "do you like me? Yes/no" at me to say "I like Sten, actually, but he's not interested so whatever, moving on". Maybe it's just me but my friends at least are generally pretty curious about whether I'm "into" someone (and I am interested going the other direction) regardless of whether there's actually a romance going on or not.

The options in DA2 struck me far less as expressing a preference and much more as "Imma flirt until something sticks".  That's a personal impression, but that's how it felt to me.  There was no affirmation of "I like this one", I guess is what I mean.

Modifié par PsychoBlonde, 28 juin 2013 - 04:27 .

[LPPrince]

Some people have already stated it, but I guess I'll do it too-

Bisexuality and Playersexuality are different.

Bisexuality is fine, just as any sexuality(besides player-based, imo) is.

But playersexuality just feels off.

Sexuality I'd say affects someone's character, as its part of who they are. A character that's potentially romanceable I'd say is better written if their sexuality is taken into account, for example Zevran.

I like to think of Zevran and Leliana as bisexual, as it felt like their sexuality was part of who they were, while Merrill and Fenris for example just felt playersexual.

I think there's a bit of a delicate balance/fine line between the two though, especially when it comes to stereotypes.

If romances aren't gonna be split hetero/******/bi going forward and will all be player-based, I'd at least like to have those playersexual characters express interest in other romantic partners.

Basically-

I'd appreciate it if potential romance options were interested in characters besides the PC, like people in or even out of the party, regardless of their sexuality. As well as having someone's sexuality better reflected as part of who they are.

[Ryzaki]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Though I didn't play a femShep. I heard that Kaidan wasn't subtle?

Mm, I only played the first one, mind you, but while he was up-front about finding you attractive he also instantly said "but this is a highly inappropriate relationship so we should cool it".

To me, "I find you attractive" is not the same as "You. Bed. Now." which is what I'd consider "pushy".  Apparently, to some people even admitting that you like someone or find them attractive regardless of context or how insistant you are about it is equivalent to humping their leg.

Alistair was actually MUCH more pushy than Zevran with that whole rose business and the fact that Ali gets mad at you if you seem to prefer Zevran over him.  Zevran just wants you to be clear, Alistair is actually *hurt* by it.

But Ali was my least favorite Origins character; he grated on me intensely.

Ah.

I don't think any LIs do the "you bed now" except maybe Jack with her whole "I know you want me" thing.

You probably triggered his romance by mistake. He doesn't give you the rose in a friendship. Least he didn't with my warrior. (Who I had romance him *after* he was crowned king).

[Plaintiff]

JWvonGoethe wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

A common complaint I constantly read is that it is "lazy writing."
The character's sexuality does not affect their personality/characterization/development at all. They would be the same regardless of their sexuality.

(Emphasis added.)

I don't think that is necessarily true. As an example: if Leliana had been exclusively heterosexual, she would never have entered into a relationship with Marjolaine. The fact that she is bisexual meant she could enter into a particular same sex relationship that happened to have a significant impact on her character development. Hence, Leliana's sexuality does in fact indirectly affect her personality/characterisation/development.

Anyway, this is what I preferred in DA:O - Leliana and Zevran both had sexual histories, and when the player learned about them it added to their personality. Alistair also had a sexual history in a way, though in his case it was that he had never slept with anyone, which also added to his characterisation. Only Morrigan was silent about hers, but that made sense within the context of her secretive personality. By contrast, in DA2 it felt like none of the LIs other than Isabella had a sexual history until the moment that they hit on the PC, at which point Hawke's gender would determine that character's sexual preference. It made the characters seem less fleshed out.

I actually don't have a problem with companions being 'playersexual', however, but I would like to see it done slightly differently (though only very slightly.) Give all characters a sexual history, eg past relationships, experiences and encounters which they talk about. Then if a character who has previously only been in heterosexual relationships subsequently gets into a relationship with a same sex PC, just make it not a big deal. Maybe it would be realistic to have them comment (however subtly) on the fact that this is the first time they have entered into a same sex relationship, but that's all you need to do.

How come being a virgin doesn't "add to their personality"?

[Ryzaki]

JWvonGoethe wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

A common complaint I constantly read is that it is "lazy writing."
The character's sexuality does not affect their personality/characterization/development at all. They would be the same regardless of their sexuality.

(Emphasis added.)

I don't think that is necessarily true. As an example: if Leliana had been exclusively heterosexual, she would never have entered into a relationship with Marjolaine. The fact that she is bisexual meant she could enter into a particular same sex relationship that happened to have a significant impact on her character development. Hence, Leliana's sexuality does in fact indirectly affect her personality/characterisation/development.

Anyway, this is what I preferred in DA:O - Leliana and Zevran both had sexual histories, and when the player learned about them it added to their personality. Alistair also had a sexual history in a way, though in his case it was that he had never slept with anyone, which also added to his characterisation. Only Morrigan was silent about hers, but that made sense within the context of her secretive personality. By contrast, in DA2 it felt like none of the LIs other than Isabella had a sexual history until the moment that they hit on the PC, at which point Hawke's gender would determine that character's sexual preference. It made the characters seem less fleshed out.

I actually don't have a problem with companions being 'playersexual', however, but I would like to see it done slightly differently (though only very slightly.) Give all characters a sexual history, eg past relationships, experiences and encounters which they talk about. Then if a character who has previously only been in heterosexual relationships subsequently gets into a relationship with a same sex PC, just make it not a big deal. Maybe it would be realistic to have them comment (however subtly) on the fact that this is the first time they have entered into a same sex relationship, but that's all you need to do.

What? 

No she wasn't.

"I have been with many men." <- she flat out says that.

[Silfren]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Some people believe characters should be able to stand on their own merits and not have every piece of them bound to the PC.

Well, I agree that characters should be able to stand on their own merits.  I don't see at all how sexuality affects this, because the argument applies to all characters, Companions and NPCs alike, that interact with the PC, irrespective of whether they are a LI or not, and whether they are a bisexual LI or not.

So for every character to be interested in the player character just rubs people the wrong way. Very rarely does it have to do with the character being bi. And the lack of indication of bisexuality outside of the PC.

I can't agree that it rarely has anything to do with the character being bi, because objections to the issue of bisexuality is precisely the complaint often made.  I would agree that the lack of bisexuality outside of the PC can seem odd, but this could be extended: with few exceptions the LIs don't express any sexual interest outside of the PC.  Isabela and Fenris were definitely the exception to the rule, but I think they stand as a strong case that being playersexual or bisexual does not detrimentally affect the quality of writing. 

[Silfren]

The Hierophant wrote...

@ op - The real issue with DA's li is that the pc could hook up with them no matter how they behave or look, and rarely has a relationship ended as a result of the pc wiping their @ss with the companion's ideals/beliefs. The li lack preferences which barely puts them a step above your typical li in a generic anime styled dating sim.

I agree that this is a problem, and it needs to be addressed.  But I was specifically referring to people who insist that having all bisexual LIs leads to poor characterization, etc.  What you refer to is something else altogether.

[daaaav]

LPPrince wrote...

Some people have already stated it, but I guess I'll do it too-

Bisexuality and Playersexuality are different.

Bisexuality is fine, just as any sexuality(besides player-based, imo) is.

But playersexuality just feels off.

Sexuality I'd say affects someone's character, as its part of who they are. A character that's potentially romanceable I'd say is better written if their sexuality is taken into account, for example Zevran.

I like to think of Zevran and Leliana as bisexual, as it felt like their sexuality was part of who they were, while Merrill and Fenris for example just felt playersexual.

I think there's a bit of a delicate balance/fine line between the two though, especially when it comes to stereotypes.

If romances aren't gonna be split hetero/******/bi going forward and will all be player-based, I'd at least like to have those playersexual characters express interest in other romantic partners.

Basically-

I'd appreciate it if potential romance options were interested in characters besides the PC, like people in or even out of the party, regardless of their sexuality. As well as having someone's sexuality better reflected as part of who they are.

This, this and this again. Characters whose sexualities are determined by the player are precluded from having a sexuality at all until that decision is made (unless they are bisexual). 

[PsychoBlonde]

LPPrince wrote...

I'd appreciate it if potential romance options were interested in characters besides the PC, like people in or even out of the party, regardless of their sexuality. As well as having someone's sexuality better reflected as part of who they are.

You mean, like how Fenris developed a relationship with Izzy?  Yet you single Fenris out as feeling "playersexual".  Are you sure that's not because you gave Fenris and Merrill (but not Izzy and Anders) a sexual identity on the basis of . . . nothing and when they violated it, it felt "weird" to your preconceptions?

So, as long as they preestablish a sexual identity for a character, you're fine with it, but if it's up in the air and undefined it feels weird?

There may not be any such thing as "sexual identity" in Thedas--they don't have serious cultural bias against homosexuality, after all, so being consistently and determinedly heterosexual may actually be the unusual there.  It was that way in parts of the ancient world, after all, such as Greece or Japan.

[Silfren]

The Hierophant wrote...

@ op - The real issue with DA's li is that the pc could hook up with them no matter how they behave or look, and rarely has a relationship ended as a result of the pc wiping their @ss with the companion's ideals/beliefs. The li lack preferences which barely puts them a step above your typical li in a generic anime styled dating sim.

I agree that this is a problem, and it needs to be addressed.  But I was specifically referring to people who insist that having all bisexual LIs leads to poor characterization, etc.  What you refer to is something else altogether.

[JWvonGoethe]

Plaintiff wrote...

JWvonGoethe wrote...

[...]Alistair also had a sexual history in a way, though in his case it was that he had never slept with anyone, which also added to his characterisation.[...]

How come being a virgin doesn't "add to their personality"?

I explicitly stated that Alistair's virginity added to his personality in the above part of my post.

Sorry if the phrase "sexual history" was misleading; I meant it in the sense of having a sexual past that is made clear, even when the defining aspect of someone's sexual past is that they have never slept with anyone. To me that isn't contradictory, but I can see how it could be confusing. Subsitute your own phrase if you like.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 28 juin 2013 - 04:37 .

[Inspectre]

For me, it's more about making the PC's choice of gender feel special.   At present, it feel's like everything is just copy-pasted from the male PC.   Having exclusive content for female PCs helps make it feel like I didn't make the wrong choice.

Though, I would rather prefer the female PC sat properly than have exclusive romances.

Modifié par Dragon XIX, 28 juin 2013 - 04:44 .

[Maria Caliban]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

However, many of the people that tend to complain about characters hitting on them don't seem to mind so long as said characters are female.

Women.

And yes, Isabela hitting on my PC didn't bother me at all while Anders hitting on her did.

[PsychoBlonde]

daaaav wrote...

This, this and this again. Characters whose sexualities are determined by the player are precluded from having a sexuality at all until that decision is made (unless they are bisexual). 

So, the real problem is that you can't relate to a character unless you know what type of sex they prefer?  That characters who don't come out and announce it are somehow strange and strained characters?

I find this concept peculiar, but it may actually be true--a lot of people go to great pains to advertise their sexuality at least somewhat.

[Silfren]

Taint Master wrote...

I made a thread about this topic which was promptly locked, but to reiterate, the reason I personally feel player-sexual LIs is a bad idea is because it compromises the identity of each character. I specifically say player-sexual instead of 'bi' because a character specifically written as bisexual (Zevran and Leliana in DAO) can make it a part of their identity.

No, I'm not saying people are defined by their sexuality, but I completely disagree with those who claim it makes no difference at all. Your sexual identity is a part of what makes you who you are, however big or small.

Making everyone player-sexual makes them instantly feel generic and just reeks of laziness on the devs/writers part imo.

Well.  All the LIs in DA2 (excepting Sebastian) were playersexual.  Did you feel they were generic?  Could you describe how or why?  For all its problems, I actually thought DA2's Companion characters were extremely well written.  I agree that sexuality is one aspect of an individual's character (emphasis on it only being one aspect--never necessarily the defining one), but I don't see how any of the LIs in the last game suffered any deficiencies from being playersexual at all.

[JWvonGoethe]

Ryzaki wrote...

JWvonGoethe wrote...

 [...]Only Morrigan was silent about hers[...]

What? 

No she wasn't.

"I have been with many men." <- she flat out says that.

Wow. OK, I stand humbled and corrected. Your correction only adds to my point, however (that DA:O had the better system.)

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 28 juin 2013 - 04:42 .

[jillabender]

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with simply preferring for characters to have explicitly established sexual orientations. But I also appreciate that for many people, especially because they encounter so much exclusion and discrimination in their day-to-day lives, having a game that lets them enjoy any of the available romances that they choose while playing as a gay, lesbian, or bisexual hero is something very special, and I personally would like to see the Dragon Age games continue to provide that.

I admit that I have a hard time understanding the argument that having all of the romances available to characters of any gender somehow "cheapens" the characters by making it feel as though "all of the characters are trying to get into the PC's pants." It's hardly as though all of the romanceable characters in Dragon Age throw themselves at the PC in every playthrough - in fact, with a few exceptions, they won't make a move unless the PC flirts with them first.

I agree with the idea that, ideally, the romances should feel more as though the NPCs are reacting to the specific personality that the player has helped to define for the PC (while granting, also, that it's very difficult to accomplish that in a game). But I take issue when people argue that the choice to make all the romances available to characters of any gender is the reason that the romances haven't done that to their satisfaction.

Although I enjoyed the character interactions and romances in DA2, I found some of the romance scenes a bit lacking. But I don't think that restricting some or all of the romances based on the PC's gender would have somehow made them better. My main problem was that I sometimes felt that Hawke's lines in the romance scenes weren't expressive or evocative enough to convey much character, and that's not something that would be improved by making the romance an exclusively straight or exclusively gay romance across playthroughs.

In short, I have confidence that BioWare will improve in their presentation of romances, and of character relationships in general, but I don't think that restricting the romances based on gender in future Dragon Age games would make the romances feel more personal, meaningful or true-to-life in the way that some people seem to think it would.

(Just to be clear, I don't think that everyone who argues that "explicitly established sexualities make for better defined characters and stronger writing" is bigoted, I just think it's a confused argument).

Modifié par jillabender, 18 octobre 2013 - 02:20 .

[Ryzaki]

JWvonGoethe wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

JWvonGoethe wrote...

 [...]Only Morrigan was silent about hers[...]

What? 

No she wasn't.

"I have been with many men." <- she flat out says that.

Wow. OK, I stand humbled and corrected. Your correction only adds to my point, however (that DA:O had the better system.)

I liked how DAO initated romances but the 4 m/f LIs and 1 s/s LI per gender was meh. I like 4 bi LIs. Feels more balanced and at least that way the plot heavy relevant LIs are accessible to everyone.

[daaaav]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

daaaav wrote...

This, this and this again. Characters whose sexualities are determined by the player are precluded from having a sexuality at all until that decision is made (unless they are bisexual). 

So, the real problem is that you can't relate to a character unless you know what type of sex they prefer?  That characters who don't come out and announce it are somehow strange and strained characters?

I find this concept peculiar, but it may actually be true--a lot of people go to great pains to advertise their sexuality at least somewhat.

I don't think you'll find those words in my single sentence response... In fact I said nothing at all about my preferences. I was merely highlighting an implication of this phenomenan and how it limits characterisation in certain circumstances. No. Not all characters need to have implicitly logged sexual histories for people to identify with them but to scrub them entirely? That is something else.

[9TailsFox]

Eveangaline wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

Some people believe characters should be able to stand on their own merits and not have every piece of them bound to the PC.

An example of it done well is in Viconia; you can change her alignment, to an extent, but she'll never be good. And there are consequences for doing so.

An example of where it is explained is in KotOR 2: The Exile's literally mind controlling the characters. One of them even has a slight breakdown over it.

So for every character to be interested in the player character just rubs people the wrong way. Very rarely does it have to do with the character being bi. And the lack of indication of bisexuality outside of the PC.

By that logic, the rivalry system is far worse than bisexual LIs. Before, characters were free to hate the PC and leave, now they're tied to being forced to respect them on some level and never leave unless it's a plot thing.

Yes rively system is far worse. I save images in front of fenris and he is fine. If you kill mages whit Anders why Hawke even alive?
And I think sexuality is part of personality. Isabella is biseksual this part of heart, she wouldn't be the same if she would be straight. I don't have problem all characters being bisexual (which they are not) I have problem all character being PC sexual.