1981 réponses à ce sujet

[Ziggeh]

Kallimachus wrote...

You can do whatever you want, and obviously do, but a literary analysis of a text (and I maintain that each playtthrough is a text unto itself, containing a whole complete narrative) cannot take into account anything extraneous to it.

I'm not sure formal literary analysis has a methodology for coping with information that exists within the text but is external to a given reading, but it's not terribly relevant as gameplay doesn't take place within it.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 02 juillet 2013 - 06:59 .

[Kallimachus]

Ziggeh wrote...

Kallimachus wrote...

You can do whatever you want, and obviously do, but a literary analysis of a text (and I maintain that each playtthrough is a text unto itself, containing a whole complete narrative) cannot take into account anything extraneous to it.

I'm not sure formal literary analysis has a methodology for coping with information that exists within the text but is external to a given reading, but it's not terribly relevant as gameplay doesn't take place within it.

Insofar as we're talking about story elements of gameplay, it certainly is.

But neither you nor Ieldra2 have as yet answered the question I posed a few pages ago. So I'll assume I wasn't clear enough and rephrase it: in what manner, do you think, Fenris' or Merrill's characterization, action, mannerisms, or role in the game would have been different had they been available as LIs only to opposite gender Hawke? How would they have been different had they been available only to a same sex Hawke?

Modifié par Kallimachus, 02 juillet 2013 - 07:18 .

[Hazegurl]

Kallimachus wrote...
Insofar as we're talking about story elements of gameplay, it certainly is.

But neither you nor Ieldra2 have as yet answered the question I posed a few pages ago. So I'll assume I wasn't clear enough and rephrase it: in what manner, do you think, Fenris' or Merrill's characterization, action, mannerisms, or role in the game would have been different had they been available as LIs only to opposite gender Hawke? How would they have been different had they been available only to a same sex Hawke?

Don't bother, I have asked a similar question several pages ago and got no response to the ppl I was replying to. It's safe to pretty much assume that they know that it changes nothing about the character, they just don't want to admit it.

[Il Divo]

Kallimachus wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Kallimachus wrote...

You can do whatever you want, and obviously do, but a literary analysis of a text (and I maintain that each playtthrough is a text unto itself, containing a whole complete narrative) cannot take into account anything extraneous to it.

I'm not sure formal literary analysis has a methodology for coping with information that exists within the text but is external to a given reading, but it's not terribly relevant as gameplay doesn't take place within it.

Insofar as we're talking about story elements of gameplay, it certainly is.

But neither you nor Ieldra2 have as yet answered the question I posed a few pages ago. So I'll assume I wasn't clear enough and rephrase it: in what manner, do you think, Fenris' or Merrill's characterization, action, mannerisms, or role in the game would have been different had they been available as LIs only to opposite gender Hawke? How would they have been different had they been available only to a same sex Hawke?

Well, the question might be better served if you were to direct it at a different character. Bethany, for example. If I remember right, there's a rather amusing conversation between Bethany and Isabella regarding how the latter has been with women, a concept that is utterly foreign to Bethany who has lived a relatively sheltered existence and presumably based on her dialogue thinks that male-female relationships are the norm.

Things like this are potentially lost when we're forced into player-sexual romances, because character X's past relationships must be left ambiguous. The Bethany dialogue is one such example. Attempting to romance Traynor as a male Shepard is another. I can't remember anything specifically with regard to Fenris/Merril that makes this contradictory, but those little moments definitely add to the game (imo). I like that the player has the ability to be denied.

Modifié par Il Divo, 02 juillet 2013 - 07:34 .

[Ieldra]

Kallimachus wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Kallimachus wrote...

You can do whatever you want, and obviously do, but a literary analysis of a text (and I maintain that each playtthrough is a text unto itself, containing a whole complete narrative) cannot take into account anything extraneous to it.

I'm not sure formal literary analysis has a methodology for coping with information that exists within the text but is external to a given reading, but it's not terribly relevant as gameplay doesn't take place within it.

Insofar as we're talking about story elements of gameplay, it certainly is.

But neither you nor Ieldra2 have as yet answered the question I posed a few pages ago. So I'll assume I wasn't clear enough and rephrase it: in what manner, do you think, Fenris' or Merrill's characterization, action, mannerisms, or role in the game would have been different had they been available as LIs only to opposite gender Hawke? How would they have been different had they been available only to a same sex Hawke?

I hold that sexual orientation is an autonomous part of a character's identity. Just like other traits, it can change, but at any given point in time it's an inextricable part of them and not irrelevant just because it isn't connected to anything else. It's certainly not a thing that "doesn't matter", as your side frequently proclaims. If it was, it wouldn't be an issue for you.

And.. perhaps you shouldn't ask if things would be different rather than if they should be different, as in Il Divo's example above?

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 juillet 2013 - 07:42 .

[Hazegurl]

Cheylus wrote...

- "Once again-- the romances are *not* "all bisexual". While some people don't like subjective sexuality, being aware of the fact some of your love interests could romance someone of the same gender in another game takes a back seat to fairness and fun gameplay. As I said before, if we have a sufficient number of romances, a spread of set sexualities would actually be my preference... but that's not always going to be the case, as the game's focus is not on romance content even if threads on the BSN often seem to be." (source)

I agree with Gaider. The whole thing is just a matter of players looking up too much info or replaying the game knowing that their character can romance another person whether it's someone of the same sex or opposite and then they walk away with the impression that all the characters are drooling over them and everyone is now bisexual. Then they use that knowledge and assumption to tell other players that they shouldn't have access to X content or worse, there should be some sort of gay questionnaire to fill out or a gay toggle to select before the game blah blah. If a person spoils themselves on too much knowledge of the game that is their own fault, if they can't see each new game as an AU then its their own fault. And content shouldn't be restricted due to their lack of imagination.

[Ziggeh]

Kallimachus wrote...

Insofar as we're talking about story elements of gameplay, it certainly is.

You're ignoring the manners in which people actually engage with the text. How can you possibly seek to analyse something built to express if you don't take it's expression into account? I find the idea that there is a "right" way to read really rather rediculous.

Kallimachus wrote...
in what manner, do you think, Fenris' or Merrill's characterization, action, mannerisms, or role in the game would have been different had they been available as LIs only to opposite gender Hawke? How would they have been different had they been available only to a same sex Hawke?

In no manner and they wouldn't. You're conflating my position with Ieldra's.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Il Divo wrote...

Things like this are potentially lost when we're forced into player-sexual romances, because character X's past relationships must be left ambiguous. The Bethany dialogue is one such example. Attempting to romance Traynor as a male Shepard is another. I can't remember anything specifically with regard to Fenris/Merril that makes this contradictory, but those little moments definitely add to the game (imo). I like that the player has the ability to be denied.

I would say ME3 is an example of how NOT to do same-sex romances. I appreciate that BW tried and did something, but it wasn't really what was asked. When we talk about these romances, we're talking about choice as opposed to sexuality; the actual sexuality of the character is irrelevant, so long as they are available regardless of the PC's gender. I don't particularly care about specific dialogues.

DA2 did this right as far as I'm concerned. DA:I might want to follow suit.

[Kallimachus]

Il Divo wrote...

Well, the question might be better served if you were to direct it at a different character. Bethany, for example. If I remember right, there's a rather amusing conversation between Bethany and Isabella regarding how the latter has been with women, a concept that is utterly foreign to Bethany who has lived a relatively sheltered existence and presumably based on her dialogue thinks that male-female relationships are the norm.

Things like this are potentially lost when we're forced into player-sexual romances, because character X's past relationships must be left ambiguous. The Bethany dialogue is one such example. Attempting to romance Traynor as a male Shepard is another. I can't remember anything specifically with regard to Fenris/Merril that makes this contradictory, but those little moments definitely add to the game (imo). I like that the player has the ability to be denied.

First of all, you're not "forced" into anything. You don't have to play a romance, so please leave that kind of antagonistic rhetoric outside this argument.

Second, even with this piece of information I don't see how the characterization of anyone else would have been different. It is unlikely that the bumpkin Bethany presentation would have repeated itself in any other character (if only for the reason that it's already been done). So rather your example actully strengthen my point, while still not answering my question. Fenris past would have been obscure either way as he has no memory of it, and besides, even in a character like Morrigan, who we know is heterosexual, her sexual/romantic past is unknown. Does that reduce from her "characterization" or "believability"?

As for Traynor (as well as Cortez, and Allers) feel free to browse back a few pages for a full explanation on why they are simply lopsided poorly characterized characters. If you have not read beforehand that Traynor is lesbian, and you are playing a male character you'd never even guess she could be an LI, let alone a gay woman, there isn't a single hint in her conversation. She is barely memorable. Cortez speaks of his husband, and therefore you must know he's gay, but can you honestly say if you'd have changed the word "husband" with "wife" in any of his conversations he would have been a different character? Even by a millimeter? I think not.

Modifié par Kallimachus, 02 juillet 2013 - 08:11 .

[Hazegurl]

Il Divo wrote...

Well, the question might be better served if you were to direct it at a different character. Bethany, for example. If I remember right, there's a rather amusing conversation between Bethany and Isabella regarding how the latter has been with women, a concept that is utterly foreign to Bethany who has lived a relatively sheltered existence and presumably based on her dialogue thinks that male-female relationships are the norm.

Things like this are potentially lost when we're forced into player-sexual romances, because character X's past relationships must be left ambiguous. The Bethany dialogue is one such example. Attempting to romance Traynor as a male Shepard is another. I can't remember anything specifically with regard to Fenris/Merril that makes this contradictory, but those little moments definitely add to the game (imo). I like that the player has the ability to be denied.

I can't speak for the person you replied to but IMO, it would be silly if every single character interaction was like that. The novelty of it would wear off fast and it would seem as though sex is the only topic these characters can talk about. The dialouge was great between Isabella, who is simply far more experienced overall and Bethany, who is not, but it would be redundant to have the same type of conversation with Merrill. At this point it would be like "I get it, Isabella has sex with everyone and the inexperienced women are shocked by it.  :huh:" 

Maybe it's just me, but I don't want sex as the number one topic of discussion for every character to have, it fits with Bethany and Isabella. With Merrill, considering the fact that I haven't seen a single elf aside from a PC elf warden as being protrayed as strictly straight or gay then I don't think the same type of interaction would fit. I would even say that there is perhaps a possiblity that elves just don't have a sexual orientation at all. Sure Zevran prefers women but that doesn't mean much when he willingly falls in love with a male warden. As for being rejected, you can get rejected, by Aveline and you can't romance Varric. The only difference here is that Aveline and Varric are not possible LI while Traynor is. It just boils down to you not seeing Aveline or Varric as a real rejection because you know you can't romance them anyway. That's metagaming. And also Traynor is a character from our own world in a way not from the world of DA that may have a whole new set of rules concerning what sexuality is.  I sort of wish Gaider would write a whole chapter on sex and sexuality in Thedas, from country to country et al so then posters can complain about that.

also: it(your reply) doesn't address how the characters themselves would be different.

Modifié par Hazegurl, 02 juillet 2013 - 08:07 .

[Kallimachus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I hold that sexual orientation is an autonomous part of a character's identity. Just like other traits, it can change, but at any given point in time it's an inextricable part of them and not irrelevant just because it isn't connected to anything else. It's certainly not a thing that "doesn't matter", as your side frequently proclaims. If it was, it wouldn't be an issue for you.

And.. perhaps you shouldn't ask if things would be different rather than if they should be different, as in Il Divo's example above?

Il Divo's example is bad indeed, as I have explained both before his post and after it. So no, I wouldn't think it should be different.

As for your first paragraph, I really want to avoid answering harshly because that argument is (and I'm being as mild as I can) hypocritical. It is important to us because it is representation of us. In the same way that it is important to people of different colour to be represented in the game.

It's simply that YOUR SIDE is used to being catered to and so imagines that having to share the limelight in any way (even if only obliquely) is damaging to the game. How can it not be, if you have to share something? And that is why YOU make an issue of it.

And you still have not answered my question.

[Hazegurl]

Kallimachus wrote...
As for Traynor (as well as Cortez, and Allers) feel free to browse back a few pages for a full explanation on why they are simply lopsided poorly characterized characters. If you have not read beforehand that Traynor is lesbian, and you are playing a male character you'd never even guess she could be an LI, let alone a gay woman, there isn't a single hint in her conversation. She is barely memorable. Cortez speaks of his husband, and therefore you must know he's gay, but can you honestly say if you'd have changed the word "husband" with "wife" in any of his conversations he would have been a different character? Even by a millimeter? I think not.

I agree completely. I romanced Cortez on my first ME3 playthrough(I haven't played 1 & 2 at the time) the romance was okay but I didn't feel much from him. Talking to Kaidan in ME3 made me regret not picking him as a romance instead. It felt hollow watching Cortez put Shep's name on the wall. When I got 1 & 2 I did a trilogy playthrough and I was disappointed that I couldn't romance Kaidan in ME1 but I loved his character even more and I could see the subtle hints in there of his feelings for Shepard, especially in ME2. ME3 was so much better now that I could have Shep and Kaidan fully explore there feelings and it felt right watching Kaidan put the name on the wall than Cortez. but that was before the MEHEM.

The Traynor romance was a joke. It looked more like a hook up than a relationship.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Kallimachus wrote...


As for Traynor (as well as Cortez, and Allers) feel free to browse back a few pages for a full explanation on why they are simply lopsided poorly characterized characters.

You shut your mouth STEEEEEEEVE! and Traynor are awesome, not as good as God-tier Javik of course but still awesome, Allers can burn though.

Modifié par Grand Admiral Cheesecake, 02 juillet 2013 - 08:26 .

[Kallimachus]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Kallimachus wrote...


As for Traynor (as well as Cortez, and Allers) feel free to browse back a few pages for a full explanation on why they are simply lopsided poorly characterized characters.

You shut your mouth STEEEEEEEVE! and Traynor are awesome, not as good as God-tier Javik of course but still awesome, Allers can burn though.

If you think THEY are fully fleshed characters, you have nothing to complain about with the DA2 characters.

[Alex109222]

I'd rather sexuality not play a big part in video games at all. Look at New Vegas and how well it handled homosexuality and the like, the gay character (Arcade) just mentioned it and that was the end of it.
Focus on good writing and characterization, because when you try too hard to throw a lot of "social commentary" into something you're always going to get a lot of unnecessary backlash.

[Ryzaki]

Hazegurl wrote...

Kallimachus wrote...
Insofar as we're talking about story elements of gameplay, it certainly is.

But neither you nor Ieldra2 have as yet answered the question I posed a few pages ago. So I'll assume I wasn't clear enough and rephrase it: in what manner, do you think, Fenris' or Merrill's characterization, action, mannerisms, or role in the game would have been different had they been available as LIs only to opposite gender Hawke? How would they have been different had they been available only to a same sex Hawke?

Don't bother, I have asked a similar question several pages ago and got no response to the ppl I was replying to. It's safe to pretty much assume that they know that it changes nothing about the character, they just don't want to admit it.

Yep. Asked it near the beginning of the thread. Got crickets in response.

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Kallimachus wrote...


As for Traynor (as well as Cortez, and Allers) feel free to browse back a few pages for a full explanation on why they are simply lopsided poorly characterized characters.

You
shut your mouth STEEEEEEEVE! and Traynor are awesome, not as good as
God-tier Javik of course but still awesome, Allers can burn though.

You sure? 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 juillet 2013 - 08:43 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Kallimachus wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Kallimachus wrote...


As for Traynor (as well as Cortez, and Allers) feel free to browse back a few pages for a full explanation on why they are simply lopsided poorly characterized characters.

You shut your mouth STEEEEEEEVE! and Traynor are awesome, not as good as God-tier Javik of course but still awesome, Allers can burn though.

If you think THEY are fully fleshed characters, you have nothing to complain about with the DA2 characters.

2 things.

1. I don't care if a character is fully fleshed or not, if they have an amusing quirk, a sexy voice, or some other awesome characteristic I will enjoy them.

2. I haven't complained about the DA2 characters.



I'm the rarest of all things in a BSN romance thread, a true neutral.

Because I can legitimately say that I don't care one way or another. Yay Apathy!...


Actually it's more "yay apathy..."

[Kallimachus]

Alex109222 , I never played New Vegas, so I do not know how large a part (if at all) did romance play in the game. I do know that Arcade was not a romanceable character. And again I ask the question, why should gay gamers not be able to play the main character as gay, completely with all the options afforded to straight gamers?
Romance is not contradictory to good writing or characterization, it is a part of them and enhances the story rather than the other way around.
And finally what "social commentary" was there in Dragon Age? I mean other than admitting that gay gamers exist, and allowing them to play as themselves?

And as for "unnecessary backlash", I guess it's very easy to give up on the enjoyment of people other than yourself...

Modifié par Kallimachus, 02 juillet 2013 - 08:46 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

You can play a gay character in New Vegas, it just has the exact same impact on the story (Virtually nothing)

Straight Character: Hmm I can use the lady killer perk to get a discount from this store.
Gay Character: Hmm I can use the confirmed bachelor perk to get a discount and some additional information from this other equally valid store.

Boom the equality of slightly increased rewards/slightly expanded dialogues!

[Ieldra]

Kallimachus wrote...
It's simply that YOUR SIDE is used to being catered to and so imagines that having to share the limelight in any way (even if only obliquely) is damaging to the game. How can it not be, if you have to share something? And that is why YOU make an issue of it.

Yeah yeah, now it's all privilege again. You know, I actually agree with David Gaider on that, but that doesn't make the worldbuilding issue go away. I could say that the situation calls for representative representation of sexual orientations and since you're arguing for more than that, it's actually you who want to have that privileged position instead. The point would be pretty much irrefutable, especially since you also insisted that any other solution than the one you prefer would never be realized with no evidence to go for it, even though I have given you a doable example. Instead, I'm willing to actively support the people who want same sex romances to the point where representation is actually equal. I'm willing to sacrifice the number of choices I have in order so that you get that equal representation. I just don't want to have everyone available for everyone because that's not believable. You don't have to agree, but if you continue to confuse the issue and try to invalidate my position by making it all about politics and entitlement I'll continue to call you out on it.  

And you still have not answered my question.

That question is irrelevant to my position, as I explained in my previous answer to you. The problem does not lie in any single character, but in the set of characters. It's like my complaint about Renegade decisions always turning out badly in ME. Any single decision can go any way it wants, but an unbroken pattern has adverse effects on immersion because things just don't work that way. An unbroken pattern of bisexuality is equally unbelievable. 

What it comes down to: that I'm here debating this topic has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with sex and gender politics in the real world, and everything with immersion and worldbuilding. That sexual orientation comes into it rather than morality or the willingness of writers to sacrifice world consistency for drama is incidental. Maybe you can't believe that because you don't care about these things as much as about your thrice damned gender politics. Maybe you think it's an excuse, and since you can't read my mind I won't be able to disprove it, but I care about the fictional worlds I'm playing in, and I think political issues of the real world, however justified, shouldn't be allowed to adversely affect their believability.

End of rant. Thank you.

Edit:
And  before someone repeats: they're not all bi - that's exactly how things come across. That they may not be supposed to come across that way from the writers' viewpoint is irrelevant as far as the result is concerned. In that case it's a communication failure instead of a design failure, which makes it moderately more acceptable, but the result is the same. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 juillet 2013 - 09:09 .

[Pasquale1234]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I hold that sexual orientation is an autonomous part of a character's identity.

I don't disagree with that assertion, but the residents of Thedas have never given us any indication whatsoever as to their understanding of the concept of sexual orientation.  It is a concept that exists in our world in modern times, but hasn't always.

Since the characters themselves have never indicated any knowledge of sexual orientation as we understand it, and have never labeled themselves, any conclusions we draw are merely assumptions based on their apparent sexuality.

Apparant sexualty =/= actual sexuality.  To think otherwise is, I think, a little naive.

I don't assume, for example, that Aveline is straight just because she married Ser Wesley and then Donnic, as that says nothing about whether she has ever or could ever engage in an intimate relationship with another woman.

For another example, I don't assume Isabela is bi.  It is clear that she enjoys casual sex with members of both sexes, but might find that she is only able to engage in a more serious intimate relationship with members of one sex - and for that reason, might consider herself to be something other than bi.

Add to all of that the fact that people do sometimes engage in relationships outside their usual orientation - "because Hawke" - and I really don't understand what some people here are going on about.

[Kallimachus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Yeah yeah, now it's all privilege again.

If the shoe fits...

You know, I actually agree with David Gaider on that, but that doesn't make the worldbuilding issue go away. I could say that the situation calls for representative representation of sexual orientations and since you're arguing for more than that, it's actually you who want to have that privileged position instead.

Are you absolutly certain you know what the word priveleged mean? I don't want to be catered to at the expense of anyone else. I am perfectly willing to share. You are the one who does not.

The point would be pretty much irrefutable, especially since you also insisted that any other solution than the one you prefer would never be realized with no evidence to go for it, even though I have given you a doable example. Instead, I'm willing to actively support the people who want same sex romances to the point where representation is actually equal. I'm willing to sacrifice the number of choices I have in order so that you get that equal representation. I just don't want to have everyone available for everyone because that's not believable. You don't have to agree, but if you continue to confuse the issue and try to invalidate my position by making it all about politics and entitlement I'll continue to call you out on it.

It is perfectly refutable because of these things: 1. you know perfectly well straight romances would never be removed, they never have before. 2. Strictly gay romances are almost unheard of (with the exception of one game in which they were handled offhandedly, and rather unsatifsactorily). 3. David Gaider said in his lecture here that one of the main reasons BioWare included gay options at all was because once a romance was written, it took little to no writing and development resources to make them available to gay gamers as well. We both know who will have to give up in case more resources would need to be spent.

So I repeat - your position is both priveleged and hypocritical.

And you still have not answered my question.

That question is irrelevant to my position, as I explained in my previous answer to you.

You did not explain, nor can you because the answer to this question is the only thing upon which your argument stands or falls. Without the answer to this questions your argument has no legs.

The problem does not lie in any single character, but in the set of characters. It's like my complaint about Renegade decisions always turning out badly in ME. Any single decision can go any way it wants, but an unbroken pattern has adverse effects on immersion because things just don't work that way. An unbroken pattern of bisexuality is equally unbelievable.

Only because of metagaming. The game itself does not contain bisexuality except for specific characters (Isabela, Zevran, and Leliana, and pansexuality for Anders), So there is nothing to break your obviously fragile suspension of disbelief. And this is where another question I asked before and you failed to answer pops again - If so-called "player-sexuality" offends you in regards to sexual orientation, why does it not bother you to other matters of preference, like species preference (which is much more bizarre than homosexuality), or even hair colour?

What it comes down to: that I'm here debating this topic has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with sex and gender politics in the real world, and everything with immersion and worldbuilding. That sexual orientation comes into it rather than morality or the willingness of writers to sacrifice world consistency for drama is incidental. Maybe you can't believe that because you don't care about these things as much as about your thrice damned gender politics. Maybe you think it's an excuse, and since you can't read my mind I won't be able to disprove it, but I care about the fictional worlds I'm playing in, and I think political issues of the real world, however justified, shouldn't be allowed to adversely affect their believability.

End of rant. Thank you.

What it boils down to is you finding it icky to have your character in a romance with an LI which may have in another player's game been gay.

Politics has nothing to do with it. It's simply a very personal willingness to not be excluded in a game I like. And not feeling so frustrated and disappointed with its rejection of you that you feel forced to quit the game mid way (as I did in both NWN games).

And since these things have 0 (I'll repeat it: ZERO) effect on immersion or worldbuilding. Certainly much less than the drastic changes that the customization of the protagonist's class, build and choice. So nothing at all is sacrificed in any way, except your privelege.

I'm not even going to respond to your presumtuous passive-agrresive remark about how much I don't care about immersion, drama or consistency. Apparently you (unlike myself) can read minds.

You have yet to establish that such sacrifice even exists. Or even that it is in any way (even the smallest) impared or damaged.

[Kallimachus]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
I hold that sexual orientation is an autonomous part of a character's identity.

I don't disagree with that assertion, but the residents of Thedas have never given us any indication whatsoever as to their understanding of the concept of sexual orientation.  It is a concept that exists in our world in modern times, but hasn't always.

Since the characters themselves have never indicated any knowledge of sexual orientation as we understand it, and have never labeled themselves, any conclusions we draw are merely assumptions based on their apparent sexuality.

Apparant sexualty =/= actual sexuality.  To think otherwise is, I think, a little naive.

I don't assume, for example, that Aveline is straight just because she married Ser Wesley and then Donnic, as that says nothing about whether she has ever or could ever engage in an intimate relationship with another woman.

For another example, I don't assume Isabela is bi.  It is clear that she enjoys casual sex with members of both sexes, but might find that she is only able to engage in a more serious intimate relationship with members of one sex - and for that reason, might consider herself to be something other than bi.

Add to all of that the fact that people do sometimes engage in relationships outside their usual orientation - "because Hawke" - and I really don't understand what some people here are going on about.

That is indeed also very true.

[Il Divo]

Kallimachus wrote...

First of all, you're not "forced" into anything. You don't have to play a romance, so please leave that kind of antagonistic rhetoric outside this argument.

My, my, you're taking things a tad personally. Fine, I'll rephrase. You can either take player sexual romances or no romances at all, which is a half-step above forced player-sexual romances. Better?

Second, even with this piece of information I don't see how the characterization of anyone else would have been different. It is unlikely that the bumpkin Bethany presentation would have repeated itself in any other character (if only for the reason that it's already been done). 

It can appear as much or as little as the writers allow it. But this sort of characterization is impossible if the writers are worried about only player-sexual romances. The entire humor behind that conversation with Bethany lies in the fact that she doesn't have familiarity with same sex relationships.

So rather your example actully strengthen my point, while still not answering my question. Fenris past would have been obscure either way as he has no memory of it, and besides, even in a character like Morrigan, who we know is heterosexual, her sexual/romantic past is unknown. Does that reduce from her "characterization" or "believability"? 

You don't have a point. The Bethany example as a concept can be applied to any Bioware character, as the writers choose. Player-sexual romances prevent this.

As for Traynor (as well as Cortez, and Allers) feel free to browse back a few pages for a full explanation on why they are simply lopsided poorly characterized characters. If you have not read beforehand that Traynor is lesbian, and you are playing a male character you'd never even guess she could be an LI, let alone a gay woman, there isn't a single hint in her conversation. She is barely memorable. Cortez speaks of his husband, and therefore you must know he's gay, but can you honestly say if you'd have changed the word "husband" with "wife" in any of his conversations he would have been a different character? Even by a millimeter? I think not.

That there wasn't a single hint in her conversation is exactly what made the unveiling of Traynor as a gay character so amusing, as someone trying to bed her. This sort of interaction is impossible if Traynor's sexuality adapts to whatever my character wants. Every trait, fact, or detail about a person can add or take away from someone's character.

And I don't recall asking whether you consider her a crappy character. I would consider her memorable. My point remains: that interaction with Male Shep was interesting and enjoyable, and allowed a fun approach to learning about her sexual preferences, which added to her characterization.