1981 réponses à ce sujet

[Medhia Nox]

If these games presented the romances as integral to the storyline - instead of just player fantasy fulfillment - I would perhaps agree more with the notion that static NPC sexuality enhances the game.

As they are however - the romances are superfluous at best - so player sexual NPCs are fine by me.

There is nothing "being straight" or "being gay" would add to these characters since these games deal with the concept of sexuality as little more than base titillation and childish banter.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 02 juillet 2013 - 10:15 .

[Il Divo]

Hazegurl wrote...


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:" 

Well, I would say that's much like suggesting that the novelty of character interaction can wear off, I don't really think it's possible. My point isn't that every character needs to deal with the topic of sex, it's one such topic among a plethora available, which makes for amusing anecdotes. My point is that if Bioware demands only player-sexual romances, what happens to character interaction? We're necessarily limited in what content we can explore for certain companions, because all LIs must be player-sexual.

That can affect other, potentially interesting content. Bioware games make a habit of letting you influence your companion's beliefs regarding good and evil, etc. Well, what if you could actively affect their sexual preferences too by slowly nudging them in a different direction? Hey, Ashley is normally straight! But work at it long enough and maybe you could convince her to expand her interests. This sort of thing also is not possible with player-sexual romances, because the character is automatically attached to the PC.

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.

I see Aveline as rejection. Varric, not so much unless you can actually make an advance on him (I can't remember). Any and all traits contribute to a character's identity/background. Even in Dragon Age, where relationships are more diverse, we do have characters like Bethany providing a very different perspective.

But I've repeated this a few times, if the cost of this is that Bioware has to cut romance options, I'm willing to start with female companions for Male PCs, provided the game at least provides me the ability to express my sexuality, even if it means failing to bed anyone.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 02 juillet 2013 - 10:16 .

[Kallimachus]

Il Divo wrote...

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?

No.

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.

Now that is just a silly thing to say. It cannot appear more than once, otherwise it is just repetitious, and that's just bad writing. And as you yourself say, that exchangege took place, and was effective. Which strengthen my point. And since the writers themselves say they were not worried about it, why would you claim that they are?

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.

And indeed it WAS applied. Which is my very existing point.

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.

Except that she was never unveiled as a lesbian. I never realized she was supposed to be gay until after the game, when I read it online. You may not have asked, but that's the only pertinent thing - this thread is about "good writing" and "characterization". My argument is that with the resources BioWare would expend on characters that are solely same sex LIs (if any) it would not be possible to create memorable and fully fleshed characters. What you want is to have fully fleshed characters sd LIs for yourself, and scraps for others.

[Ieldra]

Kallimachus wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
Yeah yeah, now it's all privilege again.

If the shoe fits...

If you see a fitting shoe it's because you frame every problem in your own paradigma. It's not a matter of me "not wanting to share". It's not a matter of me finding anything "icky". Please don't tell me how I feel about what, I know that very well, thank you very much. 
I've *repeatedly* said I would accept fewer options for me as long it wasn't zero options in order to maintain immersion. That you insist on accusing me of this bullsh*t is evidence enough that you don't understand my position. 

I've also suggested stressing the "every playthrough is an AU" aspect in order to make the "playersexuality" not come across as "everyone is bi.", and that would also be very doable while giving everyone the LI options they want. And you go on and claim that I find playersexuality "icky" when I actually supported it.

Sorry, but at this point I see issues clouding reason and I see no way to continue this debate in a civil fashion. I'll grudgingly admit you've exhausted my tolerance for propadanda and bow out of the topic after this post before I say something I'll be banned for. I really hate being misrepresented.  

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.

You don't get to say what affects my immersion. If it doesn't affect *your* immersion, then you're lucky, for you don't have to sacrifice anything and you gain everything by DA2's setup. No wonder you don't want things to be different.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 juillet 2013 - 10:41 .

[RosaAquafire]

I don't want to read all these pages so I'm just going to drop my opinion like a hot turd and then leave.

I am bisexual and I do not feel that it wildly changes my personality. I like women, I like men. If I were straight or gay, I would mostly be the same person. The only thing that changes in my life as a result of being bisexual are the people I date and the general crappiness of being anything but a white straight affluent cis man. Since there's no taboo over sexuality in Thedas, there's no angst to be had on that front, so basically ... being bisexual doesn't make you any different than being straight.

I liked how DA2 had all bisexuals. I like how they were normal people who didn't feel the need to put out a bulletin on all channels like Leliana and Zevran did, carefully explaining their sexuality. I flirt with them, they flirt back, bam we're in a relationship. They don't need to sit there and prove their bi cred to me because the fact that they're banging me makes it clear that they like my parts.

I don't even mind the subjective sexuality thing for Fenris and Merrill because it doesn't matter. Neither of them bring up past lovers and don't feel a need to go into their preferences, which, since I would remind everyone again, Thedas has no sexuality taboo, they wouldn't need to, just like they wouldn't feel obligated to tell me that they're really into dwarves. It's irrelevant to our romance right now at this moment.

The only time I feel DA2 stumbled was with Anders not telling a Lady Hawke about him and Karl, because if Karl was not his first true love and they were not romantically involved, it really DOES change his character a lot. Losing a friend and losing the first person you loved is a huge difference and Anders' character makes way more sense when you see Karl's death as his breaking point. Having that be Schroediger's Character Development was a misstep ... but it was the only one.

And if we have to have clumsy, badly handled stuff like that to make all romances available to all genders, then I'll take it.

And I really wish straight people and gay people would stop telling me whether or not bi love interests should be offensive to me. I'll decide what's offensive to me, thanks. I thought that DA2 had a great cast of bisexual characters, ranging from Isabela's broad advertisement of her preferences to Merrill's quiet, non-sexual acceptance of whatever genitals are attached to love. It was a hell of a lot better than DA:O's bisexuals.

[Kallimachus]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I've *repeatedly* said I would accept fewer options for me as long it wasn't zero options in order to maintain immersion. That you insist on accusing me of this bullsh*t is evidence enough that you don't understand my position.

It's very easy to say you're willing to sacrifice something you know would never be sacrificed.

There is nothing wrong with my understanding.

[Xilizhra]

Perhaps I should have qualified (I did that in earlier posts): ...as long as there are options for every sexual orientation. I'm also for including exclusively gay/lesbian options like ME3 did. Traynor and Cortez were great characters and IMO they would've been lessened had they both been bi. Apart from that, I think some people could do with a little more flexibility regarding the genders they play.

No. I do not like playing male characters, and should not be forced to under any circumstances.

You don't get to say what affects my immersion. If it doesn't affect *your* immersion, then you're lucky, for you don't have to sacrifice anything and you gain everything by DA2's setup. No wonder you don't want things to be different.

The problem arises when different peoples' immersion is affected by different and conflicting things. In this case, naturally we will support the position that we find more fitting for us.

[Angrywolves]

Nothing against LGBT pl ayers, they can play DAI however they want but it's unrealistic to make all characters bisexual like in DA2. Seemed that was a function of lazy writing. Of course, assuming 10 party members as has been speculated, some will be bi, some gay, and some straight. My guess is the writing of DAI was over some time ago, Gaider and his team decided this, so it will be whatever it is.

[Xilizhra]

Angrywolves wrote...

Nothing against LGBT pl ayers, they can play DAI however they want but it's unrealistic to make all characters bisexual like in DA2. Seemed that was a function of lazy writing. Of course, assuming 10 party members as has been speculated, some will be bi, some gay, and some straight. My guess is the writing of DAI was over some time ago, Gaider and his team decided this, so it will be whatever it is.

Not all of the companions in DA2 were bisexual; your argument is invalid.

[daaaav]

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?

Ha! thats absurd. Merrill and Fenris where characterised such that their sexuality was practically irrellevant, therefore it would make no difference if they had been available as LI's to only one player gender.

The point is that they are precluded from being characterised or involved with any plot line or backstory that would define their sexualities. There have been numerous examples in this thread of characteristics and plotlines that would be difficult to apply to characters like Merril and Fenris, but can be used with characters like Anders and Isabella. 

[thedistortedchild]

Kallimachus wrote...

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.

This, just all of this. As someone who is bi, maybe I am just more comfortable with open-ended sexuality characters.

[Xilizhra]

daaaav 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?

Ha! thats absurd. Merrill and Fenris where characterised such that their sexuality was practically irrellevant, therefore it would make no difference if they had been available as LI's to only one player gender.

The point is that they are precluded from being characterised or involved with any plot line or backstory that would define their sexualities. There have been numerous examples in this thread of characteristics and plotlines that would be difficult to apply to characters like Merril and Fenris, but can be used with characters like Anders and Isabella. 

They're not precluded at all; they could easily have some plot point related to bisexuality had it been added. It's just that neither one considers sexual orientation to be terribly important, which I contend has to do with them being elves.

[Angrywolves]

Whatever Xilwhatevuh.rotfl.
The argument is valid. Does everyone want all the party members to be bisexual as a convenience for romance purposes ?
I don't.

[Xilizhra]

Angrywolves wrote...

Whatever Xilwhatevuh.rotfl.
The argument is valid. Does everyone want all the party members to be bisexual as a convenience for romance purposes ?
I don't.

But they're not. Aveline, Varric and Sebastian are all straight, so far as we can tell.

The issue comes for me in the PC being the player's voice and eyes into
the game world.  Even if my (or my PC's) perception of an NPC's
sexuality is wrong, I'd still like the option to voice
surprise/disgust/curiosity/whatever when that perception is proven
wrong.  Playing a character who is tacitly accepting of any and all
scenarios involving other character's sexuality while I myself am having
an emotional reaction to it really breaks believability and immersion
for me.   

An emotional reaction like what?

Modifié par Xilizhra, 02 juillet 2013 - 11:41 .

[Xilizhra]

Usually surprise and curiosity.

Why do you find that surprising?

[Xilizhra]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Usually surprise and curiosity.

Why do you find that surprising?

Because my perception was proven wrong.  Whether I *should* be surprised or not doesn't really do anything to dispell my actual surprise. 

I think it's just part and parcel of the DA world, really.

[Angrywolves]

I forgot about Sebastian. Aveline and Varric don't count as you can't romance them. shrugs.
I assume all party members in DAI will be romanceable to one sex or both sexes of Inquisitor, although that's speculation.

[Hazegurl]

Il Divo wrote...
Well, I would say that's much like suggesting that the novelty of character interaction can wear off, I don't really think it's possible. My point isn't that every character needs to deal with the topic of sex, it's one such topic among a plethora available, which makes for amusing anecdotes. My point is that if Bioware demands only player-sexual romances, what happens to character interaction? We're necessarily limited in what content we can explore for certain companions, because all LIs must be player-sexual.

I don't think the novelty of the character interaction can wear off but that the novelty of the interaction about that particular topic can wear off. Do we really need mulitple dialouge of Isabella talking about how much she likes sex with women with an inexperienced female character. The interaction was great with Bethany and Isabella, but that's all we really need before it becomes nothing more than a repeat with another character spliced in the scene. I also don't see how "playersexual" LIs are limited. They are all developed the same IMO. Once again the subject of limitations on character interactions is coming up so I have to ask. In what ways are your interactions with Isabella better than Merrill or Fenris based solely on her sexuality?

 

Well, what if you could actively affect their sexual preferences too by slowly nudging them in a different direction? Hey, Ashley is normally straight! But work at it long enough and maybe you could convince her to expand her interests. This sort of thing also is not possible with player-sexual romances, because the character is automatically attached to the PC.

I think people would still complain that Ashley was "playersexual" and thus not her own person. As for LIs being auto attached to the PC. You can say the same with all of the LIs. Even if a LI is straight, if you create a PC of the opposite gender then all the straight LIs automatically come with that package. 

But I've repeated this a few times, if the cost of this is that Bioware has to cut romance options, I'm willing to start with female companions for Male PCs, provided the game at least provides me the ability to express my sexuality, even if it means failing to bed anyone.  

I don't think BioWare has to cut romance options period. You can just decide not to bed anyone and still express your sexuality at ****houses.

Modifié par Hazegurl, 03 juillet 2013 - 12:52 .

[Angrywolves]

The house in DA2 was boring.
Doubt that would satisfy any roleplayers desire to express their sexuality . rotfl.

[philippe willaume]

Since I believe that if romance there is, we should have hetero and ****** version of it. The romance-able companions being player-sexual is mighty fine with me.

since i am not sure that there is any stigmatization of sexual preference in the place of Thedas we have visited, i am not sure that it is worth have a player based reaction to the said relationship.
However there is probably ground for comments on relationship with elves or mages.

For me it is much more immersion breaking to have Templars not being bothered with my mages companion/me being a mage than knowing that Fenris would be batting for the other team if was playing a character of the opposite sex to the one i am playing now.

phil

[Hazegurl]

Angrywolves wrote...

The house in DA2 was boring.
Doubt that would satisfy any roleplayers desire to express their sexuality . rotfl.

If you mean the blooming rose, yeah that place was a real dud. the only good thing from there was Jethann.