947 réponses à ce sujet

[mupp3tz]

Watermelons are berries? I learned something new today hahah

But, yes, it's just a product of people wanting to fit things into little boxes to make sense of complex things.

[Chari]

daveliam wrote...

Chari wrote...

Because he can't? Companions and NPCs in DA:O just can't have conversations. He can say a word or two sometimes, but I don't recall Lelianna or Alistair flirting with NPCs while we talk to those NPCs. Technical boundaries
1) Because Lelianna is pretty, Morrigan is "hot", Wynne is old, but has "a great bossom" and he mostly flirts with her to annoy the poor mage :3
2) Just because he is not "real" doesn't mean he has no taste or preferencies. And yes, it is an argument because Bioware stated often that they do not make cliche carboard Sim Characters. They make complex real-life people 

We are never going to understand each other.  My point is that:

1.)  They made Zevran the only option for gay males
2.)  They made him flirt often with the female party members but not the males in front of the Warden while in a relationship with him
3.)  I don't like the fact that the only choice for a gay male Warden is a male character who flirts shamelessly with women in front of him, but I had no other choice to romance
4.)  Therefore, I like the idea that there could be multiple male options for male Inquisitors (similar to how it was done in either DA 2 or ME 3).

It has nothing to do with whether or not Leliana could flirt with other men/women.  It has to do with the experience of a male Warden in a relationship with Zevran.  I'm just happy that it appears that this won't happen again.

Once you accept Zevran as being himself - a hopeless flirt who just have no pretty males to flirt with and can not have conversations with NPCs since no DA:O companion can do that we may get along. Prior to that... no, I guess

[Sylvianus]

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...
If you can be attracted to men, why do you say or think you are lesbian then ?

Because some people don't define themselves solely as label A, B, or C. Attraction is attraction. You can identify as lesbian who tends to find herself attracted to other women, yet have the odd man or two or three that you also like in that way. The labels only exist to make it easier for people to categorize you when, in reality, it's more complex than that.

Words have definitions. Words have meaning. Communication between humans to understand each other. Why would you think or tell to everyone you are a straight male if you can fall in love with a man ? If you marry him ? If you are attracted to men, even if you prefer women ?  This is what is bisexuality. Words have meaning even if you don't like them. Why you'd rather define, categorize yourself as heterosexual which excludes totally the same sex partner, than bisexual ? Much more ambiguous. Is it a word that is scaring you or what ?

Modifié par Sylvianus, 30 août 2013 - 06:23 .

[Chari]

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

Watermelons are berries? I learned something new today hahah

But, yes, it's just a product of people wanting to fit things into little boxes to make sense of complex things.

Oh, yes, I forgot in English people don't really differ fruits from berries. Watermelon is a pepo berry. Anyway, a banana is a berry as well. And tomato. Funny, isn't it?

Because that's how our brains work. We generalize and make categories because it makes life easier and more stable. And it helpes to understand the world better, though only if you categorize as a scientist or a linguist who uses eh... SCIENCE and analysis to do so

[Chari]

Faerunner wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Which rivalry romance did that so strongly ? ( I don't remember at all something that extreme with Merril and Isabela, while we could disagree on many things )

Rivalry dialogue options were not universally rude or abrasive, but I noticed that any response that resulted in rivalry points tended to lean toward being rude to companions instead of polite, being cruel instead of kind, hurting instead of helping NPC's the companion would assist (for instance, capturing instead of releasing mages for Anders, enslaving Orana instead of paying her for Fenris, being cruel to anyone in front of Merrill) etc.

The rivalry system is more about choosing a path that companions could disagree with. That sounds like hyperbole. Rivalry Hawk cares about Merril ( rivalry romance ) even if he's trying to stop her with her agenda ( for her own good ) for example.

The problem is there is no limit to how much you can "disagree" on things (from how you treat your companion to how you sabotage everything they believe in) before the companion finally says, "You know, we just don't have enough in common," Or "You know, you've been consistently undermining everything I believe in, whereas I've helped you support causes that I find morally repugnant, and I just can't do this anymore," or "You know, I still respect you as our leader, but I just don't think we're right as a couple."

I think there should be a limit to how many times you can be rude or dismissive to them, to how many NPC's they sympathize with that you can hurt or NPC's they find repugnant that you can help, to how many times you can try to sabotage their life's work, and I think there should even be deal-breakers. I think taking Orana as a slave should have been a deal-breaker for slavery-hating Fenris, that withholding the arulin'holm should have been a deal-breaker for Merrill (since the mirror means so much to her), helping the capture of mages after the third or fourth time should be a deal-breaker for Anders.

Merrill is actually one of the main examples of a poor rivalry relationship to me. Like I said, you gain rivalry points either by treating her poorly (which is itself crappy), by hurting innocent people right in front of her (which is also crappy) or by sabotaging and undermining her efforts to fix an artifact that she finds so important. To put it with brutal frankness, I think the rivalry path with Merrill is little better than emotional abuse.

And don't forget that you can also kill her whole clan (or at least a big part of it), treat her like **** and still sleep with her

[WildOrchid]

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

Watermelons are berries? I learned something new today hahah

I know right?

[Vapaa]

Chari wrote...

Diverse sexualities, personalities,. races, genders, ages...
Meaning that we won't get the same ****y or sweet girls, hot elf or i-am-so-sad human guy all bi every DA game
It's getting boring...
At least give us some qunari then

Then choices are not the way of diversity...except for "sexual diversity" but even in DAO the straightness of Ali/Morri wasn't an important part of their character

I'd say scrap that, there are plenty of areas to be diverse, without restricting arbitraly the player

[mupp3tz]

Sylvianus wrote...

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...
If you can be attracted to men, why do you say or think you are lesbian then ?

Because some people don't define themselves solely as label A, B, or C. Attraction is attraction. You can identify as lesbian who tends to find herself attracted to other women, yet have the odd man or two or three that you also like in that way. The labels only exist to make it easier for people to categorize you when, in reality, it's more complex than that.

Words have definitions. Words have meaning. Communication between humans to understand each other. Why would you think or tell to everyone you are a straight male if you can fall in love with a man ? If you marry him ? If you are attracted to men, even if you prefer women ?  This is what is bisexuality. Words have meaning even if you don't like them. Why you'd rather define, categorize yourself as heterosexual which excludes totally the same sex partner, than bisexual ? Much more ambiguous. Is it a word that is scaring you or what ?

Yes, but there is already fault in defining something that isn't so simple. It's not "scary." Theoretically, a woman who has always loved women and wants to end up spending the rest of her life with one finds herself attracted to another person, who happens to be a man.. strangely finds herself shifted to being bisexual. Despite a lifetime of being with women and perhaps just having a fling with this one man. Bisexual is a strange thing to tack onto her, in my opinion. That's not even factoring in the man's personality. Perhaps he is more femenine than other men? 

Point being, you can still fit under the general definition of being 'lesbian' while being attracted to certain men. Does the possibility of someone deviating from their personal norm scare you into having to immediately re-allocate their sexual orientation?

But anyway, this is all off topic and sorry for derailing. 

Modifié par M U P P 3 T Z, 30 août 2013 - 06:44 .

[Chari]

Vapaä wrote...

Chari wrote...

Diverse sexualities, personalities,. races, genders, ages...
Meaning that we won't get the same ****y or sweet girls, hot elf or i-am-so-sad human guy all bi every DA game
It's getting boring...
At least give us some qunari then

Then choices are not the way of diversity...except for "sexual diversity" but even in DAO the straightness of Ali/Morri wasn't an important part of their character

I'd say scrap that, there are plenty of areas to be diverse, without restricting arbitraly the player

They were. And so was bi0ness of Lelianna and Zevran 
Lore-wise... it is not wise

[Chari]

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...
If you can be attracted to men, why do you say or think you are lesbian then ?

Because some people don't define themselves solely as label A, B, or C. Attraction is attraction. You can identify as lesbian who tends to find herself attracted to other women, yet have the odd man or two or three that you also like in that way. The labels only exist to make it easier for people to categorize you when, in reality, it's more complex than that.

Words have definitions. Words have meaning. Communication between humans to understand each other. Why would you think or tell to everyone you are a straight male if you can fall in love with a man ? If you marry him ? If you are attracted to men, even if you prefer women ?  This is what is bisexuality. Words have meaning even if you don't like them. Why you'd rather define, categorize yourself as heterosexual which excludes totally the same sex partner, than bisexual ? Much more ambiguous. Is it a word that is scaring you or what ?

Yes, but there is already fault in defining something that isn't so simple. It's not "scary." Theoretically, a woman who has always loved women and wants to end up spending the rest of her life with one finds herself attracted to another person, who happens to be a man.. strangely finds herself shifted to being bisexual. Despite a lifetime of being with women and perhaps just having a fling with this one man. Bisexual is a strange thing to tack onto her, in my opinion. That's not even factoring in the man's personality. Perhaps he is more femenine that other men? 

Point being, you can still fit under the general definition of being 'lesbian' while being attracted to certain men.

But anyway, this is all off topic and sorry for derailing. 

Fortunately, words have strict meanings though it may differ depends on the context. Bright is bright, dark is dark, black is black and white is white.
If you're bi, you're interested in both genders. If you're lesbian - only in women. Gay - only in men. Straight - only in the opposite sex.
If you suddenly feel differenly then maybe you're not as gay/straight/bi as you thought you were

Modifié par Chari, 30 août 2013 - 06:45 .

[Sylvianus]

Faerunner wrote...

Chari wrote...

And don't forget that you can also kill her whole clan (or at least a big part of it), treat her like **** and still sleep with her

Thank you! That too.

As far as I remember, you kill her whole clan to protect her. Merril would rather blame herself more than Hawk, because that's her fault if everything happened.

@ Faerunner, well that is a good explanation. That's true. I agree on most part, though, I could think differently with each personal examples you gave. At the same time, I also think that almost everyone admitted that the friendship / rivalry system needed to be improved a lot, especially the rivalry relationship even if they loved it as a concept. 

Modifié par Sylvianus, 30 août 2013 - 06:50 .

[mupp3tz]

That's all true, but I still think it's possible to deviate from your own norm and not be suddenly "bisexual" or "straight" or whatever. Okay, let's just agree to disagree on some points. And.. you are blowing my mind with these food classifications.

ON topic, I would just be happy to see an LI option that is strictly gay or lesbian and not bisexual. I also really did like the Rivalry romance in theory and wonder how that will work (or if it's possible?) with the approval system David Gaider mentioned.

[Chari]

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

That's all true, but I still think it's possible to deviate from your own norm and not be suddenly "bisexual" or "straight" or whatever. Okay, let's just agree to disagree on some points. And.. you are blowing my mind with these food classifications.

ON topic, I would just be happy to see an LI option that is strictly gay or lesbian and not bisexual. I also really did like the Rivalry romance in theory and wonder how that will work (or if it's possible?) with the approval system David Gaider mentioned.

Words have definitions, words have meaning. Opinions don't matter. I don't get what's so funny about my food definitions... 

Unlikely. Too low of an approval and a companion can leave. Though I guess since LI depend on the plot we still may get we-disagree-but-love-each-other romance type. Like you can romance Cullen though you do side with mages

[mupp3tz]

Well, the food info is not so much funny but insightful - no sarcasm here. Honest!

I'm curious what he meant by "and other things." I think the leaving is probably something they will implement. I suppose you're right that it's unlikely. The 'other things' is probably just another Anders and Merrill at the Gallows scenario. My LI's are usually on the side I'm supporting, but I can't deny that there's an intrigue with the angsty prove you wrong and make up for it afterwards route.

Modifié par M U P P 3 T Z, 30 août 2013 - 07:21 .

[Chari]

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

Well, the food info is not so much funny but insightful - no sarcasm here. Honest!

I'm curious what he meant by "and other things." I think the leaving is probably something they will implement. I suppose you're right that it's unlikely. The 'other things' is probably just another Anders and Merrill at the Gallows scenario. My LI's are usually on the side I'm supporting, but I can't deny that there's an intrigue with the angsty prove you wrong and make up for it afterwards route.

Oh, sarscasm. It's a good thing I don't understand English sarcasm as well as one in my language...

I think he meant leaving or fighting the Inquisitor. Not Hate Sex. 
Knowing my first Inquisitor and his angry temper it'll likely end in sb dying by a stab. I hope he'll get along with the Iron Bull, it'd be a shame to kill one of two only DA kossith companions

[Blackrising]

Sylvianus wrote...

Blackrising wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

WildOrchid wrote...

GodWood wrote...
Homosexuals only make up 5% of the population (at most) it's only natural there would be an unequal distribution.

Sure if you count the ones that are in the closet. LOL @ the number.
We've discussed so many times to why this % is flawed but whatever, believe what you want. If you think sexuality is only black and white.

Of course, using what? The kinsley reports? Pffffft. What a joke. Statistically they are massively flawed and so are the revisions. It's a good example of statistics being meaningless numbers when the underlying data corrupts the result.

Most modern census reports carried out globally by each country, which are confidential in many cases, not suffering from self selection bias, rarely exceed 5% on average of the total population in major metropolitan areas, although it can increase slightly above 10% in particular cities.

So if you're going to use the equal representation argument, it's rather flawed and a moot point.

Actually, I think it's based on experience.
Sexuality isn't all black and white, and someone identifying as one thing often doesn't mean they won't go for the other from time to time.
When people ask me about my sexuality, I say that I am a lesbian. Does that mean I have never felt attracted to a guy before? No. Does that mean there is no chance at all that I might end up marrying a guy? No.
I simply don't bother explaining myself because most people aren't gonna understand anyway, not to mention that it's none of their business.

If you can be attracted to men, why do you say or think you are lesbian then ?

Because me being attracted to men happens....well, almost never. I have always emphasized with lesbians more than straights and that's not gonna change, because while I am pansexual, I lean heavily towards women.
If I said I was bisexual or pansexual, men would assume they have a chance. However, liking a guy happens so rarely and my tastes are so specific, I want to avoid that.
I am attracted to women. I fall in love with women. There being a tiny chance that I might like a guy isn't enough for me to change the way I present myself.

Honestly, I'd rather not label myself at all, but as this forum proves so wonderfully, people LOVE labels.
So I chose the one that I identify with the most and needs the least explaining.

(You can probably guess that I have a hard time explaining myself here. It's difficult because there are times when I don't understand it myself.)

[Vapaa]

Chari wrote...

Lore-wise... it is not wise

What is not wise, to have 4 bisexuals at the same time ? come one Thedas won't crumble from that

[In Exile]

Faerunner wrote...
You basically treat her or everything she cares about like it isn't worthwhile, belittle or dismiss her objections, and even get her to feel further like everything she believes is foolish or wrong because no one (not even the person she loves, respects and support the most) believes in or supports her. To put it with brutal frankness, I think the rivalry path with Merrill is little better than emotional abuse.

I agree with you on the general objection, but just re: the bolded post, what do you think that challenging someone on what they believe in is actually like? It's emotionally charged, it's aggresive, and it's the kind of thing that might well wreck your friendship. 

Modifié par In Exile, 30 août 2013 - 08:47 .

[Sylvianus]

Blackrising wrote...
* snip *

Well, thanks for the explanation, honest answer, very satisfying. I was really interested to know why or how someone could think that way.  That helped me a lot to understand.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 30 août 2013 - 08:51 .

[Chari]

Vapaä wrote...

Chari wrote...

Lore-wise... it is not wise

What is not wise, to have 4 bisexuals at the same time ? come one Thedas won't crumble from that

Yep. Like 4 straights or 4 gays.
It won't. Though it is a rare thing in Thedas. 

[Angrywolves]

Nothing like people expressing their philosophies.
If you checked gaming websites today there were several articles where Bioware supposedly said romances will be more NUANCED in DAI.
What do you think that means?

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Angrywolves wrote...

Nothing like people expressing their philosophies.
If you checked gaming websites today there were several articles where Bioware supposedly said romances will be more NUANCED in DAI.
What do you think that means?

It means their will be only one romance and that is clearly Sandal.