1220 réponses à ce sujet

[The Elder King]

@Silfren: fair enough, I understand your point, and I should have mentioned that the equality Inwas talking about was about the three type of sexuality Bioware romances usually target. But the problem isn't something that could be solved by both approachs. And I understand that my approach is problematic for the people that might not get the LI they want.
I don't agree that the approach I mentioned is less equal that that the DA2 approach, since it gives the exact number of LI available in DA2, and the same number of unaccesible LI.
In the end, i think it's a matter of preference, and I don't care that much about which approach is chosen as long there'll be multiple LI for people with different preferences.

[Salaya]

I'm so tired of people arguing about romances.

Some people say negativity made this forum toxic. Well, I think the toxicity comes from this obssesion about love interests and other irrlevant features. As a player, I feel sad when I come to this forum and see so many threads about these topics. I don't want to think what a non-player person would think about this.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

[WildOrchid]

I totally agree OP.

Also, i'm not opposed to playersexuality. But if they go with the non-playersexual route, then:

2 straights, one for women and one for men
2 gays, one for women and one for men
2 bi (or one?) etc, you know.

That's a fair treatment and that's how i'd like it.


Btw, there should be a thread about sexuality - LI's because making a new thread everytime is kinda tiring....

[Silfren]

Royal-Archer wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Royal-Archer wrote...

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If we must have openly ******/bisexual characters in a medieval world, then can they at least all be playersexual, so that it can be left to the player's discretion? (except in cases like Sebastian -- it makes sense that only a female Hawke could romance him. The others you could at least somewhat believe.)

And now I'm going to say it again: the implication that people being something other than straight somehow does not make sense if the setting is allegedly medieval, is the most idiotic objection there is.  Non-straight people have ALWAYS existed, they didn't spring into existence in modern times.  Also, Dragon Age is not the real world medieval period.  Thinking that a fictional medieval setting MUST follow a real-world track is about as fallacious as it gets, and also shows that the people making this argument don't know the first damn thing about the DA universe.

Let's keep things on topic. We're not debating anything other than whether or not love interests in a video game should be open to everyone or actively closed off.

Hey, you're the one who felt the need to allude to the bloody stupid notion that having homosexual and bisexual characters in a medieval setting doesn't make sense.  I'm GOING to address this, because I know you're not that stupid.  

I don't think Dragon Age is all that medieval, actually.  It's not exactly cut and dried but I think it's closer to early Renaissance.  REGARDLESS, it is a FICTIONAL setting, and even if it could be said to be medieval in terms of technology, it is NOT the real world medieval setting.  There is no legalized misogyny in secular law, and in religious culture, women are elevated above men.  Plus, you know, dragons, darkspawn, magic, etc...nothing of which existed in any real world medieval culture.  

So no, the idea that it's somehow unrealistic to have characters who are openly bi or gay because the setting is medieval, is completely and utterly wrong.

[werewoof]

Salaya wrote...

I'm so tired of people arguing about romances.

Some people say negativity made this forum toxic. Well, I think the toxicity comes from this obssesion about love interests and other irrlevant features. As a player, I feel sad when I come to this forum and see so many threads about these topics. I don't want to think what a non-player person would think about this.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

well im tired of being told that myself and other queer players dont deserve equal treatment because it's not "realistic to a medeival setting" or because theres not toggle so straight dudes can hide the scary ****** characters but hey im sorry that irritates you 

Silfren wrote... 

I don't think Dragon Age is all that medieval, actually.  It's not exactly cut and dried but I think it's closer to early Renaissance.  REGARDLESS, it is a FICTIONAL setting, and even if it could be said to be medieval in terms of technology, it is NOT the real world medieval setting.  There is no legalized misogyny in secular law, and in religious culture, women are elevated above men.  Plus, you know, dragons, darkspawn, magic, etc...nothing of which existed in any real world medieval culture.  

So no, the idea that it's somehow unrealistic to have characters who are openly bi or gay because the setting is medieval, is completely and utterly wrong.

no silly, dont you know? realism means "comfortable to straight white men" 

because dragons, darkspawn, magic, elves, giant metallic horned people, and spirits are all way more believable than queer folks existing and being given any real visibility

Modifié par tiktac, 07 septembre 2013 - 06:00 .

[sandalisthemaker]

WildOrchid wrote...

I totally agree OP.

Also, i'm not opposed to playersexuality. But if they go with the non-playersexual route, then:

2 straights, one for women and one for men
2 gays, one for women and one for men
2 bi (or one?) etc, you know.

That's a fair treatment and that's how i'd like it.


Btw, there should be a thread about sexuality - LI's because making a new thread everytime is kinda tiring....

This is pretty much how I feel about it.  Except I prefer the playersexual route.
If they have enough resources and time to make 2 straight, 2 gay, 2 bi (one of each gender for all sexualities) then I would whole-heartedly support that too. 

[CuriousArtemis]

WildOrchid wrote...

2 straights, one for women and one for men
2 gays, one for women and one for men
2 bi (or one?) etc, you know.

This would be fine for me, so long as the straight guy is one I don't want to romance 

FYI Although there was no understanding of "gay" or "straight" in early modern England, there was loads of guy on guy action going around; heck, just read the first sequence of Shakespeare's sonnets  

[General TSAR]

Salaya wrote...

I'm so tired of people arguing about romances.

Some people say negativity made this forum toxic. Well, I think the toxicity comes from this obssesion about love interests and other irrlevant features. As a player, I feel sad when I come to this forum and see so many threads about these topics. I don't want to think what a non-player person would think about this.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

(Insert GIF of Charles Foster Kane clapping)

The disturbingly large amount of romance threads is creepy.

[werewoof]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

WildOrchid wrote...

I totally agree OP.

Also, i'm not opposed to playersexuality. But if they go with the non-playersexual route, then:

2 straights, one for women and one for men
2 gays, one for women and one for men
2 bi (or one?) etc, you know.

That's a fair treatment and that's how i'd like it.


Btw, there should be a thread about sexuality - LI's because making a new thread everytime is kinda tiring....

This is pretty much how I feel about it.  Except I prefer the playersexual route.
If they have enough resources and time to make 2 straight, 2 gay, 2 bi (one of each gender for all sexualities) then I would whole-heartedly support that too. 

i'm a fan of this myself. while i actually prefer the playersexual thing for reasons already covered (ie sexuality can't always be cut into neat little categories), if they decide to go a different route, at least this one means everybody gets two options. playing a straight dude? you get the straight female LI and the bi female LI. playing a lesbian? you get the lesbian female LI and the bi female LI. and so on and so forth. that way nobody feels shafted when they get the whole "here's your one designated gay dude love interest, enjoy"

i loved zevran but i feel bad for anyone who wanted to play a male/male romance subplot and didnt like him

[Silfren]

hhh89 wrote...

@Silfren: fair enough, I understand your point, and I should have mentioned that the equality Inwas talking about was about the three type of sexuality Bioware romances usually target. But the problem isn't something that could be solved by both approachs. And I understand that my approach is problematic for the people that might not get the LI they want.
I don't agree that the approach I mentioned is less equal that that the DA2 approach, since it gives the exact number of LI available in DA2, and the same number of unaccesible LI.
In the end, i think it's a matter of preference, and I don't care that much about which approach is chosen as long there'll be multiple LI for people with different preferences.

I guess it's a question of what's more important: equal representation, or maximum accessibility. 

We don't live in a world where the average gay or bi person can pick up a game and expect to have their interests represented the way that heterosexual gamers can expect--that they can in fact expect so readily that they don't even have to think about it.  This being the case, I think the playersexual option is the best solution,.

[werewoof]

Silfren wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

@Silfren: fair enough, I understand your point, and I should have mentioned that the equality Inwas talking about was about the three type of sexuality Bioware romances usually target. But the problem isn't something that could be solved by both approachs. And I understand that my approach is problematic for the people that might not get the LI they want.
I don't agree that the approach I mentioned is less equal that that the DA2 approach, since it gives the exact number of LI available in DA2, and the same number of unaccesible LI.
In the end, i think it's a matter of preference, and I don't care that much about which approach is chosen as long there'll be multiple LI for people with different preferences.

I guess it's a question of what's more important: equal representation, or maximum accessibility. 

We don't live in a world where the average gay or bi person can pick up a game and expect to have their interests represented the way that heterosexual gamers can expect--that they can in fact expect so readily that they don't even have to think about it.  This being the case, I think the playersexual option is the best solution,.

yeah thats the thing people like to ignore. catering to straight gamers is a given, and they can comfortably expect to pick up any game and find themselves represented visibly. queer gamers do not have that privilege, instead we just get to hope against hope that some company out there will go ahead and iclude us to the same extend straight gamers are included. its easy to say "oh stop arguing about it hrmph why are you soooo upset why do you care sooo much?" when you've never been a part of that group and never had to deal with yourself and everyone like you being constantly excluded from games you want to enjoy. 

[mupp3tz]

Curious how you guys feel about the following 2 non-player sexual scenarios, assuming 6 LI's:

I) 1 straight male, 1 straight female, 2 bi males, and 2 bi females
Heterosexual PC gets 3 options, Homosexual PC gets 2 options, and Bisexual PC gets 5 options.

II) 1 straight male, 1 straight female, 1 bi male, 1 bi female, 1 gay male, and 1 lesbian female
Heterosexual PC gets 2 options, Homosexual PC gets 2 options, and Bisexual PC gets 4 options.

I'm not looking for a huge debate, but would either be acceptable or would you hate it?

Modifié par M U P P 3 T Z, 07 septembre 2013 - 06:15 .

[Silfren]

MasterScribe wrote...

There is simply little to no tolerance for having diverse sexual orientations.

Hopefully, BioWare is more open-minded.

What the hell does this even mean?  You keep saying that the playersexual approach is intolerant.  Do you even believe your own crap?

Note, Playersexual is NOT biseuxal. 

Being playersexual allows for maximum interpretation of sexual orientation and expression.  How is that intolerant?

Modifié par BioWareMod01, 07 septembre 2013 - 06:51 .

[sandalisthemaker]

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

Curious how you guys feel about the following 2 non-player sexual scenarios, assuming 6 LI's:

I) 1 straight male, 1 straight female, 2 bi males, and 2 bi females
Heterosexual PC gets 3 options, Homosexual PC gets 2 options, and Bisexual PC gets 5 options.

II) 1 straight male, 1 straight female, 1 bi male, 1 bi female, 1 gay male, and 1 lesbian female
Heterosexual PC gets 2 options, Homosexual PC gets 2 options, and Bisexual PC gets 4 options.

I'm not looking for a huge debate, but would either be acceptable or would you hate it?

Option 2.

Everything is equal in that one.

[Maria Caliban]

9TailsFox wrote...

On number of romances 4 and 4 possible but most unlikely.
3 and 3 more likely.
But probably same as DA2 2 and 2.

There are only nine companions, so I doubt two-thirds of them will be romancable. Two men and two women seems most probable, I agree.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 07 septembre 2013 - 06:17 .

[Angrywolves]

Disagreements about sexuality is only one source of so called toxicity.
Gaider said in one of the GI interviews Bioware intends to cut down on the romances. I had a disagreement with some other players about what that meant, but I can see the point because of the controversies, explicitness issues, time constraints, personnel, and simply the fact only a small percentage of the fanbase does them.
Bethesda, the company whose success Bioware wants to emulate has very little romantic content in their game.
So it's very likely there will less romance in future DA games a d fewer of the sexuality arguments.

[franciscoamell]

Salaya wrote...

I'm so tired of people arguing about romances.

Some people say negativity made this forum toxic. Well, I think the toxicity comes from this obssesion about love interests and other irrlevant features. As a player, I feel sad when I come to this forum and see so many threads about these topics. I don't want to think what a non-player person would think about this.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

There wouldn't be so much discussion if people found the romances an irrelevant feature.

[Silfren]

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

Curious how you guys feel about the following 2 non-player sexual scenarios, assuming 6 LI's:

I) 1 straight male, 1 straight female, 2 bi males, and 2 bi females
Heterosexual PC gets 3 options, Homosexual PC gets 2 options, and Bisexual PC gets 5 options.

II) 1 straight male, 1 straight female, 1 bi male, 1 bi female, 1 gay male, and 1 lesbian female
Heterosexual PC gets 2 options, Homosexual PC gets 2 options, and Bisexual PC gets 4 options.

I'm not looking for a huge debate, but would either be acceptable or would you hate it?

I'd hate it, for the reasons I've already mentioned and which have been covered several times over.  I would hate any option that forced me to play a character I don't want to play in order to experience the romance I want.  If I want to play a female PC but my favorite love interest is a gay man or straight woman, I'm cut off.  This is not okay, when the playersexual option would eliminate that setup.

[Cimeas]

It depends on what you mean by unfair.

If the majority of romances really did cater to straight male players, technically that would just be representative of their target audience. The more players of a demographic, the more money Bioware receives from them, the more they are catered to.

Having said that I think it'll be 2 male, 2 female. Vivienne and the elf, and on the male side Dorian and maybe the grey warden chappie. Maybe one more of each gender. MAYBE. I think Varric will find Bianca (the woman, not the crossbow) after Kirby's hints on the forums (I think it was her). Cassandra I have a feeling will not be romanceable either. So that leaves 3 more unrevealed ones.

[Blooddrunk1004]

I feel sorry for mods right now.

[lady_v23]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Royal-Archer wrote...

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

If we must have openly ******/bisexual characters in a medieval world, then can they at least all be playersexual, so that it can be left to the player's discretion? (except in cases like Sebastian -- it makes sense that only a female Hawke could romance him. The others you could at least somewhat believe.)

For example; if I have a male Hawke who romances Merrill and/or Isabela exclusively, then Fenris and Anders are both heterosexuals in my game. It is fine for someone else to pursue same-sex romances, but it doesn't take place in my game. . therefore I don't view those characters as bisexual simply because the option is presented. Obviously I understand characters that are actually sexually explorative/immoral (based on your point of view), like Isabela and Zevran, but characters like Leliana or Fenris should definitely be left to the player's discretion. (which they really were, and I like that)

So, in my game it doesn't take place and in your game it does. Everyone's happy, and we don't have to restrict a video game character to something unnecessarily "realistic."

I really do feel that is the best way to make everyone happy in this situation. :/ 

The main reasoning I see which I can understand, at least from the straight male point of view, is that even if it only happens once - a guy friend of yours hitting on you, and you having to turn him down, sort of makes everything afterward extremely awkward. I even feel the same way when I have to, in game, turn down female friends as well.

A way to avoid this is to make it so those 'heart' options that trigger romances are entirely initiated by the player - if you don't pick it, it's never brought up. In DA:II, just being nice to Anders without picking the heart options will get you to a spot where you /have/ to turn him down if you don't want to pursue a relationship with him. I even recall a dialogue with Fenris, after you give him the book, he tells you he can't read. You have an option to tell him hey, I could help you - but it's a flirt option, otherwise you have to tell him he's on his own there which I think is a shame. Sometimes the non-flirt option isn't even friendly.

I believe that with the new description bar above the dialogue wheel, will make it specially hard to accidentally romance someone.  But I do get your point.

Modifié par lady_v23, 07 septembre 2013 - 06:23 .

[Eragon-]

Blooddrunk1004 wrote...

I feel sorry for mods right now.

I feel sorry for the horses.

On topic, playersexual approach is the one I prefer.

Modifié par Eragon-, 07 septembre 2013 - 06:24 .

[Cimeas]

Silfren wrote...

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

Curious how you guys feel about the following 2 non-player sexual scenarios, assuming 6 LI's:

I) 1 straight male, 1 straight female, 2 bi males, and 2 bi females
Heterosexual PC gets 3 options, Homosexual PC gets 2 options, and Bisexual PC gets 5 options.

II) 1 straight male, 1 straight female, 1 bi male, 1 bi female, 1 gay male, and 1 lesbian female
Heterosexual PC gets 2 options, Homosexual PC gets 2 options, and Bisexual PC gets 4 options.

I'm not looking for a huge debate, but would either be acceptable or would you hate it?

I'd hate it, for the reasons I've already mentioned and which have been covered several times over.  I would hate any option that forced me to play a character I don't want to play in order to experience the romance I want.  If I want to play a female PC but my favorite love interest is a gay man or straight woman, I'm cut off.  This is not okay, when the playersexual option would eliminate that setup.

You know how sometimes, when you like someone, they don't like you back?  Maybe because they aren't attracted to your gender because they're gay or straight? 

HOW IS THAT WRONG?

I'm confused as to this entitlement attitude that every LI must be bi because even if the devs feel a character should be gay or straight the player deserves to play with whoever they want and as such they must become bi. 

[Eragon-]

Cimeas wrote...

Silfren wrote...

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

Curious how you guys feel about the following 2 non-player sexual scenarios, assuming 6 LI's:

I) 1 straight male, 1 straight female, 2 bi males, and 2 bi females
Heterosexual PC gets 3 options, Homosexual PC gets 2 options, and Bisexual PC gets 5 options.

II) 1 straight male, 1 straight female, 1 bi male, 1 bi female, 1 gay male, and 1 lesbian female
Heterosexual PC gets 2 options, Homosexual PC gets 2 options, and Bisexual PC gets 4 options.

I'm not looking for a huge debate, but would either be acceptable or would you hate it?

I'd hate it, for the reasons I've already mentioned and which have been covered several times over.  I would hate any option that forced me to play a character I don't want to play in order to experience the romance I want.  If I want to play a female PC but my favorite love interest is a gay man or straight woman, I'm cut off.  This is not okay, when the playersexual option would eliminate that setup.

You know how sometimes, when you like someone, they don't like you back?  Maybe because they aren't attracted to your gender because they're gay or straight? 

HOW IS THAT WRONG?

I'm confused as to this entitlement attitude that every LI must be bi because even if the devs feel a character should be gay or straight the player deserves to play with whoever they want and as such they must become bi. 

Again, they are not bi. They....ah, hell, what's the point.