1220 réponses à ce sujet

[General TSAR]

Vapaä wrote...

Romances are a small part of the game, and thus should have a limited budget; I say we take the DA2 route: the best options/cost solution

Neat, simple, not expensive

Some people have a difficult time understanding this.

[Am1vf]

Xenomorphine wrote...
(...)
I think it needs to be understoo that the fantasy genre (especially in role-playing) is escapist to the hilt - and that means the continuity, itself, changes, depending on individual choices.

That's your opinion, I disagree.
 

(...)
And I'd imagine those same arguments could apply if heterosexual characters get along amazingly well with a character who only goes for their own gender... How much frustration would there have been in the fandom if the popular heterosexual romance options, like Morrigan, Miranda, Alistair, Garrus, etcetera, had been written as only homosexual? Or, say, were only attrracted to elves and not humans? Similar principle here.

I think the post above yours can answer that. I would like to have straight, bi, homosexual and yes also characters who are not atracted to particular races or beliefs or whatever. Specially if that means the one I wanted is not interested in my character and that situation is dealt with in the game.

I know the route Dragon Age is taking is the one you prefer and I'm okay with that, it's good that there are options for everyone. But me, personally prefer when sexuality is a part of the character design.

Modifié par Am1_vf, 07 septembre 2013 - 11:13 .

[Vivienne de Fer]

Xenomorphine wrote...

Wow... Until now, I never knew how or why there could possibly be any objection to an RPG allowing you to romance whoever you wanted.

I think it needs to be understoo that the fantasy genre (especially in role-playing) is escapist to the hilt - and that means the continuity, itself, changes, depending on individual choices.

Hypothetically, if the first game had allowed a guy to get involved with Alistair, as an option, would that mean he's canonically gay or bisexual? Well, no... No, it would not. If you played it with a female character and romanced this hypothetical version of Alistair, would it be at the back of your head? This completely different, totally ficitonal, irrelevant version of the story, which has nothing to do with that play-through? I'd hope not!

All 'playersexuality' does is allow for options.  The only time a character's sexuality becomes defined is if that character initiates flirtation outside of actual dialogue choices. Party banter, for instance or a comment where they interpret something a certain way with a barmaid/whatever, in the background fo a conversation which takes place in every single possible play-through. If that never occurs, then it's largely irrelevant.

Aside from those eventualities, those characters can be imagined as straight, homosexual or bisexual. Unless that aspect of their history somehow comes into play (like with Cortez specieically saying he had a husband, as opposed to 'spouse'), it's utterly irrelevant.

And let's not forget that characters like Ashley Williams were originally planned to be romancable by female Shepards. The cinematics and dialogue for it got removed from the end product. Did that affect her personality, though? No... No, it did not. The only thing which happened in the actual game was that romancing her as a female Shepard was impossible. If it had still been possible, it wouldn't have made the blindest bit of difference to how she spoke or acted and, in fact, you would be totally at liberty to imagine Ashley was straight, bisexual, homosexual or even pansexual (which, technically, applies to all those Shepards who persued interspecies relationships, like Liara and Garrus).

Hell, Morrigan can be romanced by a psychotic dwarf with a deformed face like someone's who's been hit by a plague-ridden tree... I doubt anyone here would be able to take that seriously as their personal canon, but it's still possible to make happen in the character creation thing. It doesn't make Morrigan any less who she is (although, probably makes for some bizarre/amusing cinematics). Can a woman romance her, though? Nope... Yet, she was pretty much the only companion with a compatible personality to my evil-inclined female mage. Zevran, Leliana, Alistair... None of their dyanmics matched. My Warden didn't really like them, because they were at odds on certain issues.

So, I say go down the route of 'The Sims'. Allow any character to be romanced, regardless of gender. Individual players can still imagine Character X or Y are straight/gay/whatever. Just like many refuse to entertain the notion that Morrigan can be friendly if you go through the right options and earn her respect. If you don't go down that road, then pretend it doesn't exist. Easy.

What I have a problem is the people who think you have no reason to feel disappointed by locked-out romance options. For instance, I vastly prefer female Shepard's voice to her male counterpart, so, I always play her. But Miranda and Ashley were the only characters with personialities my one would have considered along those lines and those were cut off. When I hear some people go, "So what? Go with Garrus, Liara or Kelly..." Well, my Shepard never trusted Liara (much less ever felt attracted to her) and Kelly was kind of... Background filler, while Garrus was always seen as a friend, not love interest. Miranda and Ashley had similar ruthless, pragmatic personalities, however. That's who I could see my Shepard with.

Sex scene animations have nothing to do with it. I honestly don't care about them. Personality compatibility does, however, have relevance for me. That's what opens up the interesting dialogue choices and emotional reactions, not whether a couple have shared a bed together.

And I'd imagine those same arguments could apply if heterosexual characters get along amazingly well with a character who only goes for their own gender... How much frustration would there have been in the fandom if the popular heterosexual romance options, like Morrigan, Miranda, Alistair, Garrus, etcetera, had been written as only homosexual? Or, say, were only attrracted to elves and not humans? Similar principle here.

Yes, so much yes. I am all for everyone having the option to interpret this aspect of a specific character however they want, which is why I'm for playersexual options; my Merrill, Fenris, Anders and Leliana are all straight. Your Merrill and Leliana aren't? Okay, fine. To each their own. 

Naturally, characters like Isabela and Zevran are written in a certain way. I think only the characters that mention it should be considered canonically bi/homosexual. Everyone else is open to interpretation based on the player's actions. That should make everyone happy, right? Unfortunately it seems not, but most should be content with it. 

[TrueMyst]

I get the feeling many people play Bioware's games as a love simulator more than anything. Weird...

[Silfren]

Valdrane78 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Valdrane78 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Valdrane78 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Valdrane78 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'd prefer bisexual companions who love you/dump you based on your viewpoint and actions. Fenris liking men and women didn't bother me, Fenris liking blood mages who supported slavers did.

I disagree.  You can't help who you love, it isn't a choice, it is just something that happens.  There are plenty of real world cases where the two love birds had very different views on things and still made it work.  Loving someone despite their faults is the whole point anyways.

However, as with anything, there are times when it doesn't work, then it fails spectacularly.

Eh, this is only true to a point.  Yes, people can love someone against all reason and sense, and of course there is nothing implausible about romances based on an abusive dynamic.  But it IS odd that Fenris would happily romance a pro-slavery blood mage.  That's not a simple case of having slightly different political views.   It's certainly plausible that Fenris could love such a Hawke, but NOT without some serious internal conflict within himself AND some serious screamfests with Hawke herself.  I would absolutely expect to see a character in that situation seriously struggling, given the psychological implications.  It's definitely not a situation that could or should be covered with one scene and three dialogues.

Yes to all, but this is a video game, there is only so many resources they can devote to romances.  The next best thing, woudl be for Bioware to create checkpoits that the PC has to pass in order to romance a certain character.

Since we are using Fenris as an analog the check points woudl be thus............YOu became a bloodmage, he woudl be like "wtf dude, bloodmages are nasty, back off."  And "hey you support slavery, I was a slave, you nasty, back off!"

It would work, there are real world check points that you have to pass in order to be with someone.  But then someone woudl **** that they couldn't have their cake and eat it too.

Not really.  I've never heard anyone object to the idea of decisions you make as the PC directly affecting how the companions, and the LIs in particular, react.  In fact the only people I see suggesting it are people trying to make a bullsh*t non-point.  Most peope I've heard discussing it seriously are completely in agreeement with having PC decisions directly affect how companions react to you and whether it opens or closes content.  

I think that Bioware has specifically addressed making this a part of the gameplay in Inquisition, and I've never heard ANY objections to it.

I'm pretty sure that is what I said.

It's not what you said at all, actually. 

Well, you seem to be taking this personally.  I didn't know that the PC passing checkpoints in order to romance a certain person was not "decisions you make as the PC directly affecting how the companion react."

I think we're done here.  Or I am at least done with you.

...Work on your reading comprehension. 

[werewoof]

TrueMyst wrote...

I get the feeling many people play Bioware's games as a love simulator more than anything. Weird...

well people played origins mostly for its tactical gameplay. hardly means they don't like the rest of the game, they just have a favourite thing about it. same thing goes for the romances, it isnt so much that theyre playing it as a love simulator as thats just their favorite part of the game and hence the one they talk about the most. 

[Neon Rising Winter]

TrueMyst wrote...

I get the feeling many people play Bioware's games as a love simulator more than anything. Weird...

Good god no. It's my 'I've had a bad day at work and I wish to slaughter my way through the world without fear and consequence' simulator. I just like a nice story amidst my murderous rampages of death.

[Silfren]

TrueMyst wrote...

I get the feeling many people play Bioware's games as a love simulator more than anything. Weird...

A lot of people say this.  Granted, you don't say it with quite the same scorn and derision, but really, based on what? A lot of people like the romances and would be disappointed to see them removed.  This hardly translates to those people being sad, pathetic types who pretend that DA is really a dating sim.  

The real problem here is more that some people don't like the romances and feel morally superior to those who do.

[Boombox]

I do understand what people are saying but the point of my post was- I feel character's sexual identity is more important to a charater as a whole than making it easier for people and giving them "better options".
Basically people are wanting to choose the sexual orientation of our companions and to me that should be something the writers have decided when they created the character. I feel like Bioware should write their characters and choose a sexual identity for them, have a range of options for us, but at least have something.

The whole "but I want to be a female and I want her" argument doesn't make sense to me (but maybe she doesn't like you back?). People want more realistic options and people want romances to be meaningful but when they can't have their ideal situation they want to wave a wand over it.

So, what if people want everyone in the game to be blonde or brunette only? Should that be an option we can just choose too? Why do we restrict certain things based off classes or races chosen (I want to be a dwalf mage! Should I have my option?) but when it comes to romance gender that has to be open to everyone no matter how ridiculous it seems?

Anyway, I feel this way not to limit people's options but to be true to sexual identity and reduce the nonsensial ideas of "for this play through Morrigan has become a lesbian ".

To be honest as a gay guy 'playersexual' is borderline insulting to me.. But at the end of the day we all have our opinions on this and it's up to Bioware how they choose to impliment it in their game. Either way we will all play it.

Most of you will disagree with me and that's fine, just giving my thoughts I'm not here to debate anything.

[OdanUrr]

Trista Hawke wrote...

 This hasn't been a problem in the Dragon Age games, yet. But it was a huge issue in those Mass Effect games (for me, anyway). So, I hope Bioware sticks with offering players an equal number of romance-able males as there are females. I'd like this to include side characters your PC is able to flirt with, too. 

I just don't see the fairness in lopsided options, as was painfully evident in the ME games. 9 companions are confirmed, so what does that mean? 4 romance-able males, 4 romance-able females, and 1 platonic? Or in the very least, 2 romance-able males, 2 romance-able females, and 5 platonic? 

If there are more romance-able females than males, then it feels like Bioware is catering to one audience over another. There's no excuse for that - not in 2013...

In a strange turn of events DAI will be adding a feature that'll let one of your characters teleport over to your other character's save game in order to off any of his or her potential LIs. It's an exciting new mechanic that'll give you, the player, the power to level the romantic playing field of all your characters.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 08 septembre 2013 - 12:46 .

[Angrywolves]

Many people don't do the romances.
It angers me that people who don't like the romances , like the dating sim guy who attacked romances in his thread, claim people who do the romances do them for sexual stimulation .
I won't use the "M" word.
It's insulting.
There porn all over the web for those who want it.
Being a romantic I believe involves role playing to gain psychological satisfaction not the physical kind.
People who don't like romances should mind their own business when it comes to those of us who do.

[d-boy15]

TrueMyst wrote...

I get the feeling many people play Bioware's games as a love simulator more than anything. Weird...

This is BSN...

Boombox wrote...

I do understand what people are saying but the point of my post was- I feel character's sexual identity is more important to a charater as a whole than making it easier for people and giving them "better options". 
Basically people are wanting to choose the sexual orientation of our companions and to me that should be something the writers have decided when they created the character. I feel like Bioware should write their characters and choose a sexual identity for them, have a range of options for us, but at least have something.

The whole "but I want to be a female and I want her" argument doesn't make sense to me (but maybe she doesn't like you back?). People want more realistic options and people want romances to be meaningful but when they can't have their ideal situation they want to wave a wand over it. 

So, what if people want everyone in the game to be blonde or brunette only? Should that be an option we can just choose too? Why do we restrict certain things based off classes or races chosen (I want to be a dwalf mage! Should I have my option?) but when it comes to romance gender that has to be open to everyone no matter how ridiculous it seems? 

Anyway, I feel this way not to limit people's options but to be true to sexual identity and reduce the nonsensial ideas of "for this play through Morrigan has become a lesbian :)". 

To be honest as a gay guy 'playersexual' is borderline insulting to me.. But at the end of the day we all have our opinions on this and it's up to Bioware how they choose to impliment it in their game. Either way we will all play it. 

Most of you will disagree with me and that's fine, just giving my thoughts I'm not here to debate anything.

finally... a voice of reason. (at least for me)

Modifié par d-boy15, 08 septembre 2013 - 12:50 .

[d4eaming]

Boombox wrote...

To be honest as a gay guy 'playersexual' is borderline insulting to me.. But at the end of the day we all have our opinions on this and it's up to Bioware how they choose to impliment it in their game. Either way we will all play it.

Well, I'm queer and trans and I don't find it insulting. Needless to say, my preference (playersexual) gives everyone a fair chance to sculpt what they want, while restrictions is going to leave someone left out. Each of my plays is totally self-contained. My female Hawke I am playing now romanced Fenris on friendship path. She has no idea that my rogue Hawke was a male who romanced him on the rival path. I don't sit back and think "gee, he likes men too, that's just so weird and unrealistic!" He never expresses a preference, and on my unfinished plays, he's not romanced and I have characters with Anders instead.

I really, really don't understand this whole argument.

Modifié par d4eaming, 08 septembre 2013 - 12:51 .

[Silfren]

Boombox wrote...

I do understand what people are saying but the point of my post was- I feel character's sexual identity is more important to a charater as a whole than making it easier for people and giving them "better options".
Basically people are wanting to choose the sexual orientation of our companions and to me that should be something the writers have decided when they created the character. I feel like Bioware should write their characters and choose a sexual identity for them, have a range of options for us, but at least have something.

The whole "but I want to be a female and I want her" argument doesn't make sense to me (but maybe she doesn't like you back?). People want more realistic options and people want romances to be meaningful but when they can't have their ideal situation they want to wave a wand over it.

So, what if people want everyone in the game to be blonde or brunette only? Should that be an option we can just choose too? Why do we restrict certain things based off classes or races chosen (I want to be a dwalf mage! Should I have my option?) but when it comes to romance gender that has to be open to everyone no matter how ridiculous it seems?

Anyway, I feel this way not to limit people's options but to be true to sexual identity and reduce the nonsensial ideas of "for this play through Morrigan has become a lesbian :)".

To be honest as a gay guy 'playersexual' is borderline insulting to me.. But at the end of the day we all have our opinions on this and it's up to Bioware how they choose to impliment it in their game. Either way we will all play it.

Most of you will disagree with me and that's fine, just giving my thoughts I'm not here to debate anything.

I get the point of what peope are trying to say when they try to compare sexual orientation options with hair color and go all "where will it end?!?!" 

The thing is, though, that if you actually think there is a valid comparison between locking people out of romances because of orientation conflicts, and disliking your preferred LI's hair color, then you apparently can't appreciate the larger issue of LGBT persons being marginalized on a regular basis in ways that people who are straight do not have to deal with.

BOTH LGBT persons AND straight persons pay exactly the same money to play these games.  Straight people don't have to worry a whit about being represented, however, while LGBT persons do.  Furthermore, when we are represented, it's often badly, with no end of hugely problematic characterizations as a result of straight writers not having the first clue how to write someone outside of their experience.  

When we do get content, it's often marginal and doesn't so much look like a writer trying to offer us content we can relate to as it reeks of tokenism and "here, feel included now?!" 

Bioware is better at it than anyone else, from what I can tell.  But being better at it is FAR from saying they're actually good at it, and again it's generally marginal content at best.  The way DA2 handled it wasn't great, but it was far better than the alternative, given limitations of time and money, etc. 

[d4eaming]

Angrywolves wrote...

Many people don't do the romances.
It angers me that people who don't like the romances , like the dating sim guy who attacked romances in his thread, claim people who do the romances do them for sexual stimulation .
I won't use the "M" word.
It's insulting.
There porn all over the web for those who want it.
Being a romantic I believe involves role playing to gain psychological satisfaction not the physical kind.
People who don't like romances should mind their own business when it comes to those of us who do.

Yeah, if I just wanted a fake romance because I was feeling lonely, I could write one myself or avail myself of what's on the net. I like the romances because they add another dimension to the game and the characters, and another reason to get emotionally invested in the game and the protag's struggles. Considering how little of the games the romances take up, it's really ridiculous to accuse people of playing just for the romance. That's a whole lotta running around and smashing mooks for 5 minutes of romance content <_<

[devSin]

Boombox wrote...

I do understand what people are saying but the point of my post was- I feel character's sexual identity is more important to a charater as a whole than making it easier for people and giving them "better options".

What are you willing to give up? Do you want to have only one option (therefore no choice) if you're playing a gay character? Do you want to have no gay people represented (if we're going by numbers, you don't deserve a fully realized gay character—only bisexual characters would see enough use to be worth including) or represented in lesser roles (not as full companions, so receiving much less content than the "real" romances)?

You're asking for full reactivity for six romance options (I'm assuming you want gender and sexuality to be featured heavily in the romance interactions and that you care that everybody has equal access to choice), with the possibility that the two characters accessible to you (according to preference) may still end up as the two you like the least.

I personally think exchanging the reactivity (which may be nonexistent anyway) for choice is a worthwhile trade to make. Some people think it's not worth it, but if the reality is that it only makes sense to have four romance options, I don't see another solution without taking away choice from only certain people (other than having them all be explicitly bisexual, which wouldn't bother me either).

Modifié par devSin, 08 septembre 2013 - 01:01 .

[Battlebloodmage]

Is it so hard to look up old threads instead of arguing about the same thing very week? At this point, it seems like people want to argue for the sake of arguing instead of actually discussing anything.

[Neon Rising Winter]

Silfren wrote...

BOTH LGBT persons AND straight persons pay exactly the same money to play these games.  Straight people don't have to worry a whit about being represented, however, while LGBT persons do.  Furthermore, when we are represented, it's often badly, with no end of hugely problematic characterizations as a result of straight writers not having the first clue how to write someone outside of their experience.  

A bit of a tangent, but the last part of that paragraph is interesting, and not something I'd quite connected to this discussion before. By not defining a sexuality for a character do you to some extent sidestep the old problem of 'LGBT people will behave this way and have this type of appearance, personality and story arc'. Instead you have a character where it's not an issue because, in many playthroughs, you won't want them to be considered as such. I'm now considering if another reason I like the playersexual idea is it reduces the chance of running into that sort of annoyance.

[Inquisitor Recon]

When exactly did being entitled to representation in video games become a thing? Why are there never outcries for racial representation? I'm offended by the lack of pacific islander culture.

[werewoof]

greengoron89 wrote...

Give people an inch, and they'll take a mile. This thread is hard proof of that.

what is that supposed to mean exactly? that queer players only deserve "an inch"? 

"hey we gave you like one whole gay option in that one game so that makes up for the entire lack of representation in 98% of the industry so shut up" 

???? 

Inquisitor Recon wrote...

When exactly did being entitled to representation in video games become a thing? Why are there never outcries for racial representation? I'm offended by the lack of pacific islander culture.

 
is there something wrong with the progression of media? people didnt complain about this as much before so they shouldnt complain about it now? there totally is an outcry for racial representation, i dunno how you missed that hot mess. does that dumb argument work for everything? 

"when did smartphone compatibility on websites become a thing? why was there never an outcry for internet on earlier phones (fun fact: there was)?"

Modifié par tiktac, 08 septembre 2013 - 01:13 .

[General TSAR]

TrueMyst wrote...

I get the feeling many people play Bioware's games as a love simulator more than anything. Weird...

Couldn't have put it better myself.

[d4eaming]

devSin wrote...

Boombox wrote...

I do understand what people are saying but the point of my post was- I feel character's sexual identity is more important to a charater as a whole than making it easier for people and giving them "better options".

What are you willing to give up? Do you want to have only one option (therefore no choice) if you're playing a gay character? Do you want to have no gay people represented (if we're going by numbers, you don't deserve a fully realized gay character—only bisexual characters would see enough use to be worth including) or represented in lesser roles (not as full companions, so receiving much less content than the "real" romances)?

You're asking for full reactivity for six romance options (I'm assuming you want gender and sexuality to be featured heavily in the romance interactions and that you care that everybody has equal access to choice), with the possibility that the two characters accessible to you (according to preference) may still end up as the two you like the least.

I personally think exchanging the reactivity (which may be nonexistent anyway) for choice is a worthwhile trade to make. Some people think it's not worth it, but if the reality is that it only makes sense to have four romance options, I don't see another solution without taking away choice from only certain people (other than having them all be explicitly bisexual, which wouldn't bother me either).

I suppose I never truly considered my own preferences to be a major defining characteristic of who I am as a person. That concept seems really weird to me. I've done the "struggle my whole life with my self-identity" and learning to stop loathing myself for things outside my control, but I am still the same person I was, with the same values I had before. I was pro-GLBT as a teenager when it wasn't really relevant to my life, and I am exactly the same now that I do accept myself. My identity isn't something that comes up in conversations, so I'd be kind of shocked if someone ever told me that my sexual identity was more important than anything else. You know, since, I am the same person whichever side of the gender divide I am interested in or most relatable to at the time being.

I concede that maybe I'm the weird one, since I don't care for physical affection, but I seriously don't consider, say, my gay boss as having characteristics more important to him being gay than anything else about him.

[Silfren]

Inquisitor Recon wrote...

When exactly did being entitled to representation in video games become a thing? Why are there never outcries for racial representation? I'm offended by the lack of pacific islander culture.

...There have been plenty of threads asking for Bioware to make Dragon Age more ethnically diverse.  You're not reading about it in this thread for the obvious reason that it's not the subject.

Modifié par Silfren, 08 septembre 2013 - 01:14 .