549 réponses à ce sujet

[KC_Prototype]

In DA:O, we had the perfect balance of LIs with 1 that was gender locked and 2 that were bi. But in DA2, it  seemed straight male characters got the kick to the curb because we only two options(I didn't take kindly to Anders or Fenris hitting on me and no neutral option to say thanks but I'm straight), Isabella or Merrill while females had 3 so I ended up on  my second time through choosing Isabella again because Merrill just seemed to pixy and unattractive(I liked to switch it up a bit with different play throughs but just couldn't in DA2). Aveline should of been an LI to even things up but Bioware decided to "Strip Tease" and then make us jealous. Now, with DA:I coming,I have hope Bioware will balance the LIs for straight players. I'm pretty sure Cassandra will be romancable but for both genders I have no clue and maybe even Varric for the ladies so there's 1/1. If Cullen is in the game and the female elf is romanceable, there's 2/2. What do you guys and gals think?

[Vulpe]

I think that their going on the playersexual approach again.So we'll get ALL THA ROMANCES

As for the gender distribution : on the leaked info regarding the companions there were 3 males,3 females and 2 that I think were the Inquisitor (male and female).

I think we'll get an equal number of male and female LI's.

[Potato Cat]

I'm thinking this won't end well. For you OP. Especially since straight male players/characters have had 2 LIs in both games. It hasn't been perfect in either game if you ask me but it was far worse in Origins where gay players/characters only had 1 LI. There was no choice for them included.

[Hellion Rex]

As long as there can be two possible LIs for same-sex romances, I will be content.

[Vulpe]

 I just don't want Sera to be interested only  in the ladies as people suggested some time ago.

Don't know why, but I always end up romancing the female that doesn't appear on the covers and sends the feeling of being the "main" female companion ( DA:O - Morrigan, DA 2 - Isabella ). Don't want to break the tradition 

[Blackrising]

Oh god no, not another thread like this. This ain't gonna end well. *ducks for cover*

[KiwiQuiche]

...What the hell are you ranting about? At least straight males had relatively sane LI, straight females had a brooding I HAET U ALL and nut-case Anders. And your whole reasons are stupid, anyway.

Modifié par KiwiQuiche, 14 décembre 2013 - 10:24 .

[The Elder King]

Either there'll be four LIs available to everyone, or six (not necessarily companions), divided in two hetero, two homosexuals and two bisexuals. Gaider confirmed that he wrote two romance paths.
I don't want to enter a discussion of what Bioware should do. I'm fine with both solution.

Modifié par hhh89, 14 décembre 2013 - 10:37 .

[BobZilla84]

I don't really like the Playersexual choice but I can deal with it but I do wish Bioware would follow the Harvest Moon Approach that being you the pc does all the wooing and not the LIs that way the end result would be the one you wanted and not one you don't "Ninjamances".I am looking forward to this Playersexual Garbage for one reason only that being choice so in DAI I won't suffer another Samantha Traynor situation I wanted to romance her with my Male Shepard.

[The Elder King]

You aren't ninjamanced in any romances in DA2. If you don't hit the flirt choice, you can rest assured that you'll not have a romance with that character.

[Sc2mashimaro]

My 2-cents:

I like characters that have defined traits and preferences. Some characters are straight, some are gay, some are bi-sexual, some people have more/less options than others because the people around them happen to have certain preferences. Sexual preference is a part of character and I don't think it should be removed from that character's identity. Some romances work out and others don't - it's not always in our hands, or, if it is, the actions required to hold onto a relationship are not always things we are willing to do. To me that is central to character and, thus, central to role-playing a character.

I hope Bioware writes characters that are complex, interesting, and have their own emotions and motivations while helping to drive the story. The romance should spring from that, not just because 'I want it to exist'.

[BobZilla84]

If Bioware actually did return to the Origins formula you know people would lose minds imagine if Cullen is brought back as a strictly straight female romance option like Alistair before him everyone that wanted a SS Cullen Romance would be furious.Thats why the Playersexual design is used to please as many people as possable.

[sylvanaerie]

 Seriously OP thinks straight women got it better in DA2?  Let's see how this stacked up in my head:

Heterosexual female options:

Fenris: Fanatic with a rabid hatred of mages.  Never shuts up about them, opposes any kindness done toward them.  Made me want to pull out my hair by Act 2.  A side note: Fenris doesn't 'hit' on the PC regardless of gender.  He only can be romanced if flirted with.

Anders: Fanatic with a rabid hatred of anyone who doesn't kiss mage ass so that by Act 2 I wanted to pull his hair out.  And this one will hit on Hawke, becoming pissy if shot down and if you romance Fenris or Merrill would complain seven years later that 'you can do better' (IE himself). Given my preference to play female mage PC's one would think Anders was a natural fit.  Except I found him unattractive with his greasy unkempt look and narrow pointed chin making him look weasely to me.  So not only did I dislike his personality, but I found his looks unappealing.

Sebastian: Former bad boy now chantry fanatic.  I only consider him 'sort of a romance' because he only offers up either a political marriage which seems cold or a 'chaste marriage' where you don't even get to have the guy.  At least you know he won't be cheating on LadyHawke.


All things considered, several of my LadyHawkes ended up romancing Isabela or Merrill (who had their issues as well, but at least they weren't batsh*t eating insane).  Because I found Fenris' voice actor appealing, I was finally was able to romance him. 

I made a lot of male Hawkes because I preferred the straight male options over the straight female options this game.  So, OP, it's all a matter of perspective.  A lot of people love Fenris and Anders and would heartily disagree with my assessment of them.  And that's okay.  Different strokes for different folks.  Not everyone is going to like the same things or be looking for the same things in a character.

Romance is optional.  It adds to the game, but if you can't bring yourself to romance any of the options, don't.  I'd rather have them all available like they were in DA2 for anyone rather than being forced to play a certain gender just to appeal to a character I wanted to romance, like gender-locked Morrigan.

Modifié par sylvanaerie, 14 décembre 2013 - 01:00 .

[Blackrising]

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

My 2-cents:

I like characters that have defined traits and preferences. Some characters are straight, some are gay, some are bi-sexual, some people have more/less options than others because the people around them happen to have certain preferences. Sexual preference is a part of character and I don't think it should be removed from that character's identity. Some romances work out and others don't - it's not always in our hands, or, if it is, the actions required to hold onto a relationship are not always things we are willing to do. To me that is central to character and, thus, central to role-playing a character.

I hope Bioware writes characters that are complex, interesting, and have their own emotions and motivations while helping to drive the story. The romance should spring from that, not just because 'I want it to exist'.

I do understand your reasoning, but sexuality is rarely black or white.
If we think of the LIs in Kinsey scale terms, their preferences aren't erased or anything. It is completely reasonable to think that Isabela goes for both men and women, but prefers women when it comes down to it, or that Merrill is interested in men, but is still capable of falling in love with women, that Anders has only ever thought of himself as straight until he met Karl and realised there are indeed some men he finds attractive...etc.
They all still have a preference, but no player is barred from romancing the character they like best. It might be more difficult to achieve the romance they prefer, or take longer, but it can be done. And we still have plenty of other characters (companions and NPCs) who strictly commit to being straight or being gay.

Gender and sexuality is a touchy subject, maybe especially so now since it seems as though we're caught in a weird in-between stage where some people see LGBTQ presence and equality as completely normal and other people work against it like it might bring forth the apocolypse if left to fester. Or at least that's what it feels like to me.
So if romance restrictions are necessary or wanted, I'd rather they depend on the main characters actions and decisions.

[Sc2mashimaro]

Blackrising wrote...

I do understand your reasoning, but sexuality is rarely black or white.

I agree with that and I am okay with characters who fall all over the Kinsey scale and have all sorts of different levels of comfort or discomfort with same/opposite sex romance. I'm also all for characters, regardless of sexuality, who just are not interested in the PC. That's okay - sometimes people just are not into you, for whatever reason.

Blackrising wrote...
If we think of the LIs in Kinsey scale terms, their preferences aren't erased or anything. It is completely reasonable to think that Isabela goes for both men and women, but prefers women when it comes down to it, or that Merrill is interested in men, but is still capable of falling in love with women, that Anders has only ever thought of himself as straight until he met Karl and realised there are indeed some men he finds attractive...etc.
They all still have a preference, but no player is barred from romancing the character they like best. It might be more difficult to achieve the romance they prefer, or take longer, but it can be done. And we still have plenty of other characters (companions and NPCs) who strictly commit to being straight or being gay.

This is where I might take issue, if I understand your argument correctly. I agree that people fall all over the Kinsey scale and that characters can and should too. I don't think that means every character should be romancable by the PC in every circumstance. A lot of people do fall far to one side or the other of the Kinsey scale, that's a legitimate part of who *they* are as much as someone who is somewhere in the middle. I also think there are a huge number of reasons unrelated to sexual orientation that factor into attraction and romance. Fundamentally, what I am saying is this: I don't think absolute player control over romance makes sense. I think characters should have their own thoughts, emotions, and intentions that they act upon and the player acts upon back. The goal is not that players always get what they "want", but that they get to role-play the character and make choices about how to interact with the characters that are on the journey with them.

Blackrising wrote...

Gender and sexuality is a touchy subject, maybe especially so now since it seems as though we're caught in a weird in-between stage where some people see LGBTQ presence and equality as completely normal and other people work against it like it might bring forth the apocolypse if left to fester. Or at least that's what it feels like to me.
So if romance restrictions are necessary or wanted, I'd rather they depend on the main characters actions and decisions.

Don't get me wrong! I think there should be opportunities for players of all sexual orientations to romance other characters. But I am okay with that character's sexuality complicating or even limiting the PC options in addition to the possibility of complicating a romance/potential romance through player actions/choices.

Of course, this is still just my 2 cents, because I also understand that I am coming from a role-playing perspective. I like the idea of playing a character who is complex and may not always get what he/she wants. Other people are more escapist with their perspective of romance in these games and I think that is what drives the "all options on the table" perspective. If the game is an empowerment fantasy, having all companions romancable regardless of who the PC is synergizes with the core concept. But if the game is a role-playing story, it works against that as a core concept.

Perhaps there is a more creative solution that we haven't thought of yet?

[thedistortedchild]

I love the idea of player sexual companions. I just think that their should be a simple way to turn down advances, that doesn't also lead to an approval loss.
For example telling Leliana that you think of her as a very good friend in Origins was perfect and closed off that relationship fast.
However, my Female PCs would get ninjamanced by Anders constantly just because they were nice to him. Then when they tried to turn him down, The only option was mean and gained rivalry points.

[dragondreamer]

KC_Prototype wrote...

In DA:O, we had the perfect balance of LIs

AHAHAHAHAHAHA....no.

[dragondreamer]

thedistortedchild wrote...

However, my Female PCs would get ninjamanced by Anders constantly just because they were nice to him. Then when they tried to turn him down, The only option was mean and gained rivalry points.

I actually never experienced an Anders ninjamance until I played a female Hawke, despite having some really flirty male Hawkes.  It was hardly as traumatizing as some make it out to be, but I did feel the guilt when there was no way out and he was declaring his burning love.  Oh well, easy huge approval points ahoy? 

[Sc2mashimaro]

"straight male characters got the kick to the curb"

HAhahahahahahahaha... I didn't read the OP, except the title the first time through. Straight male characters have never once got the short end of the stick in any Bioware game I have ever played. The very idea! XD Sorry OP, I just don't buy that. At all. But thanks for the laugh.

[Blackrising]

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

Blackrising wrote...
If we think of the LIs in Kinsey scale terms, their preferences aren't erased or anything. It is completely reasonable to think that Isabela goes for both men and women, but prefers women when it comes down to it, or that Merrill is interested in men, but is still capable of falling in love with women, that Anders has only ever thought of himself as straight until he met Karl and realised there are indeed some men he finds attractive...etc.
They all still have a preference, but no player is barred from romancing the character they like best. It might be more difficult to achieve the romance they prefer, or take longer, but it can be done. And we still have plenty of other characters (companions and NPCs) who strictly commit to being straight or being gay.

This is where I might take issue, if I understand your argument correctly. I agree that people fall all over the Kinsey scale and that characters can and should too. I don't think that means every character should be romancable by the PC in every circumstance. A lot of people do fall far to one side or the other of the Kinsey scale, that's a legitimate part of who *they* are as much as someone who is somewhere in the middle. I also think there are a huge number of reasons unrelated to sexual orientation that factor into attraction and romance. Fundamentally, what I am saying is this: I don't think absolute player control over romance makes sense. I think characters should have their own thoughts, emotions, and intentions that they act upon and the player acts upon back. The goal is not that players always get what they "want", but that they get to role-play the character and make choices about how to interact with the characters that are on the journey with them.

Eh, this is where it gets technical, I guess.
In the end, there are only four people in Thedas who go for the PC. These people happen to have preferences that allow them to fall for either gender if the circumstances are right. They might also refuse to romance the PC based on decisions the player makes. Outside of that, there are plenty of people the PC can't have, even if they would like to. Hawke could express an interest in Aveline, yet was most definitely shot down because Aveline just wasn't into him/her. I once roleplayed a Hawke who had a bit of a thing for Meredith, and look how that turned out.
So I don't think the player has absolute control over the romances, far from it.
Sometimes I think that people get too hung up on the thought that Bioware somehow changed or purposely crafted the LIs sexuality to make them suitable for the PC, instead of considering that Bioware makes characters first and chooses who is a LI second. I prefer to think that the LIs are who they are and Bioware chose them for exactly that reason. (Mind you, this isn't aimed specifically at you, simply a general observation.)

Sc2mashimaro wrote...

Blackrising wrote...

Gender and sexuality is a touchy subject, maybe especially so now since it seems as though we're caught in a weird in-between stage where some people see LGBTQ presence and equality as completely normal and other people work against it like it might bring forth the apocolypse if left to fester. Or at least that's what it feels like to me.
So if romance restrictions are necessary or wanted, I'd rather they depend on the main characters actions and decisions.

Don't get me wrong! I think there should be opportunities for players of all sexual orientations to romance other characters. But I am okay with that character's sexuality complicating or even limiting the PC options in addition to the possibility of complicating a romance/potential romance through player actions/choices.

Of course, this is still just my 2 cents, because I also understand that I am coming from a role-playing perspective. I like the idea of playing a character who is complex and may not always get what he/she wants. Other people are more escapist with their perspective of romance in these games and I think that is what drives the "all options on the table" perspective. If the game is an empowerment fantasy, having all companions romancable regardless of who the PC is synergizes with the core concept. But if the game is a role-playing story, it works against that as a core concept.

Perhaps there is a more creative solution that we haven't thought of yet?

I play games mostly to get away from the real world for a while, so yeah, I guess I'm more of an escapist player. I like not having to get frustrated because I'm denied an option I would love to have simply because I want to play a gay female. It hits a bit too close to home.
Other concepts don't bother me. It doesn't bother me if a LI refuses to be romanced because of something my PC did or the way she acts.

Hell, if there was a more creative solution, I'm pretty sure Bioware would have thought of it by now. Adjusting the romances according to the LIs placement on the Kinsey scale so there are differences between romancing them as male and romancing them as female, as well as offering a difference in difficulty and an explicit presentation of said LI's sexuality, may satisfy a few more people than the DA2 approach did, but that includes using more ressources for something that is still optional content and will remain as such.

I don't envy Bioware. People are gonna get pissed off whatever they do.

[Paul E Dangerously]

While I fear we're going to get playersexual romances again - oh joy - all I want is consistent characterization between the different playthroughs. No more instances where a character is blatantly gay in one route and barely mentions it in another.

[wright1978]

Personally i hope they retain the DA2 approach as the best way to provide choice and provide a good level of content for LI's.

[Sidney]

Sopa de Gato wrote...

While I fear we're going to get playersexual romances again - oh joy - all I want is consistent characterization between the different playthroughs. No more instances where a character is blatantly gay in one route and barely mentions it in another.

Yeah but for poeple for whom these games are advanced dating simulators that aint gonna happen. You see the inordinate amount of virtual ink spilled on this whole silly issue and it has to be easier for Bioware to just say "f reality and consistency". Hell if there is only one romancable option  - fine because I still have 2 choices there, romance or not.

[Sc2mashimaro]

Blackrising wrote...

I once roleplayed a Hawke who had a bit of a thing for Meredith, and look how that turned out.

I laughed at this and thought you should know

Blackrising wrote...

I play games mostly to get away from the real world for a while, so yeah, I guess I'm more of an escapist player. I like not having to get frustrated because I'm denied an option I would love to have simply because I want to play a gay female. It hits a bit too close to home.

I get that. And I was thinking about it a little more and, if the resources were there to expand the romances a bit more so that the player did have more LI options in general, my position becomes more supportable. But I realized that it doesn't break immersion to have player-sexual romances for me and I also have the privilege of being a straight male. Not implying your sexual orientation is or is not that, but it dawned on me that while it is fun for me to role-play by bouncing around to whatever gender/orientation pops into my head, I also enjoy the escapist fantasy run-through as my own gender and orientation. Then, putting myself in the shoes of someone who is not heterosexual, I realized that sometimes this kind of play-through is just straight up denied to them and, honestly, never to me. And that sucks.

Blackrising wrote...

Hell, if there was a more creative solution, I'm pretty sure Bioware would have thought of it by now

I'm still holding out for an awesome solution! Never doubt that someone creative enough will find a way to do something we thought was impossible yesterday!

Blackrising wrote...

I don't envy Bioware. People are gonna get pissed off whatever they do.

Agreed. They get more flak thrown their way than they deserve.

[Spectre slayer]

I really don't think they're going to go the playersexual route and make everyone BI again after reading Gaider's many many quotes over the course of the year and Perry's statement that he would not say anyone can romance anyone but they have a type.

Also there's this from earlier this month.

CONFESSIONS: I was really annoyed when I found out Aveline wasnt romanceable. In my second playthrough I had spent the entire thing flirting with her and was actually surprised and upset when she rebuffed me for Donnic

Totally okay with this, actually.

The issue with the “all-bisexual” romances, as I see it (or the issue for which I can see at least some merit, anyhow), is one of perception—that the followers in Dragon Age are simply vehicles for romances as opposed to characters in their own right with their own motivations. A player simply selects a follower— “I want you!”— and that follower immediately surrenders all agency to the player’s will.

It’s not really true, but I think it’s a perception fueled by an overreaction to the fact that there are fans who do like the romances a great deal (and talk about it extensively, whereas there are fans who vehemently oppose the romances being the most important element in the game… not that they are or ever have been, but clearly if they do not actively oppose the idea we BioWare developers will succumb to the notion that it’s so). I imagine there are also fans who don’t mind the idea of the romances working that way—just pick whoever you want and they will reciprocate.

Why? Because the player wants it, and isn’t this game about fantasy fulfillment?

It’s not, though there’s nothing wrong with somebody wanting that—and it’s completely excusable that there are those who think that’s what the game is or should be. We’ve always been more interested in establishing a believable world and believable characters, and the romances—to us—are an extension of that rather than the purpose for it.

Having equal opportunities for romance plots is a point of fairness and not indicative of a shift in the purpose of those plots, and I’d be fine with having more restrictions rather than less—of having some romances simply not working out, or less romances in total (even if they’re equally distributed in number).

http://dgaider.tumbl...mances-in-games

http://dgaider.tumbl...tions-on-anders

http://dgaider.tumblr.com/


http://www.xbox360ac...estruction.html



The approach in DAI will be to either give diverse sexuality options or have some BI options, so either in between what they did in their past games( Jade Empire, Kotor, Dragon age, Mass effect) or the approach they had in mass effect 3.
I get that some player's want every character available to the player but not everyone wants that, this isn't a knock on lbgt community since I would prefer they give diverse options but that depends on resources and if there's enough time. 

If they can't do that than they will have some BI options which Gaider considers the fairest option, not everyone is going to be or can be pleased and people will argue either for or against it but as long as they have options then what's the problem, I mean it's not like they will stop supporting the LGBT and do away with have LGBT characters and Gaiders said as much.

http://social.biowar...2518/1#17573080

Modifié par Spectre slayer, 14 décembre 2013 - 03:13 .