549 réponses à ce sujet

[Lebanese Dude]

Thrillho_82 wrote...

And I WILL say that in general I agree with your posts and respect your opinion.  However in this case, I do feel that inclusivity (of all sexualities) is fairly important and that making all Li's playersexual worked great with me, but if some people need consistency, making all LIs bisexual works just as well.

This is probably the most elegant solution of all.

[The Elder King]

Hazegurl wrote...

Gaider also seems to think that anyone who has an issue with all romances being available should just deal with it. Besides, people are going to create mods to make any unavailable romanceable character available to their gender anyway. I really don't see the point in keeping away content and forcing players to download mods for it.

Indeed, he thinks that if they follow DA2's route there's nothing wrong, and that people should deal with it. That doesn't change the fact that his goal in DA2 wasn't to give everyone the choice of romancing everyone, but to give multiple choices. DA2 was a compromise based on the fact that they have limited resources, and that to apply his/their favourite approach they had to spend more resources that they had/were willing to spend in romance content. It seems the situation might be different now, since it seems that they might be following the 6 LI approach. 
As I said in my first post in the first page, I don't care what Bioware will do as long as the game has multiple choices for everyone. I'm not arguing about what Bioware should do, just expressing what it seems Bioware will do in this regard in DAI.

Modifié par hhh89, 15 décembre 2013 - 07:33 .

[Thrillian]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Thrillho_82 wrote...

I'm sorry but who are you to determine and regulate any romance based on the sexuality of it's participants?

If a gay man participates in a relationship with a bisexual man, what would the relationship be called?

Also If a straight woman engaged in a relationship with a bisexual man?

Believe it or not, sexuality is not always a one way street.

I'm sorry but what I described absolutely allowed for gay and bisexual relationships, as well as straight ones.   Nice try though.

It's simply a romance between the two people of whatever their orientations. And when you restrict one party's orientation to "bi," there are less choices. I'm not saying it's a big deal, but it's just the way it is.

I'm sorry, I am not following.  If the NPC is "bi" I fail to see "less choices".  Please enlighten me. 

[daveliam]

EntropicAngel wrote...

What you're describing--all bisexuals--does not allow gay romances or straight romances. It only allows gay-bi, straight-bi, or bi-bi.

So you don't consider two men in a relationship together to be a gay relationship if one of them is bisexual?  "Gay Romance" means m/m, not only two gay men.  That would be like saying that a man and woman who are in a relationship aren't in a "straight relationship" because one of them has had same sex relationships in the past.

Do you then not consider the straight male PC and Leliana relationship to be "straight"?

This seems like an argument of semantics that defeats the purpose of what many of the LBGT people on the board are saying.  They want to be able to choose a LI who is of the same gender as them from more than one option in the game, just like the straight gamers get to.  Yes, in an ideal world, there would be multiple options for everyone and each character would have a clearly defined sexuality.  However that's the not the world that we live in so the options are to have:  more choices for some of the players and no choice for others OR to have characters that have an ambiguous sexuality that allows for all players to romance them, at the expense of a clearly defined sexual orientation.  

[leaguer of one]

EntropicAngel wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

"I've never encountered this Merril dialog."
(At Lowtown)[/i] "You know, I sort of miss the Qunari. They didn't talk much, but they were easy on the eyes."
http://dragonage.wik...errill/Dialogue

"easy on the eyes" =/= I want to bang them.

I think Cloud Strife and Genesis Rapsodos are gorgeous, yet I have no sexual attraction to either.

"Correction on Fenris: he was raped by Denarius."
He fought to be his slave, added Hawke as a male can sleep with Fenris, brake up with him and end up sleeping with Isabela if left un romances in act 3.

I don't understand. Fenris end up with Isabella? is that what you're saying?

"if you're a FemHawke, Anders does not say he slept with Carl. "
 That does not mean he never did if your a fem hawke it just means he never metions it.

Funnily enough, this is a case of the game showing player-sexuality: you claim he does it anyway but why doesn't the game show that Anders is gay (or at least, sleeps with men) if you're a female?

""easy on the eyes" =/= I want to bang them."

The term "easy on the eyes" is a term use spacificly aimed at sexual attraction.
So yes,"easy on the eyes" = I want to bang them.
http://thesaurus.com...asy on the eyes


"I don't understand. Fenris end up with Isabella? is that what you're saying?"
 If you brake up with Fenris, by act 3 he's sleeping with Isabela reguardless to what gender you are.

"Funnily enough, this is a case of the game showing player-sexuality: you claim he does it anyway but why doesn't the game show that Anders is gay (or at least, sleeps with men) if you're a female?"

Does he even have to bring it up?

[Hazegurl]

wolfhowwl wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

Gaider also seems to think that anyone who has an issue with all romances being available should just deal with it. Besides, people are going to create mods to make any unavailable romanceable character available to their gender anyway. I really don't see the point in keeping away content and forcing players to download mods for it.

Gaider has said a lot of things.

David Gaider...

Ah. This exact same question came up on the KotOR board, and my opinion on it is unchanged: it's not the same at all. If someone wants to go into the toolset and remove the gender checks, that's their choice. But that's not the way I wrote the romance, nor would I ever choose to write it that way. A romance between two characters of the same sex is not interchangeable with a straight romance, in my opinion... we do not live in a genderless world and neither do they, and to treat it as such would be to trivialize it. If there's going to be a gay romance then it should be with a gay character, and he or she should not be interested in getting involved with a member of the opposite sex (such as with the lesbian romance in KotOR). Removing gender checks might seem convenient
on the surface, but I'm not going to do it... the reasons to do so seem to me to lie far more in the realm of titillation than in any kind of sensitivity to our gay audience.

Link

Gaider: "As I've said in other threads (and which people in this thread have mentioned), our ideal would be to have a spread of set sexualities among the romanceable companions-- if we had enough resources to make it an even spread.

DAO did indeed have set sexualities, but that left gay fans with only one romance option. So making companions "playersexual" (if that's the term you prefer) is a matter of fairness. Yes, fairness and fun gameplay win out over meta-gaming (the only way you can even know this is occurring). The game is made to be played, not to create accurate depictions of sexuality.

As for the writing of the romances, we were pretty careful to keep them ambiguous with Merrill and Fenris-- less so with Isabela and Anders, who do express preferences. If you feel differently, that's your call... YMMV, as the saying goes, which is pretty obvious seeing as impressions vary according to the poster. I'd say that perception is a wonderful thing, and you'll probably see what you want to see."

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/371/index/14960454/4

Although Gaider has expressed that his ideal is a spread set of sexualities he also recognizes that the set up in DAO was unfair and that the game isn't even about creating some irl depiction of sexuality. He also seems to think people will just see whatever they want to see regardless and that is on them if they choose to do so.  as for being against modding. Oh well. people will continue to mod for as long as they feel locked out of certain content. and I stand by my opinion that keeping the companion count small is better so if the companion count is small then it's only fair to allow the player to romance whomever they want. If they want to give us some Mass Effect SM squad count then they are free to do so but I would rather not have a bunch of companions who do nothing but hang out at the Keep.

Modifié par Hazegurl, 15 décembre 2013 - 07:35 .

[Thrillian]

daveliam wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

What you're describing--all bisexuals--does not allow gay romances or straight romances. It only allows gay-bi, straight-bi, or bi-bi.

So you don't consider two men in a relationship together to be a gay relationship if one of them is bisexual?  "Gay Romance" means m/m, not only two gay men.  That would be like saying that a man and woman who are in a relationship aren't in a "straight relationship" because one of them has had same sex relationships in the past.

Do you then not consider the straight male PC and Leliana relationship to be "straight"?

This seems like an argument of semantics that defeats the purpose of what many of the LBGT people on the board are saying.  They want to be able to choose a LI who is of the same gender as them from more than one option in the game, just like the straight gamers get to.  Yes, in an ideal world, there would be multiple options for everyone and each character would have a clearly defined sexuality.  However that's the not the world that we live in so the options are to have:  more choices for some of the players and no choice for others OR to have characters that have an ambiguous sexuality that allows for all players to romance them, at the expense of a clearly defined sexual orientation.  

You Rock!

[The Elder King]

@Hazegurl: if they'll follow the six LI approach, some romances might not be companions, but characters like Samantha and Steve in ME3. Though there's nothing preventing them to make 6 LI out of 9 characters. ME2 had 6 romances out of 10 squadmates.

Modifié par hhh89, 15 décembre 2013 - 07:49 .

[Hazegurl]

hhh89 wrote...
It seems the situation might be different now, since it seems that they might be following the 6 LI approach. 

I'm just expressing what I would like to have in DAI. It's not like I wouldn't play the game if they don't make all romances available. Overall, I have more of an issue with a large group of companions than anything. I'd rather have a small group with lots of content including romance content then a large group with copy cat stories, repeating dialogue, et al. 

ex: Most of Mass Effect 2 squadmembers having family related issues.

Steve and Samantha had crappy romance content and awful love scenes.

Modifié par Hazegurl, 15 décembre 2013 - 07:48 .

[daveliam]

hhh89 wrote...

@Hazegurl: if they'll follow the six LI approach, some romances might not be companions, but characters like Samantha and Steve in ME3.

I just hope that they if they do choose to go that route, they don't relegate the s/s LI's to support roles, like they did in ME3.  I'd love to have a f/f or m/m companion in the game.

[Joy Sauce]

Evidently OP can't do math, since when is two fewer than two? The were two straight romances for males in DAO and two in DA2. Just because you don't personally like Merrill doesn't change the total number of options. All DA2 did was increase the number of gay options by one each. I getting sick of dudes who scream misandry and whine about not getting as much as they feel entitled to. You're not getting "kicked to the curb," you're being treated the same as the rest of us, sorry if you think equality sucks so much.

[The Elder King]

Hazegurl wrote...

I'm just expressing what I would like to have in DAI. It's not like I wouldn't play the game if they don't make all romances available. Overall, I have more of an issue with a large group of companions than anything. I'd rather have a small group with lots of content including romance content then a large group with copy cat stories, repeating dialogue, et al. 

ex: Most of Mass Effect 2 squadmembers having family related issues.

Steve and Samantha had crappy romance content and awful love scenes.

We already know our group is going to be fairly big though. ME2 had 10 vanilla companions, DAI has 9.
Fair enough on Samantha and Traynor. I haven't tried the romance paths. I liked them as characters though. 

Modifié par hhh89, 15 décembre 2013 - 07:57 .

[The Elder King]

daveliam wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

@Hazegurl: if they'll follow the six LI approach, some romances might not be companions, but characters like Samantha and Steve in ME3.

I just hope that they if they do choose to go that route, they don't relegate the s/s LI's to support roles, like they did in ME3.  I'd love to have a f/f or m/m companion in the game.

If they go that route I think it's likely that we'll get four companion LI and two non-companion LI. 

[Hazegurl]

hhh89 wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

hhh89 wrote...
It seems the situation might be different now, since it seems that they might be following the 6 LI approach. 

I'm just expressing what I would like to have in DAI. It's not like I wouldn't play the game if they don't make all romances available. Overall, I have more of an issue with a large group of companions than anything. I'd rather have a small group with lots of content including romance content then a large group with copy cat stories, repeating dialogue, et al. 

ex: Most of Mass Effect 2 squadmembers having family related issues.

Steve and Samantha had crappy romance content and awful love scenes.

We already know our group is going to be fairly big though. ME2 had 10 vanilla companions, DAI has 9. 
Fair enough on Samantha and Traynor Cortez.

Fixed

Yeah, and I'm not looking forward to that unless they allow me to send the companions I don't want to use on missions somewhere else. Otherwise they are useless. I just hope that the content for these characters will be worthwhile but right now I'm sort of expecting them to not really be that developed...well except for Varric and other more popular characters from past games.  

Modifié par Hazegurl, 15 décembre 2013 - 08:00 .

[The Elder King]

Well, in DAO Bioware made 9 companion (without counting Dog, and considering that Dhale was written to be in the vanilla game and not a dlc) and in DA2 there were 8 in the vanilla game (and they had a lot less time to write). The numbers are close if not equal to DAI
I'm kind of optimist since with the year extension they had much more time to plan and write. Gaider finished his second companions in the last months.

Modifié par hhh89, 15 décembre 2013 - 08:07 .

[AlanC9]

Hazegurl wrote...

Steve and Samantha had crappy romance content and awful love scenes.

Better than some other characters got, though.

[Plaintiff]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Thrillho_82 wrote...

This is quite easily fixed by making every LI bisexual, yes?  In DA:2 they were all playersexual but if in DA:I they are all bisexual, then your protagonists gender will have no bearing on the NPC's sexual orientation or personality whatsoever. Problem solved!

But it also has the problem of being less inclusive and not acknowledging gays or straights.

The acknowledgement is implicit in the existence of the content.

Homosexuals do not (or at least shouldn't) need to be addressed specifically. Bioware acknowledges everyone who's interested in same-sex romance for any reason, be they gay, bisexual, or simply roleplaying, by making same-sex romances possible.

But if homosexuality does, for whatever reason, need to be acknowledged separately from all other possible sexualities, Bioware can solve that by including one or more gay couples exist outside of the party.

[BobZilla84]

I just hope the Romances are handled better the very thought of losing approval points just for turning someone down is stupid and shouldn't ever be a legit design feature I actually am not against using the Playersexual design as I love having more options.The major complaint I had with DA2 was not being able to be with Aveline as much as I loved Bella an Merrill they just were not that appealing to me but I adored Aveline and the chemistry with Sarcastic Hawke was priceless.

[Hellion Rex]

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...

Considering we are going to Orlais in this installment, now would be a good time for Bioware to do such.

[KiwiQuiche]

Well, I wouldn't mind an asexual qunari romance in DAI.

[Akka le Vil]

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'.

+1
I really hate this playersexual stupidity. It's just dumbing down characters for the sake of pandering.

eluvianix wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

I want
all romanceable companions to be available to both genders. It's not
Bw's fault some people don't know how to role play on a role playing
game.

It's fun how you try to use "roleplaying"
as an argument for playersexual characters, while it actually does the
total opposite - "roleplaying" being all about pretending something is
real, which would mean characters who actually HAVE set preferences in
sexuality.

Nice shoot in your own foot.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 15 décembre 2013 - 11:12 .

[Plaintiff]

It's a good thing, then, that a character's sexuality has absolutely nothing to do with how well-developed their character is.

Funny how this argument comes up when characters are bisexual, but never when they're straight.

[Akka le Vil]

Plaintiff wrote...

It's a good thing, then, that a character's sexuality has absolutely nothing to do with how well-developed their character is.

Of course it does. The very fact that such threads reach such length so quickly, and that people are so up in arms about the entire subject, is a proof that sexual preferences are actually quite relevant for a person.

In fact, I noticed that most of the time, the people attempting to downplay how sexual preferences are important to what is a person, are precisely the persons who are the most fanatical in that there SHOULD BE characters available for their own preferences.
Actually, aren't you the guy who only started to play Origins because of s/s romances ?
Oh the hypocrisy ^^

Funny how this argument comes up when characters are bisexual, but never when they're straight.

They aren't "bisexual", they are "playersexual".

The first is a set preference that is acceptable. I don't remember anyone complaining about Zevran being bi, because it was PART of his character. Liara "bi" ? It's okay and normal, her entire species have no concept of sex preference. Isabella ? She obviously goes for whatever that move. Leli ? She's bi, that's all, it's both always here  (not a retcon/character dependant) and still natural and not something that needs a pretext. All of these examples are okay because they are part of the character. Though of course, it can't be used for everyone as it quickly breaks the suspension of disbelief.

The second is not a preference, it's a lazy way to gut characters from one of their core preference and just water down things around to pander to idiots who just want to get their way even if it weakens the characters.

Oh, and just to reiterate again : notice that what I hate is how this option destroy the characters by making them puppets without preference and only defined in regard to the player. I don't have any problem at all with s/s or bi romances in themselves.
My complaints are about the ROLEPLAYING and CHARACTERS aspects, not about bigotry. Just sayin'.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 15 décembre 2013 - 11:31 .