549 réponses à ce sujet

[TKavatar]

 

Blackrising wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

Improbable where? Thedas isn't the carbon copy of our world plus magic and dragons. The fact that it might be Improbable in our world doesn't mean it might be improbable in Thedas.

That's seems to be far too much of an attempt at outstretched rationalization for me to be convinced. Kinda the textbook case of "too convenient to be believable".

And the fact that every PC just so happens to find potions, herbs, runes and valuable armour scattered around Thedas (most of the time just before encountering a powerful monster) is NOT too convenient for you?

Isn't that an example of Gameplay and Story segregation ? 

[Jean]

Oh, let's just have the DA:I romances work like a slot machine.

One playthrough Cassandra will only be interested in studly Oxmen. The next can be adorkable dwarf women, and another can be old crusty chantry pirests.


serious thought being that I don't really care either way as long as equal representation is met.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Just to throw my opinion into the ring, I have to say I have no problem with the concept of "playersexual" characters. If for no other reason, they are not in my game. For example, in Dragon Age 2 I have a heterosexual romance with Merrill. Just because she has the capacity to be in a homosexual relationship doesn't matter. In my game and thus Dragon Age universe, she's straight. Yet the option exists for those who want otherwise to have it. Good for them. Why should I let how someone else plays interfere with my viewpoints of the characters in my version? It doesn't affect the character development prior to romance, and even afterwords only a few lines of dialogue, yet gives more options to the players in a game genre that flourishes on options.

[Akka le Vil]

Blackrising wrote...

And the fact that every PC just so happens to find potions, herbs, runes and valuable armour scattered around Thedas (most of the time just before encountering a powerful monster) is NOT too convenient for you?

Yes it does (up there with level scaling, regeneration after falling in battle, wolves having coins on their corpse and the like), but that wasn't the point of the thread, so I don't see why it would be relevant.

Also, I have a higher tolerance for mechanical incongruities than I have for narrative weaknesses. It's easier to allow for gameplay-driven breach of realism than it is for plot holes, out-of-character moments and watered-down characterisation.

Blackrising wrote...

Something being convenient doesn't automatically make it improbable.

The combination of very improbable and very convenient does tend to make for a bad case, though. See above for the acceptability of narrative contrivance.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

My opinion is to make a character one way or the other, with a bi character to boot. And yes, I do believe the majority of romances, as in real life, should be heterosexual.

I don't think it's a good idea to make every character bi for the sake of player's sexual fantasies.

Anyway, I've seen people from this thread call in 'righteous' fury for a straight character to be made romanceable by a player who plays as a gay PC, yet when someone calls for a gay character to be romanceable by a straight PC, I see that person attacked as a 'homophobe traditionalist who believes that the love of a proper person from the opposite gender will cure the gay disease'.

Double standards.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 15 décembre 2013 - 01:00 .

[Plaintiff]

hhh89 wrote...
I said it might. And in both games the party isn't really formed by people with the same interests.
Though I didn't mean to say that groups formed by gay, lesbian of bisexuals people aren't possible or improbable. I was mostly referring to how the D parties were formed, of people with different and often opposite interests.

Well, sure, but the circumstances of both Dragon Age narratives are inherently improbable, even within the context of the setting.

Frankly, the argument from "believability" is flawed at base. Anyone working from that position has already fundamentally misunderstood the nature and purpose of fiction.

[Blackrising]

TKavatar wrote...

 

Blackrising wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

Improbable where? Thedas isn't the carbon copy of our world plus magic and dragons. The fact that it might be Improbable in our world doesn't mean it might be improbable in Thedas.

That's seems to be far too much of an attempt at outstretched rationalization for me to be convinced. Kinda the textbook case of "too convenient to be believable".

And the fact that every PC just so happens to find potions, herbs, runes and valuable armour scattered around Thedas (most of the time just before encountering a powerful monster) is NOT too convenient for you?

Isn't that an example of Gameplay and Story segregation ? 

Depends on what you see as gameplay and what you see as story. The romance dialouges and cutscenes are certainly part of the story, but the romance mechanics themselves and the existent or non-existent gender checks are gameplay.

And it's not like there aren't enough examples of convenience in the story itself. It's kind of hard to make a story without a certain amount of convenient coincidences.

[Blackrising]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Blackrising wrote...

And the fact that every PC just so happens to find potions, herbs, runes and valuable armour scattered around Thedas (most of the time just before encountering a powerful monster) is NOT too convenient for you?

Yes it does (up there with level scaling, regeneration after falling in battle, wolves having coins on their corpse and the like), but that wasn't the point of the thread, so I don't see why it would be relevant.

Also, I have a higher tolerance for mechanical incongruities than I have for narrative weaknesses. It's easier to allow for gameplay-driven breach of realism than it is for plot holes, out-of-character moments and watered-down characterisation.

Another thing I don't understand. How does bisexuality = watered-down characterisation? (Unless you meant these examples ina  general sense, in which case I retract my question.)

Akka le Vil wrote...

Blackrising wrote...

Something being convenient doesn't automatically make it improbable.

The combination of very improbable and very convenient does tend to make for a bad case, though. See above for the acceptability of narrative contrivance.

You still haven't answered what you base this perceived improbability on. If you think it too convenient, fair enough, although it only becomes a problem upon meta-gaming, since you can't very well know whether a character would also go for your character if they were the opposite gender.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Balanced LIs in the game? Sounds boring.

David Gaider: "No, no, no! Redo that cut scene. Each LI has to kiss 6021 milliseconds 3 times. And that's the fourth! Backup that kiss. That dialogue line before that kiss wasn't even supposed to be there. It was supposed to be the name of a quest they should do!"

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Plaintiff wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...
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.

No, mostly they prove that people are bigots.

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.

Yes, and I notice that the people who insist that sexuality is somehow integral to character are precisely the people that want to deprive others of same-sex content.

Why, it's almost as if people are using the argument as a flimsy cover up for their own homophobia!

[WildOrchid]

As long as Cass is romanceable to female Inquisitor and that also there are fair amounts of LI (meaning gays get the same amount as straights and not like DAO and ME) then all is fine.

Edit: because everytime i hear about romances in games i always think 3 love interests for heteros and 1 for homos (the number is an example)
I don't want this in my games.

Modifié par WildOrchid, 15 décembre 2013 - 01:32 .

[Lebanese Dude]

Blackrising wrote...

Depends on what you see as gameplay and what you see as story. The romance dialouges and cutscenes are certainly part of the story, but the romance mechanics themselves and the existent or non-existent gender checks are gameplay.

And it's not like there aren't enough examples of convenience in the story itself. It's kind of hard to make a story without a certain amount of convenient coincidences.

+1.

[billy the squid]

Plaintiff wrote...

hhh89 wrote...
I said it might. And in both games the party isn't really formed by people with the same interests.
Though I didn't mean to say that groups formed by gay, lesbian of bisexuals people aren't possible or improbable. I was mostly referring to how the D parties were formed, of people with different and often opposite interests.

Well, sure, but the circumstances of both Dragon Age narratives are inherently improbable, even within the context of the setting.

Frankly, the argument from "believability" is flawed at base. Anyone working from that position has already fundamentally misunderstood the nature and purpose of fiction.

Great, put in the most stupid points you want because it's fictional, great to see you remain as obtuse as ever. Look up the word verisimilitude.

But then again considering your persecution complex is in full swing at the moment I'm really not suprised.

[Blackrising]

WildOrchid wrote...

As long as Cass is romanceable to female Inquisitor and that also there are fair amounts of LI (meaning gays get the same amount as straights and not like DAO and ME) then all is fine.

Edit: because everytime i hear about romances in games i always think 3 love interests for heteros and 1 for homos (the number is an example)
I don't want this in my games.

Wanna bet that Cassandra will be the male-only romance?

Because knowing my luck, this is exactly what will happen.

[thedistortedchild]

Blackrising wrote...

WildOrchid wrote...

As long as Cass is romanceable to female Inquisitor and that also there are fair amounts of LI (meaning gays get the same amount as straights and not like DAO and ME) then all is fine.

Edit: because everytime i hear about romances in games i always think 3 love interests for heteros and 1 for homos (the number is an example)
I don't want this in my games.

Wanna bet that Cassandra will be the male-only romance?

Because knowing my luck, this is exactly what will happen.

Nooooo She my favorite so far! I hate playing men, and it would suck to have to go through a crappy playthrough as one to romance her. 

Modifié par thedistortedchild, 15 décembre 2013 - 01:41 .

[Blackrising]

billy the squid wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

hhh89 wrote...
I said it might. And in both games the party isn't really formed by people with the same interests.
Though I didn't mean to say that groups formed by gay, lesbian of bisexuals people aren't possible or improbable. I was mostly referring to how the D parties were formed, of people with different and often opposite interests.

Well, sure, but the circumstances of both Dragon Age narratives are inherently improbable, even within the context of the setting.

Frankly, the argument from "believability" is flawed at base. Anyone working from that position has already fundamentally misunderstood the nature and purpose of fiction.

Great, put in the most stupid points you want because it's fictional, great to see you remain as obtuse as ever. Look up the word verisimilitude.

But then again considering your persecution complex is in full swing at the moment I'm really not suprised.

Uh, well, considering you just called four people being bisexual 'most stupid' and then proceeded to insult him, I am inclined to believe it is well within his rights to feel 'persecuted'.

[The Elder King]

Blackrising wrote...

Wanna bet that Cassandra will be the male-only romance?

Because knowing my luck, this is exactly what will happen.

Without knowing much about Vivienne, and next to nothing about Sera, I really have no clue who will be hetero, gay or bi if they'll follow the six LI approach. It's  true that Gaider wrote only straight LI in DAO, but I don't know how much value this would have.

[billy the squid]

Blackrising wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

hhh89 wrote...
I said it might. And in both games the party isn't really formed by people with the same interests.
Though I didn't mean to say that groups formed by gay, lesbian of bisexuals people aren't possible or improbable. I was mostly referring to how the D parties were formed, of people with different and often opposite interests.

Well, sure, but the circumstances of both Dragon Age narratives are inherently improbable, even within the context of the setting.

Frankly, the argument from "believability" is flawed at base. Anyone working from that position has already fundamentally misunderstood the nature and purpose of fiction.

Great, put in the most stupid points you want because it's fictional, great to see you remain as obtuse as ever. Look up the word verisimilitude.

But then again considering your persecution complex is in full swing at the moment I'm really not suprised.

Uh, well, considering you just called four people being bisexual 'most stupid' and then proceeded to insult him, I am inclined to believe it is well within his rights to feel 'persecuted'.

Except they're not, the characters are all player sexual and will jump into bed with the player at the drop of a hat in DA2, regardless of what stance you take. It might suit your tittilation for a romance simulator, but it remains none the less utterly stupid to expect every charcter to adore the player regardless of who they are, what they do, or what they say. That is why a determined orientation is necessary if the writers are not going to put any effort into establishing a NPC's stance on a particular topic. 

So, what was your point again? Or does pointing out asinine reasoning in the above equate to persecution or is it identification of real life baggage which seems to be dragged into these threads by posters.

Modifié par billy the squid, 15 décembre 2013 - 01:53 .

[Blackrising]

hhh89 wrote...

Blackrising wrote...

Wanna bet that Cassandra will be the male-only romance?

Because knowing my luck, this is exactly what will happen.

Without knowing much about Vivienne, and next to nothing about Sera, I really have no clue who will be hetero, gay or bi if they'll follow the six LI approach. It's  true that Gaider wrote only straight LI in DAO, but I don't know how much value this would have.

It seems to me that the 'strong' women or at least those not immediatly inclined to proclaim their undying love usually end up being the heterosexual romance option. Which is exactly the reason I always end up dissatisfied with the options I am presented with.
Ashley, Miranda, Morrigan, Jack, Viconia (although I am unsure the last one counts, since there were no gay options in Baldur's Gate)...all heterosexual options and all types I would be interested in as a player. In contrast to that, we've got Liara, Leliana and Samantha as gay options. All very romantic and nice people. (And all of them rather boring, if you ask me.)

Maybe it's just me, but I think there is a certain trend here.

[WildOrchid]

Blackrising wrote...


It seems to me that the 'strong' women or at least those not immediatly inclined to proclaim their undying love usually end up being the heterosexual romance option. Which is exactly the reason I always end up dissatisfied with the options I am presented with.
Ashley, Miranda, Morrigan, Jack, Viconia (although I am unsure the last one counts, since there were no gay options in Baldur's Gate)...all heterosexual options and all types I would be interested in as a player. In contrast to that, we've got Liara, Leliana and Samantha as gay options. All very romantic and nice people. (And all of them rather boring, if you ask me.)

Maybe it's just me, but I think there is a certain trend here.

And i hope the devs read this thread as well and finally give us a strong warrior woman as LI and break the ice. It would be even perfect if a strong warrior LI was lesbian.
The worst thing with Ash, Miri, Jack is that they were designed originally to be bi. I will never understand why they made them for dude only.

[wright1978]

Hazegurl wrote...

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

 

Above is why i hope they retain the playersexual approach, as i can't see a way they could provide fair acceptable levels of choice without inflating the number of LI's and thereby damaging the level of content for each.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

WildOrchid wrote...

And i hope the devs read this thread as well and finally give us a strong warrior woman as LI and break the ice. It would be even perfect if a strong warrior LI was lesbian.
The worst thing with Ash, Miri, Jack is that they were designed originally to be bi. I will never understand why they made them for dude only.

Because not everyone is or has to be bi. 

Some people, including characters, are straight. 

Why should every character be made to appeal to everyone. Why not just make good characters for their own merits?

Why can't someone like Traynor be romanceable by a dude? Why do you have to be a female to romance her?

[Blackrising]

billy the squid wrote...

Blackrising wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

hhh89 wrote...
I said it might. And in both games the party isn't really formed by people with the same interests.
Though I didn't mean to say that groups formed by gay, lesbian of bisexuals people aren't possible or improbable. I was mostly referring to how the D parties were formed, of people with different and often opposite interests.

Well, sure, but the circumstances of both Dragon Age narratives are inherently improbable, even within the context of the setting.

Frankly, the argument from "believability" is flawed at base. Anyone working from that position has already fundamentally misunderstood the nature and purpose of fiction.

Great, put in the most stupid points you want because it's fictional, great to see you remain as obtuse as ever. Look up the word verisimilitude.

But then again considering your persecution complex is in full swing at the moment I'm really not suprised.

Uh, well, considering you just called four people being bisexual 'most stupid' and then proceeded to insult him, I am inclined to believe it is well within his rights to feel 'persecuted'.

Except they're not, the characters are all player sexual and will jump into bed with the player at the drop of a hat in DA2, regardless of what stance you take. It might suit your tittilation for a romance simulator, but it remains none the less utterly stupid to expect every charcter to adore the player regardless of who they are, what they do, or what they say. That is why a determined orientation is necessary if the writers are not going to put any effort into establishing a NPC's stance on a particular topic. 

So, what was your point again? Or does pointing out asinine reasoning in the above equate to persecution.

Just because you view them as playersexual does not mean that they are.
The fact that the LIs were willing to look past whatever actions Hawke took is an entirely different topic than the one we are currently discussing. In fact, I agree that certain actions or decisions should make the LI unwilling to enter into a romantic relationship. Something we are obviously going to get in DA:I, so further discussion is unnecessary. Since they have already stated that they are going to tweak the romance mechanics for DA:I (which, presumably, does mean that LIs will have firm opinions and will not be interested in someone who continuously defies that stance), then by your logic, determined orientations are not necessary, yes?

And anyway, none of that was the point of my post. I wasn't responding to your opinion about romance. My point was that Plaintiff has every reason to feel attacked when you do, in fact, insult him and have done so on other occasions in the past. As have other people, which is why I am not surprised that he reacts the way he does.

[billy the squid]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

WildOrchid wrote...

And i hope the devs read this thread as well and finally give us a strong warrior woman as LI and break the ice. It would be even perfect if a strong warrior LI was lesbian.
The worst thing with Ash, Miri, Jack is that they were designed originally to be bi. I will never understand why they made them for dude only.

Because not everyone is or has to be bi. 

Some people, including characters, are straight. 

Why should every character be made to appeal to everyone. Why not just make good characters for their own merits?

Why can't someone like Traynor be romanceable by a dude? Why do you have to be a female to romance her?

You're so bigoted, how could you say that? Your white, cis gendered, male privilege disallows you from understanding pixelated fetish fuel as a crutch for one's own social inadequacies.

[Blackrising]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

WildOrchid wrote...

And i hope the devs read this thread as well and finally give us a strong warrior woman as LI and break the ice. It would be even perfect if a strong warrior LI was lesbian.
The worst thing with Ash, Miri, Jack is that they were designed originally to be bi. I will never understand why they made them for dude only.

Because not everyone is or has to be bi. 

Some people, including characters, are straight. 

Why should every character be made to appeal to everyone. Why not just make good characters for their own merits?

Why can't someone like Traynor be romanceable by a dude? Why do you have to be a female to romance her?

Yes. Some of the millions of other people that populate Thedas.

As to why Traynor can't be romanced by a dude? Probably cause the Mass Effect team realized that straight male Shepard has, like, 582423905 romance options and that they'd have to throw the players a bone so they wouln't constantly get called out on that.