549 réponses à ce sujet

[SlottsMachine]

TheRedVipress wrote...

Amm... can't we all just love each other and do a group hug or something?...
Huh... that may even work as an option in-game!...

NO! Romances in da games is serious business. 

[ignoreality]

Akka le Vil wrote...

ignoreality wrote...

I shall provide an example, then.

You've known a guy for 10 years and it never occurred to you that he is gay. Suddenly wham, he declares he is and always has been gay. Is he now a different person? Has his character changed in any way? Are you going to treat him differently now?

No, he's not a different person once he goes out of the closet.
He's a pretty different person, though, with a vastly different set of experiences and the difference it would make on personnality, as the person he would have been if he had been straight.

Again, read yourself : if the guy goes out of the closet, it's precisely because he can't stand his repressed life anymore. That's the OPPOSITE of sexual orientation having negligible impact on who he is. You're just proving my point.

Oh, I am not arguing that having to bear prejudice and mindless hate all your life can have an impact on one's personality, but that's not what we're discussing here, so let's remove it from the equation. You claim that the guy would have a different personality just because of his sexual preference. Do you have a proof for that claim, or is it just your perception? (That's a rhetorical question.)

The point I'm trying to get across here is that many people in this thread seem to be upset by the very fact that a character who loves a man in their playthrough can love a woman in another person's playthrough. I see claims that it somehow cheapens or falsifies their personality. I don't see a reason why their personality should be any different in regards to who they choose to love or sleep with. Anders will be a fanatic regardless of whether he "comes out of the closet" or not. Fenris will brood and hiss regardless of the gender of the Hawke that punches through his walls. Lesbian or not, Merrill will always be a nutcase.

So why does it matter to any of you that your by-all-means straight LI is someone else's gay LI, and someone else's bisexual LI?

[Rusty Sandusky]

General Slotts wrote...

TheRedVipress wrote...

Amm... can't we all just love each other and do a group hug or something?...
Huh... that may even work as an option in-game!...

NO! Romances in da games is srs bsns.

FTFY

[MassivelyEffective0730]

hhh89 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

@MassivelyEffective0730: what do you think it Bioware will follow the six LI route (2 hetero, 2 homosexuals and two bisexuals)in DAI?

I think the game would be in San Francisco.

Well, judging by your response you don't think is going to happen. In that case, you shoudo be prepared to have four playersexual/bisexual LI. They're not returning to DAO's approach.

And I'm saying I dislike that approach. 

If you want to have a character be gay or bisexual or lesbian, fine.

But for god's sake, don't make them gay, bi, or lesbian because the player wants them to be.

[Lebanese Dude]

Blackrising wrote...

wolfhowwl wrote...


Someone who constantly cries bigotry over videogame romances and makes inflammatory posts like "I persist in the futile hope that the individuals I clash with will eventually either grow brains or die." is going to get a lot of flak and probably deserves it.

Then one would think that throwing around further insults in response is rather counter-productive, no?

clocked. 

[Lebanese Dude]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

 You all love your mother, why must you hate each other?

I sincerely doubt anyone hates anyone here. 

People who argue against bisexuality would not say the same thing in person. Forums are a great place for people to clash violently while disregarding any form of respect.

Furthemore, the mere fact that people are still stating that sexual orientation should be "believable" is more insulting than anything really.

Modifié par Lebdood, 15 décembre 2013 - 03:28 .

[The Elder King]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

hhh89....

Well, judging by your response you don't think is going to happen. In that case, you shoudo be prepared to have four playersexual/bisexual LI. They're not returning to DAO's approach.

And I'm saying I dislike that approach. 

If you want to have a character be gay or bisexual or lesbian, fine.

But for god's sake, don't make them gay, bi, or lesbian because the player wants them to be.

But you don't want six LI, because you seem to think that we should have more option than homosexuals. 
Bioware's goal is to give multiple choices in romances to everyone. So either they'll make six LI with different sexualities, or four LI available to everyone.

[The Elder King]

@The Made Hanar: there'll probably never be 6 LI available to everyone. If they expand the number of LI, it would be for returning to set sexualities and at the same time give multiple choices to everyone.

[Blackrising]

Akka le Vil wrote...


What ?

I already specifically told you that there is plenty of other things I don't like, but I don't talk about them here because they aren't relevant to the discussion. Is this another "convenient" selective reading ?

Oh no, that wasn't aimed specifically at you. Not liking convenient mechanics themselves is fine. I was talking about it in a general sense, since other people often seem to hate on the sexuality approach in particular.

Akka le Vil wrote...

Non-straight people are not a 'small' minority.

Yes they are. There if, of course, a somehow bigger part of the society being non-straight due to cultural normalization, and of course people are not either 100 % one or 100 % another, but there is a VASTLY bigger part of the overall population which is on the "no" side of the "would you have sex with a person of your own sex ?" than on the "yes" side.

Oh, and yeah it would be fun to have a "borderline" companion who has somehow elastic boundaries, and would have some romantic feeling for the PC, but would ultimately only go farther than kissing with a PC of a particular sex.

Still doesn't constitute a 'small' minority in my eyes. I guess this is where we're gonna have to agree to disagree then, as my experience seem to differ vastly from yours.

Akka le Vil wrote...

Plus, the LIs in Dragon Age are still only FOUR people per game. FOUR. There is nothing unusual about FOUR people in any given group being open to relationships with a gender they do not usually prefer or being outright bisexual.

It's not about "four people in Thedas", it's about "every single of the four people romanceable in a company of six". That's QUITE not the same, both in terms of statistics and in term of writing and convenience.

In a company of six? We usually have 9 to 10 companions, do we not? And such a relatively small group is rather unlikely to adhere to what statistics tell us. Again, seems like we have different experiences and therefore different views.

Akka le Vil wrote...

I'm not saying I always agree with him. I'm also not saying that he was insulted due to being gay. But he does get a lot of flak and when I look at some of the posts on these forums, I believe he has ample reasons to become paranoid. It seems to me that for every person that has a valid reason for rejecting the bisexual approach, there is another one that is really just being a di**.

From what I've seen, the flak he gets has more to do with him bringing it on himself and then playing the martyr than actual bigotry, so I'm afraid you'll find little sympathy for him from me.

And be assured that it's the same over here when it comes to people being d*** when arguing. Not caring about watering characters down or breaking the believability of the setting just to have more options for the dating sim isn't exactly something pleasant to see.

I'm not demanding sympathy for him. I'd just rather keep the argument civil than have it deteriorate into insult slinging as these kinds of threads usually do.

Every side has their black sheep, but I'd like you to keep in mind that when someone feels attacked due to sexuality, gender or something else very personal, it tends to cut a little deeper than not caring for the things you described. (Mind you, this isn't about Plaintiff, just a general thing to keep in mind when wondering why some people react in a manner you would view as exaggerated.)

[billy the squid]

Blackrising wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Blackrising wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Blackrising wrote...

billy the squid wrote...


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.

No, they are. This is non negotiable and not a matter of view or opinion. Every NPC in DA2 will sleep with the player regardless, that is specifically player sexual, and only the delusions would say otherwise.

As to the first point, yes. If the NPC is not boiled down to a walking click romance option, then it's not necessarily a specific requirement for the orientation to be pre determined, they can be, but it's not always necessary as the specific stance on certain topics precludes opening that romance option. It's a gameplay mechanics issue. If the Backstory specifies a certain relationship orientation then leave it as that, if it doesn't then it can remain open, limiting contradictions and retconns.

Plaintiff has made a monument to his own stupidity with his comments, I'm calling a spade a spade. If you want to white knight for Plaintiff after his comments, have at it, just don't be suprised when you're caught in the cross fire as well by claiming persecution when it's such utter crap.

Except the LIs going for the PC whatever they DO has nothing to do with sexuality and is therefore not part of the definiton of 'player sexuality'. And I'm sorry, but please dial back on the aggressive tone. I'd rather talk to someone who does not put other people down constantly.

But how can a background completely determine someone's sexual orientation, at least as far as we get to know it? We never know every single detail about a characters life before they met the PC. If we did, that would be a very very long game. Now if a NPC has, in the past, specifically said 'Sorry, not into men/women', then them not going for that gender is obviously fine. But just having had a relationship with a man/woman in the past does not automatically make them a hundred percent anything.

You are simply being insulting and aggressive, something that I do not think is necessary. You are free to disagree with him, with me and every other person on this board if you like, but throwing around petty insults seems like a rather immature way of dealing with disagreements. I did not claim persecution, or at least it was not my intention to. I used the word (and in ' ' , too) because you used it and I found it rather unfitting and exaggerated. It was sarcasm, if anything. And believe me, acting the part of the White Knight is not my intention. I am pretty sure he can do that himself. (But he doesn't seem to be around right now, so...)

What? It has everything to with it, what kind of logic is that? If the NPC's will jump the player regardless of the sex, views and actions it is specifically "player sexual" they will always go for the player irrelevant of any considerations, including sex. Bi sexuality does not allow an NPC to sleep with the player if they are a huge arse and oppose everything the NPC stands for, the player sexual NPC will.

If for instance, like Aveline she was married to a man, then leave it as a straight option. If Anders made refrence to a relationship as of yet undefined then leave it open to both if the writer chooses, or write it as straight, or gay specifically if they want to go that direction. Background informs the player of the orientation, if there is no specific back ground refrence then the option can be left as player sexual, but remains tied to the actions of the player in whether it is fullfilable or it can be a predetermined orrientation if the writer wants. 

Considering it is a game, not a romance sim, although the way some people push it might as well drop that pretence; are you really saying it should encapsulate when someone's orientation changes and leave it undefined? It's precisely the same retconning and confusion crap that lead issues with Anders, Lelianna still being alive despite being killed etc. Just don't do it, leave it undefined or define it, as it always ends up as a trainwreck in terms of NPC interaction.

And he is being an obtuse arse, if you are equally blinkered, should you like to throw round the accusations of bigotry and homophobia on a whim, people agreeing with him or dying, then I will treat you with the same derision, belittling and aggressive nature as I treat anything stupid which he posts. I don't have patience or time to deal with the asinine contorted logic Plaintiff spouts, so I recomend that you do not get involved, as it's not pretty

Modifié par billy the squid, 15 décembre 2013 - 03:36 .

[Blackrising]

Lebdood wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

 You all love your mother, why must you hate each other?

I sincerely doubt anyone hates anyone here.

I'm pretty sure none of us has the time to waste it on hating someone on the internet we will, most likely, never meet. Certain opinions and stances might make me mad or frustrated, but hate is much too personal to apply it to a faceless being on the other side of the world.

[Akka le Vil]

ignoreality wrote...

Oh, I am not arguing that having to bear prejudice and mindless hate all your life can have an impact on one's personality, but that's not what we're discussing here, so let's remove it from the equation. You claim that the guy would have a different personality just because of his sexual preference. Do you have a proof for that claim, or is it just your perception? (That's a rhetorical question.)

Of course he would have a different personnality. He would not have interacted the same way with other people, he would not have dated the same persons - Morrigan can't exactly be casted as gay or Leliana as straight and still have the same backstory behind. Aveline can hardly be changed to gay without her entire plot being rewriten.

The point I'm trying to get across here is that many people in this thread seem to be upset by the very fact that a character who loves a man in their playthrough can love a woman in another person's playthrough. I see claims that it somehow cheapens or falsifies their personality. I don't see a reason why their personality should be any different in regards to who they choose to love or sleep with. Anders will be a fanatic regardless of whether he "comes out of the closet" or not. Fenris will brood and hiss regardless of the gender of the Hawke that punches through his walls. Lesbian or not, Merrill will always be a nutcase.

Not ALL their personnality will necessarily change (though it's far from granted, I can imagine several cases where a companion would be entirely different, even with the same backstory, simply because s/he was being straight or gay), but it's still a cheapening of the character to have such an intimate and important part of him/her being redefined each time you start the game.
I also can't really believe I have to point out that the sexual orientation of a character somehow count when it comes to romance.
Not to add that being forced to leave the dialogues and characterisation open for both males and females PC means a need for blander and one-size-fits-all answers, details and the like.

So why does it matter to any of you that your by-all-means straight LI is someone else's gay LI, and someone else's bisexual LI?

It matters to me that the NPC lacks a part of his/her identity which is reassigned according to the PC. That's a watering down in characterisation.

[ignoreality]

Lebdood wrote...
Furthemore, the mere fact that people are still stating that sexual orientation should be "believable" is more insulting than anything really.

May I sisterhug you?

[Akka le Vil]

Lebdood wrote...

I sincerely doubt anyone hates anyone here. 

People who argue against bisexuality would not say the same thing in person. Forums are a great place for people to clash violently while disregarding any form of respect.

You really think that I would not argue against the non-set sexuality of fictionnal characters in a video game simply because the person in front of me is not straight ?

/facepalm

[AlanC9]

Akka le Vil wrote...

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

The first is a set preference that is acceptable. ...(snip)

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.

Could you provide the actual argument here? You don't say why a character can't be written as gay in one playthrough but straight in another. You're implying that the two versions of the character should be more different than they are. But different how?

[sandalisthemaker]

THIS THREAD IS GOING PLACES.

[Akka le Vil]

AlanC9 wrote...

Could you provide the actual argument here? You don't say why a character can't be written as gay in one playthrough but straight in another. You're implying that the two versions of the character should be more different than they are. But different how?

I don't feel like copy-pasting an entire post, so here is the link (that's the post three places above yours).

[Secretlyapotato]

Whatever, I just like playing matchmaker for my character, and it's funner when you can just choose from everyone available. I just pretend the ones I'm not romancing are straight or gay for that specific playthrough unless stated otherwise. :3

[Blackrising]

billy the squid wrote...

Blackrising wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Blackrising wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Blackrising wrote...

billy the squid wrote...


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.

No, they are. This is non negotiable and not a matter of view or opinion. Every NPC in DA2 will sleep with the player regardless, that is specifically player sexual, and only the delusions would say otherwise.

As to the first point, yes. If the NPC is not boiled down to a walking click romance option, then it's not necessarily a specific requirement for the orientation to be pre determined, they can be, but it's not always necessary as the specific stance on certain topics precludes opening that romance option. It's a gameplay mechanics issue. If the Backstory specifies a certain relationship orientation then leave it as that, if it doesn't then it can remain open, limiting contradictions and retconns.

Plaintiff has made a monument to his own stupidity with his comments, I'm calling a spade a spade. If you want to white knight for Plaintiff after his comments, have at it, just don't be suprised when you're caught in the cross fire as well by claiming persecution when it's such utter crap.

Except the LIs going for the PC whatever they DO has nothing to do with sexuality and is therefore not part of the definiton of 'player sexuality'. And I'm sorry, but please dial back on the aggressive tone. I'd rather talk to someone who does not put other people down constantly.

But how can a background completely determine someone's sexual orientation, at least as far as we get to know it? We never know every single detail about a characters life before they met the PC. If we did, that would be a very very long game. Now if a NPC has, in the past, specifically said 'Sorry, not into men/women', then them not going for that gender is obviously fine. But just having had a relationship with a man/woman in the past does not automatically make them a hundred percent anything.

You are simply being insulting and aggressive, something that I do not think is necessary. You are free to disagree with him, with me and every other person on this board if you like, but throwing around petty insults seems like a rather immature way of dealing with disagreements. I did not claim persecution, or at least it was not my intention to. I used the word (and in ' ' , too) because you used it and I found it rather unfitting and exaggerated. It was sarcasm, if anything. And believe me, acting the part of the White Knight is not my intention. I am pretty sure he can do that himself. (But he doesn't seem to be around right now, so...)

What? It has everything to with it, what kind of logic is that? If the NPC's will jump the player regardless of the sex, views and actions it is specifically "player sexual" they will always go for the player irrelevant of any considerations, including sex. Bi sexuality does not allow an NPC to sleep with the player if they are a huge arse and oppose everything the NPC stands for, the player sexual NPC will.

If for instance, like Aveline she was married to a man, then leave it as a straight option. If Anders made refrence to a relationship as of yet undefined then leave it open to both if the writer chooses, or write it as straight, or gay specifically if they want to go that direction. Background informs the player of the orientation, if there is no specific back ground refrence then the option can be left as player sexual, but remains tied to the actions of the player in whether it is fullfilable or it can be a predetermined orrientation if the writer wants. 

Considering it is a game, not a romance sim, although the way some people push it might as well drop that pretence; are you really saying it should encapsulate when someone's orientation changes and leave it undefined? It's precisely the same retconning and confusion crap that lead issues with Anders, Lelianna still being alive despite being killed etc. Just don't do it, leave it undefined or define it, as it always ends up as a trainwreck in terms of NPC interaction.

And he is being an obtuse arse, if you are equally blinkered, should you like to throw round the accusations of bigotry and homophobia on a whim, people agreeing with him or dying, then I will treat you with the same derision, belittling and aggressive nature as I treat anything stupid which he posts. I don't have patience or time to deal with the asinine contorted logic Plaintiff spouts, so I recomend that you do not get involved, as it's not pretty

The term 'player sexuality' means SEXUALITY. Actions have nothing to do with it, just the gender of the PC. If a character never shows signs of being bisexual, but is still available to male and female PCs, they would still be considered player sexual, regardless of whether they leave when the PC is being an arse or not. At least that is my understanding of it and how I thought others would define it.

Yes, Aveline was married to a man, but she might have had relationships or an attraction to women in the past. The point is that we don't know that. We don't know what goes on inside a person and we don't know what goes on inside a fictional character. That privilege would be up to their writer.
The problem is here how to decide whether a character's orientation did indeed change or if it simply wasn't brought up before now. As I said, if a character has made a definite statement in the past along the lines of 'I'm straight/gay', 'I am not interested in men/women', 'Never felt the desire for a relationship with a man/woman' or anything like that, then by all means, don't change that.

If you think he is so wrong, then why respond to him? Retorting with insults will just escalate the situation.

[Lebanese Dude]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

I think the argument is that you won't often build a group of 6 friends that all happen to be bisexual during your life. I mean, it can happen, but it would definitely be surprising, unless you are looking for that quality in a friend.

The stuff said here really isn't that bad compared to some of the stuff said about gays in real life. You think it's bad, but people really have to watch what they say here, unlike real life.

I would know. I am one. I'm from the Middle East too. Still standin' though

[Blackrising]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

THIS THREAD IS GOING PLACES.

If you mean straight to the toilet, then yes, this thread is indeed going places.