Blackrising wrote...
billy the squid wrote...
Blackrising wrote...
billy the squid wrote...
Blackrising wrote...
billy the squid wrote...
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.
You can't separate and place NPC's in a vaccum or you end up with the trian wreck that DA2 was. Where the player's actions were irrelevant, you could take every action and say things which were anathema to the stance of an NPC and you still were able to initiate a romance. That is my determination of it, the only thing that is important is the character, everything else is irrelevant.
An undefined NPC which is open to both sexes is not bi sexual if they are not defined as being so, they are undefined and open to both ie: you won't know they're undefined unless you're metagaming, but they do not necessarily allow the player to initiate something if their position is the polar opposite. Player sexuality, when it's badly done, simply ignores everything and the NPC becomes a point and click romance pixle.
You don't change orrientations, it causes too many complications, it's a RPG/ adventure game, not a romance simulator. It's a practical issue, hence the requirement to leave the NPCs undefined, or define the orrientation, straight, gay, bi, whatever and then stick to it, or it simply ends up looking like a half arsed, ill thought out mess.
If a woman was in a relationship with a man, leave it as straight. But there's nothing to stop them saying they were in a relationship, but not qualifying it, as such it remains undefined and open to both, but not bi sexual. Hence the player can make up whatever they want, the NPC was always straight, les, bi whatever.. Does that clarify it? If they imply through talking about the NPC's back ground ie: Leliana she is Bi, then leave it as Bi, it's defined. It stops things getting into a horrible tangle full of contradictions.
I see other people who are wrong, I don't treat them with the same derision, nor do I often have the time or inclination to reply. Act like he does, and I'll treat him the way he deserves to be treated as I see no reason to indulge it, nor do I have any sympathy for self inflicted martydom.
Modifié par billy the squid, 15 décembre 2013 - 04:35 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Guest_The Mad Hanar_*
Retour en haut
