554 réponses à ce sujet

[GreyLycanTrope]

spirosz wrote...

"Biphobes" rofl.

Please continue.

Is that like a type of marsupial?

[LPPrince]

daveliam wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

S'all good in the BSN hood.

So rare these days.  It's a pleasure when it happens!

Indeed.

This forum needs more happies.

[LPPrince]

The irony of my exchange with Dave and the sentence in the post immediately following it

*shakes head*

[Veruin]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Is that like a type of marsupial?

Hm..maybe it's a pokemon?

[AresKeith]

daveliam wrote...

2.)  Not all of the characters did express their sexuality.  See my earlier post about Kaidan.  He never states that he's bisexual.  I've never romanced him as a female, but I would bet my house and car that he never addresses same sex attraction to a FemShep.  Also, does Tali ever explictly state that she's hetero?  Or do we just assume it because she is only romanceable to male characters.  I guess my point is that sexuality is more than actions.  Maybe Tali just is attracted to strong males, but more submissive females and that's why she's only interested in MaleShep and not FemShep (I know, that's a stretch, but I'm just trying to point out that there might be more to a person's attraction than gender).

I'm not saying they should directly state it like that, but they do somewhat display that they have a preference (Kaidan is a hard one)

Take Ashley for example she clearly has an attraction to Shepard if male, but doesn't act like that if Shepard is female

Modifié par AresKeith, 05 février 2014 - 08:25 .

[Hellion Rex]

LPPrince wrote...

The irony of my exchange with Dave and the sentence in the post immediately following it

*shakes head*

I can't deny that it made me giggle a little bit.

[BraveVesperia]

AresKeith wrote...

BraveVesperia wrote...

Hey biphobes, please answer a question?

Explain to me what makes Alistair and Morrigan NOT 'playersexual'? Alistair's only requirement is that the Warden has a vagina, Morrigan's only requirement is that he has a penis. But hey, that's believable, right? It's not like personality, behaviour, appearance, morals, actions, background have anything to do with relationships at all. Just which genitals you have.

Please don't start that, this thread is going really tame for the most part

Alright then, but my point was a valid one.

People throw the word playersexual around to describe bisexual characters, but not for characters like Alistair/Morrigan, who's only differing preference is purely physical. Or the female squadmates of ME, the majority of whom wanted to get into male Shepard's pants.

[Veruin]

BraveVesperia wrote...

Alright then, but my point was a valid one.

People throw the word playersexual around to describe bisexual characters, but not for characters like Alistair/Morrigan, who's only differing preference is purely physical. Or the female squadmates of ME, the majority of whom wanted to get into male Shepard's pants.

The word playersexual is used because that's the exact term Gaider used. I recall him (either angrily or annoyed) making a post saying that none of the LIs barring Isabella were bi.  They were playersexual.  So, please, get off your soapbox.  You're going to fall.

Modifié par Veruin, 05 février 2014 - 08:25 .

[dragonflight288]

I'd prefer characters to have a set sexuality. I don't care if they're bi, but I would actually prefer having a few companions who can only be romanced by a certain gender, straight or gay as it may be. Or even set within their own race. Say we get a dwarven companion (Sigrun!!!) but she is only romanceable by a dwarf Inquisitor. I wouldn't mind something like that.

I think that would improve playability.

Modifié par dragonflight288, 05 février 2014 - 08:26 .

[spirosz]

Veruin wrote...

BraveVesperia wrote...

Alright then, but my point was a valid one.

People throw the word playersexual around to describe bisexual characters, but not for characters like Alistair/Morrigan, who's only differing preference is purely physical. Or the female squadmates of ME, the majority of whom wanted to get into male Shepard's pants.

The word playersexual is used because that's the exact term Gaider used. I recall him (either angrily or annoyed) making a post saying that none of the LIs barring Isabella were bi.  They were playersexual.  So, please, get off your soapbox.  You're going to fall.

[AresKeith]

BraveVesperia wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

BraveVesperia wrote...

Hey biphobes, please answer a question?

Explain to me what makes Alistair and Morrigan NOT 'playersexual'? Alistair's only requirement is that the Warden has a vagina, Morrigan's only requirement is that he has a penis. But hey, that's believable, right? It's not like personality, behaviour, appearance, morals, actions, background have anything to do with relationships at all. Just which genitals you have.

Please don't start that, this thread is going really tame for the most part

Alright then, but my point was a valid one.

People throw the word playersexual around to describe bisexual characters, but not for characters like Alistair/Morrigan, who's only differing preference is purely physical. Or the female squadmates of ME, the majority of whom wanted to get into male Shepard's pants.

Alistair and Morrigan was basically gender-locking for plot reasons. I would've preffered if they did show actually attraction to the Warden if male or female

[GreyLycanTrope]

BraveVesperia wrote...
Alright then, but my point was a valid one.

People throw the word playersexual around to describe bisexual characters, but not for characters like Alistair/Morrigan, who's only differing preference is purely physical. Or the female squadmates of ME, the majority of whom wanted to get into male Shepard's pants.

That's an interesting assumption but not entirely true, I don't use the word to describe Isebella, Zevran or Lelliana as they've been shown to have and even discussed their preference. It's the other character that don't seemingly have a life outside of the protaganist that I take issue with.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 05 février 2014 - 08:30 .

[Hellion Rex]

dragonflight288 wrote...

I'd prefer characters to have a set sexuality. I don't care if they're bi, but I would actually prefer having a few companions who can only be romanced by a certain gender, straight or gay as it may be. Or even set within their own race. Say we get a dwarven companion (Sigrun!!!) but she is only romanceable by a dwarf Inquisitor. I wouldn't mind something like that.

I think that would improve playability.

Well the problem there is that not everyone wants to role a whole new character just for the sake of the romance. I would be interested in romancing Varric, but if he is only a dwarf specific romance, that's a big turn off for me, since I will probably only play a human or Qunari Inquisitor.

[Lulupab]

spirosz wrote...

"Biphobes" rofl.

Please continue.

Anything you post is automatically funny because of your avatar. 

[mikeymoonshine]

KaiserShep wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Playersexual companions is the worst objectification of characters since Dead or Alive's boob physics. It is a shameful display of lazy character development from BioWare's side.
If BioWare wants their character to be available to both genders, then bloody well make them bisexual. Zevran and Lelianna was done correctly, since no matter the gender of the Warden, they displayed attraction towards both men and women.

This works with characters that are outwardly sexual, but more reserved characters, I'm not so sure. Like, imagine if Aveline was a bisexual character. Her reserved attitude makes being outwardly sexual seem pretty out of place. She's all duty this and duty that. I can't imagine being able to figure this out without really probing the character for information and building approval/friendship, and even then, it would likely only be toward the PC and not toward the gender opposite of that PC. The only reason you may figure it out for Fenris is because of the dialogue options that may be available, but the character himself never really makes it known unless you push him into it.

I always saw the playersexual character as just switching modes for the PC's gender, rather than being something that should necessarily be reflected in the character. This is a toy with a narrative attached, after all.

I thought Aveline was Bisexual or at least bi-curious because of this 

She just wasn't interested in Hawke. That's why I don't agree that the player sexual thing is just about everyone wanting your PC no matter what gender, Varric wasn't interested in Hawke either despite the fact that he has as many fangirs/boys as any other character. 

I really don't mind the playersexual thing that much tbh but like many I prefferred ME3's way of doing it. But it would be nicer if all the LI's were actual companions if they did it like that. 

[spirosz]

dragonflight288 wrote...

I'd prefer characters to have a set sexuality. I don't care if they're bi, but I would actually prefer having a few companions who can only be romanced by a certain gender, straight or gay as it may be. Or even set within their own race. Say we get a dwarven companion (Sigrun!!!) but she is only romanceable by a dwarf Inquisitor. I wouldn't mind something like that.

I think that would improve playability.

^This. 

But no, no.  Let's make Bioware a battleground for what I want in their game.

Seriously, for the amount of energy and time people put into demanding things from Bioware, they might as well learn to create a game and develop a game that would fit their expectations and needs.  

[Pasquale1234]

dragonflight288 wrote...

I'd prefer characters to have a set sexuality. I don't care if they're bi, but I would actually prefer having a few companions who can only be romanced by a certain gender, straight or gay as it may be. Or even set within their own race. Say we get a dwarven companion (Sigrun!!!) but she is only romanceable by a dwarf Inquisitor. I wouldn't mind something like that.

I think that would improve playability.

I don't think romances should be gated based on anything the player decides during character creation.

I would, however, welcome romantic barriers based on the choices made by the character in the story.

[daveliam]

spirosz wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

I'd prefer characters to have a set sexuality. I don't care if they're bi, but I would actually prefer having a few companions who can only be romanced by a certain gender, straight or gay as it may be. Or even set within their own race. Say we get a dwarven companion (Sigrun!!!) but she is only romanceable by a dwarf Inquisitor. I wouldn't mind something like that.

I think that would improve playability.

^This. 

But no, no.  Let's make Bioware a battleground for what I want in their game.

Seriously, for the amount of energy and time people put into demanding things from Bioware, they might as well learn to create a game and develop a game that would fit their expectations and needs.  

To be honest, this is actually my preference as well.  I like how ME 3 did thing.  There was a variety of sexualities (clearly heterosexual, clearly homosexual, clearly bisexual, and some ambiguity with a few characters), which was realistic.  Also, every "sexuality" that Shepard could have had options for romances.  No one was railroaded into a single choice.  However, the other side of the coin is that there were 12 romance options in that game.  You can't do set sexualities or preferences (not the same thing, btw) and give everyone options and only have 4-5 romance options in the game.  It's a trade off.  The ME team went with more options and, therefore, more attention/resources spent on romance mechanics.  The DA team went with less options, but also less "set" sexuality or preferences.

If I had to choose, I'd pick the ME way, but if I had to pick between either DA: O or DA 2's approach, I'd clearly pick DA 2 because it's the more equitable approach.

[Veruin]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

I don't think romances should be gated based on anything the player decides during character creation.

I would, however, welcome romantic barriers based on the choices made by the character in the story.

I'm perfectly fine with romances based on choices in and outside the CC.  Can't romance X?  Write/roll a character who can. 

[Hellion Rex]

daveliam wrote...

To be honest, this is actually my preference as well.  I like how ME 3 did thing.  There was a variety of sexualities (clearly heterosexual, clearly homosexual, clearly bisexual, and some ambiguity with a few characters), which was realistic.  Also, every "sexuality" that Shepard could have had options for romances.  No one was railroaded into a single choice.  However, the other side of the coin is that there were 12 romance options in that game.  You can't do set sexualities or preferences (not the same thing, btw) and give everyone options and only have 4-5 romance options in the game.  It's a trade off.  The ME team went with more options and, therefore, more attention/resources spent on romance mechanics.  The DA team went with less options, but also less "set" sexuality or preferences.

If I had to choose, I'd pick the ME way, but if I had to pick between either DA: O or DA 2's approach, I'd clearly pick DA 2 because it's the more equitable approach.

Totally agree. However, no racial restrictions please.

[LPPrince]

eluvianix wrote...

Well the problem there is that not everyone wants to role a whole new character just for the sake of the romance. I would be interested in romancing Varric, but if he is only a dwarf specific romance, that's a big turn off for me, since I will probably only play a human or Qunari Inquisitor.

My problem with that is making a character romanceable to every and any PC is basically in my eyes pandering for the sake of the player's comfort. Which is weird because with other parts of the game it seems they don't care so much for a player's comfort.

I'd want the characters in game to be set in stone. If Varric will only romance a fellow Dwarf, that is totally fine by me.

Fun fact- I may never play a dwarf either. But if I wanted to romance Varric and was informed he wasn't attracted to anyone outside of his own race, I'd take that as a PLUS. It makes him unique, it makes him feel real, and I can roleplay it perfectly fine without being uncomfortable with it.

If certain events in these games are gonna be railroaded instead of letting us have options, I can't see why a romanceable character has to be more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff than have some limitations in place.

Modifié par LPPrince, 05 février 2014 - 08:43 .

[Iosev]

While I can understand the desire for romantic interests to have specific sexual preferences, I don't think that amount of realism is necessary in a game where sexuality is not a major theme of the work. For example, if it were a game that focused on romance, where resources were allocated to creating numerous love interests for the protagonist, then it would be fair to expect more discrete sexual identities, preferences, and so on.

However, in a game that focuses on heroic fantasy with a limited amount of romantic interests (unlike Mass Effect 3, which benefited from the ability to use prior games' love interests due to a recurring protagonist), I would much rather see players given more choice (i.e., player-sexual), instead of limitations due to more defined sexual preferences for companions, especially if we're only going to see only four or five developed love interests.

Modifié par arcelonious, 05 février 2014 - 09:34 .

[LPPrince]

Four or five to me seems like quite a lot, given the amount of companions we may have.

Compare-

Mass Effect had six companions, two of which were romanceable in any one playthrough.

Dragon Age: Origins had ten companions, nine at a time, three of which were romanceable in any one playthrough

Mass Effect 2 had thirteen companions, twelve at a time, three of which were romanceable in any one playthrough(not counting Samara/Morinth as romances)

Dragon Age 2 had nine companions, eight at a time, four/five were romanceable in any one playthrough(Sebastian is FemHawke exclusive)



I don't want to feel like half or more than half of the people with me would drop their britches if I make the effort.

Modifié par LPPrince, 05 février 2014 - 09:40 .

[Iosev]

Well, imagine if there are four companions with romantic content, but only two are heterosexual (male and female) and two are homosexual (male and female). This would mean each gender for the protagonist would only have a choice between an opposite-sex romantic interest and a same-sex one. I can't imagine a lot of players would enjoy that limitation. I admit that it is an extreme example that would probably not be considered, but it's a concern when deciding whether companions have sexual preferences or not.

[Pasquale1234]

LPPrince wrote...

Fun fact- I may never play a dwarf either. But if I wanted to romance Varric and was informed he wasn't attracted to anyone outside of his own race, I'd take that as a PLUS. It makes him unique, it makes him feel real, and I can roleplay it perfectly fine without being uncomfortable with it.

If certain events in these games are gonna be railroaded instead of letting us have options, I can't see why a romanceable character has to be more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff than have some limitations in place.

You do, of course, realize that any assignment of race / gender / etc. preference to a fictional character is an entirely arbitrary choice made by the writers, and often to fill a quota.  Personally, I think that narrowing their interests makes them seem more like stereotypical archetypes than real people - and it invites tokenism in the character design process.

I would much rather have a rich, well-developed character like Varric available to PCs of all races / genders than have a couple dozen barely-developed shallow tokens designed to provide options to all race / gender combinations.

I'd want the characters in game to be set in stone.

Real people change, as does their perception of their orientation.