303 réponses à ce sujet

[Kidd]

fchopin wrote...

I am not trying to take away choices for people i understand that we all want more options and i am all for that but i believe making characters player sexual takes away from the story and characters.
I don’t mind if characters are bisexual but if we make all NPC’s bisexual it will make the game unrealistic.

Sorry but that is what I believe.

****, a multitude of me is unrealistic. My very innermost group of friends is unrealistic as well.

phantomrachie wrote...

But in saying that you don't want player-sexual romances in a game; you are taking away choice from players, (unless of course Bioware shock us all by includeing 6 romances, 2 for each sexuality)

A lot of people seem to think that there are none who would object to 6 romances being split up. I believe Gaider would prefer that so that'd probably be how it turned out, but I wouldn't prefer that at all. To me, I think making all LIs available to all genders is a requirement in a pre-written world.

In the example of a mage who greatly dislikes the Circle system in DAO, Leliana is irrelevant to the character's personal conflict - tangenting on being opposed to the mage since she believes in the Chant. Alistair may be an ex-templar, but he's hardly up for the mage's apostery. Zevran doesn't share his views on the conflict itself, and is thus a possible partner but ultimately a very unfulfilling one in the personal conflict aspect.

Then there's Morrigan, who also dislikes the Circle system and is a full-blown apostate. Perfect match! Well too bad. If the mage had been rolled up as a female character, Morrigan's not an option even though there is nothing in her plotline that relies on her being straight.

In a pen & paper RPG, this would be the time where the game master could simply introduce a male apostate later to enhance the mage warden's narrative, but that's not possible in a cRPG since all content comes pre-loaded. The only way to make sure this problem does not come up would be to make a copy of every LI for both genders... and I have problems seeing people preferring that. But hey, perhaps some do.

Would I believe DAO was a better game if Morrigan and Alistair were playersexual? Yes, definitely. Options are awesome. Not getting gated away from content when creating a female lead (you know, one of those characters that are mostly only available in BioWare games) is pretty neat in several ways, as well. I roll the vast majority of my characters as female cause I simply love getting to see a female hero after growing up with male heroes.

fchopin wrote...

TheChris92 wrote...

So, you believe that content that you don't want to use/won't have to experience, is taking away from you? Why? How is it more of an illusion than the other romances?

Because the other romances fit with the story so they become part of the story and i enjoy doing them.If Bioware want to do player sexual romances good luck to them.

Interesting. Which romance path do you think is the playersexual one for the various LIs and which one "fits?" Is Merrill a lesbian? Anders gay? Isabela bi? Fenris straight? Or perhaps Fenris is gay? Which one is the one that "fits the story?"

[Mathias]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

It makes no sense to me that every single person in Thedas be Bisexual. Having 1 or 2 party members who are Bi is one thing, but to have all romances be accessible to all genders is pretty stupid. It does cheapen the romance for a lot of people, whether some want to admit it or not.

But every single person in Thedas isn't bisexual. Every single person in the party isn't even bisexual.

At most, it's four companions out of nine, and you have to play the game at least twice to even find out they're available for the other gender. 

For as many people who you suggest feel that the romances are cheapened, I would argue that there are just as many fans who are pleased that they had more than one option.

If Bioware are going to stick with four romancable characters, two of each gender, then opening all of them up to each gender of Inquisitor is the only way to guarantee that all players have more than one character to choose from. They could make 6 LIs, or 8, but that seems like an order of magnitude more work, and with a greater cost - which would detract from other important areas of the game.

Ensuring that everyone has more than one option for LI seems only fair, and I would suggest that this fairness more than outweighs your sense of them being cheapened. Nothing is lost when a character who you're romancing is romanced by someone of the same gender in another universe, after all.

But a lot of people don't feel that way. People want more variety in their romances, and I don't mean just making everyone bisexual and calling it a day. If they're gonna have everyone be Bi then at least have unique animations and dialogue for each gender. The way they did it in DA2 was just blatant pandering to try and make everyone happy, but in the end it came off quick and cheap to the people who were disappointed.

Have your straights, have your gays, and then screw the people who were upset that they couldn't romance such and such with their Male Hawke, cause she's into chicks. That's life, and it creates more of a sense of realism when the character have their own strict sexual identiy, instead of being completely beholden to the Player's every will.


Btw if I were in charge of Bioware, I would've only had straight characters right from the beginning. Cause you're opening up a can of worms with the whole LGBT thing. One minute you're trying to please gay men by having a gay male npc, and then the next thing you know you're scrambling to make everyone happy.

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 18 février 2014 - 05:40 .

[Ianamus]

SomethingSome wrote...

EJ107 wrote...
I appreciate this, but at the same time changing a characters sexuality based on the player character is no different to changing their hobbies, sense of humor or personality based on the PC. They may all only be parts, but having them shift based on the player characters gender or race makes aspects of the character rely on the existence of the PC, which is something I'm against. 

But are they changing sexuality? Fenris and Merrill never talk about their preferences, Anders talked about wanting a prettty girl on his arm but that doesn't exclude the possibility of him being bisexual. And Isabela's always been very openly bi.

Theres the argument that they are all bisexual, and that could be the case, but this topic is specifically about "playersexuality" which I define as simply being interested in whatever the PC happens to be. My comment was more my stance on "playersexual" than on DA2 in particular. 

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Have your straights, have your gays, and then screw the people who were upset that they couldn't romance such and such with their Male Hawke, cause she's into chicks. That's life, and it creates more of a sense of realism when the character have their own strict sexual identiy, instead of being completely beholden to the Player's every will.

I don't like arguments of "oh I wanted to romance x but I can't because of there sexuality" becuase thats just part of their charcter, but on the flip side of the coin I entirely sympathise with arguments of "Male Shepard has about double as many romance options as Female Shepard in ME3" or "Half of Female Shepards romances dump her or die but none of male Shepards do". Equality when it comes to options should come before anything, and even though I'd much prefer a 2 straight/ 2 bisexual/ 2 homosexual LI setup I'll take DA2's approach if it means equal options for everyone. 

Modifié par EJ107, 18 février 2014 - 05:48 .

[lxwkl31]

I kind of agree. I like there being differences.

[ElitePinecone]

AresKeith wrote...

I still prefer that they have set sexualities: 2 straight, 2 bi, and 2 gay

I'm curious though - would you still prefer this situation even if it meant those 6 companions each had less content? 

Because if Bioware have a hard limit to their word budget (which they do), they'd have to divide the content usually reserved for four LIs into six - that means roughly 40% less for each companion. Then they'd have to animate six romance scenes, which is apparently already the most expensive part of the arcs. 

You can make the argument that they should ensure that the 6 LIs are funded as well as 4 would be, but that diverts time and effort away from other parts of the game. 

Having four playersexual LIs, two of each gender, is actually quite clever from a budgeting point of view - you still guarantee that each sexuality and gender of player gets a minimum of two options, for the lowest possible price in terms of zots. Given that romances are far from their highest priority anyway, I can't really see a scenario where it'd be feasible or sensible to spend more money on LIs that are only available to one gender.

[KaiserShep]

Seems that it's not enough to have character relationships built upon similar or clashing ideologies, approval or disapproval of acts of kindness or malice, or other stuff that's actually important.

[Mathias]

Volus Warlord wrote...

This thread. It's painful to look at. Ugh.

Ok can we PLEASE stop with these kinds of posts?

"Ugh this thread again."
"Inb4 lockdown."

Nobody is forcing you to post on here, and there are plenty of people in this thread that want to have a serious discussion on this, some of them like myself don't appreciate people encouraging the mods to lock it down. If you don't have anything good or intelligent to contribute, then please don't contribute. Please.

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 18 février 2014 - 05:49 .

[AresKeith]

@Elite yes I would

[Ianamus]

ElitePinecone wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

I still prefer that they have set sexualities: 2 straight, 2 bi, and 2 gay

I'm curious though - would you still prefer this situation even if it meant those 6 companions each had less content? 

Because if Bioware have a hard limit to their word budget (which they do), they'd have to divide the content usually reserved for four LIs into six - that means roughly 40% less for each companion. Then they'd have to animate six romance scenes, which is apparently already the most expensive part of the arcs. 

It's a good question. I think for me it would depend on exactly how much less content we were talking about. If the charcter in general still had the same amount of content but the romance in particular has one or two less scenes or something small like that I probably wouldn't mind. But if it meant a lot less content then it wouldn't be worth it IMO.

Of course with the increase in the word budget with the inclusion of multiple playable races and the fact that romances would have to be inflated in order to acknowledge the playable races it is possible that the number of romances was expanded.

And there is also the possibility of romanceable NPC's, although that may still come under the word budget for romances (or is companion romance derived from the companion word budget?). Anyway, that would depend on how exactly the budget is distributed I guess. 

Modifié par EJ107, 18 février 2014 - 05:56 .

[ElitePinecone]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Btw if I were in charge of Bioware, I would've only had straight characters right from the beginning. Cause you're opening up a can of worms with the whole LGBT thing. One minute you're trying to please gay men by having a gay male npc, and then the next thing you know you're scrambling to make everyone happy.

That is... probably not the best thing to say in this thread, frankly.

If you can't put yourself in someone else's shoes for a moment and consider what it would be like to see an entire industry where you basically aren't represented, then it might be a good thing to sit back and reflect for a while. I know it's hard to imagine until you experience it yourself, but a bit of empathy goes a long way.

I also think there are plenty of reasons to include gay NPCs in videogames that have little if anything to do with pandering to gay customers - for starters, as much as you might not believe it, that's part of building a realistic world with human characters. 

[Volus Warlord]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

This thread. It's painful to look at. Ugh.

Ok can we PLEASE stop with these kinds of posts?

"Ugh this thread again."
"Inb4 lockdown."

Nobody is forcing you to post on here, and there are plenty of people in this thread that want to have a serious discussion on this, some of them like myself don't appreciate people encouraging the mods to lock it down. If you don't have anything good or intelligent to contribute, then please don't contribute. Please.

Is there anything good or intelligent than CAN be contributed to topics like this one? 

[Tric]

EJ107 wrote...
Theres the argument that they are all bisexual, and that could be the case, but this topic is specifically about "playersexuality" which I define as simply being interested in whatever the PC happens to be. My comment was more my stance on "playersexual" than on DA2 in particular.

I just used DA2 as an example since was the one most easily recognised really.
What I meant to ask was: is it still a change if we didn't know the character's preference to start with?

If we never know a character's previous relationships or if they don't tell us their sexuality is it a change if they can be romanced by a man in a playthrough and a woman in the next?

Because, if a character is "playersexual" then their romance was written from the ground up for PCs of both genders, no?

Personally I just feel that there's far better things for a character to take issue with when the PC tries to romance them than genders.

[ObserverStatus]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Writ3Wing3r wrote...
First, don't paint a whole country, state or "province" with the same brush.
Second, Russians are the real offenders on the homophobic front.

Do you see any contradiction in these statements?

I can't tell whether or not writ3wing3r is pulling our legs

[Red by Full Metal Jacket]

If they do decide to go that route I hope they actually change the "fade to black" part instead of a copy-paste. It's pretty funny how Male Hawke's mannerisms suddenly get super-feminine when Anders pushes him onto the bed.

Modifié par Red by Full Metal Jacket, 18 février 2014 - 06:16 .

[jncicesp]

AresKeith wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Personally, I'd prefer if they were who they are, regardless if you choose to roleplay a male or female, but then I guess one could argue that you could meta-game, bah.

Pretty much why I say the characters should have their own preference and the PC shouldn't interfere with that

Aside from sexuality can you name to many things about a characters prefrences that can be interfered with?
things that detract from who that character is based on something their personality or design is set on?

It sounds kind of fun so Im going to name some I can think of.

Armor customization, Morrigan can like you, Alistair doing whatever kingly things, Zevran can be your loyal friend, Leliana can be upset at the chantry, Sten does something too im sure, Your Siblings can change in a lot of different ways(they were kind of meant to be changed by what you do though), Merrill can give up on Elven history, Fenris can get over mages, Isabela can act selfless, Aveline can get remarried, Varric can spare his brother after years of knowing he wants to kill him... Thats only companions changing their opinions cause of what you want, NPCs would add even more.

Those all could be character arcs though.. And it would feel weird to have one about sexuality....the Armor one still stands though. Making people optionally dress how you want messes with what they would prefer, people like it anyway.

You might want something out of the game that was never there to begin with(Is that what you meant anyway?), The characters you make have always been forces of nature. Is it that you just draw the line at sexuality?

Modifié par jncicesp, 18 février 2014 - 06:36 .

[someguy1231]

I'll just say what I said in the other thread before it got locked: I'm against "playersexual" companions because characters should exist as their own independent entities rather than satellites that revolve around the player. You can whine all you want that it takes "choice" away from players, but frankly, players are supposed to have certain choices taken away from them in order for their other choices to matter. For example, in ME3's Omega DLC, Engineer players have a unique interaction at one point. Said interaction would have been meaningless if every class could do it. Besides, more choice does not automatically make a game better if those choices come at the expense of immersion or continuity.

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

It won't be, it will be exactly the same lazy dialogue for both versions, as per usual.

Playersexual romances are usually horrible, and hardly worth the time. You don't even have to put in any effort any more, everybody just magically swoons before your charm and charisma. Blegh.

[KaiserShep]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Btw if I were in charge of Bioware, I would've only had straight characters right from the beginning. Cause you're opening up a can of worms with the whole LGBT thing. One minute you're trying to please gay men by having a gay male npc, and then the next thing you know you're scrambling to make everyone happy.

Why, because it will cause a tiny ruckus in some online forum thread? Because it will result in the game being banned in some crappy country somewhere? Why should anyone care what the jamokes who oppose same sex romance dynamics in a video game have to say anyway?

Anyway, this all seems like a tempest in a teapot anyway, and only BSN will ****** and moan about it.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 18 février 2014 - 06:46 .

[Ianamus]

SomethingSome wrote...

EJ107 wrote...
Theres the argument that they are all bisexual, and that could be the case, but this topic is specifically about "playersexuality" which I define as simply being interested in whatever the PC happens to be. My comment was more my stance on "playersexual" than on DA2 in particular.

I just used DA2 as an example since was the one most easily recognised really.
What I meant to ask was: is it still a change if we didn't know the character's preference to start with?

If we never know a character's previous relationships or if they don't tell us their sexuality is it a change if they can be romanced by a man in a playthrough and a woman in the next?

Because, if a character is "playersexual" then their romance was written from the ground up for PCs of both genders, no?

Personally I just feel that there's far better things for a character to take issue with when the PC tries to romance them than genders.

I agree that they shouldn't take issue with gender, not in the context of Thedas where its a non-issue for the most part. As for the other stuff... erhhh...

Isabela in very blatant about her bisexuality, and it is a large part of her charcter and written well. I liked how it was handled.

If a we do not know a characters orientation or previous relationships then we can't say if their sexuality is changing. Fenris and Merrill never really make it obvious what they like and it doesn't seem to be a large part of their characters so both can be assumed to be bisexual, which is fine.

Anders acts very differently to male and female Hawkes- mentioning previous male lovers to Male Hawke but not female Hawke and generally not showing any signs of attraction or interest in other men around Female Hawke but does around male hawke. It seems to imply that his orientation changes.

I have heard the argument that he is still interested in men and just doesnt tell female Hawke about his previous lover to which I say: If his past relationship is important as the guy has been made tranquil and this is the whole reason Anders cares about seeing him tranquil so much (and homosexual relationships are not an issue in thedas) why would he not mention this piece of information that would help persuade female Hawke to support his cause and help him save Karl?

Not to mention it really increases the emotional impact of the quest, so just from a story-telling persepective not including it if Hawke is female lessened the effect of the reveal that Karl is now tranquil. Overall it just felt unnecessary and contrived- a way for female Hawkes who romanced Anders to be able to see him as straight if they wanted to, which detracts from the character and the quest. 

Modifié par EJ107, 18 février 2014 - 06:48 .

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

SomethingSome wrote...

Personally I just feel that there's far better things for a character to take issue with when the PC tries to romance them than genders.

Gender IS kind of a big deal though. It's not just what's between your legs, it affects how your entire brain is designed and wildly influences your personality. Despite what all the nitwit believers in that outdated Gender Theory like to believe.

[Iakus]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Having four playersexual LIs, two of each gender, is actually quite clever from a budgeting point of view - you still guarantee that each sexuality and gender of player gets a minimum of two options, for the lowest possible price in terms of zots. Given that romances are far from their highest priority anyway, I can't really see a scenario where it'd be feasible or sensible to spend more money on LIs that are only available to one gender.

Replayability

[Veruin]

iakus wrote...

[/b]Replayability

Which is sorta irrelevant when most players don't even finish the game, but then why have any choices?

[Ianamus]

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...

SomethingSome wrote...

Personally I just feel that there's far better things for a character to take issue with when the PC tries to romance them than genders.

Gender IS kind of a big deal though. It's not just what's between your legs, it affects how your entire brain is designed and wildly influences your personality. Despite what all the nitwit believers in that outdated Gender Theory like to believe.

But psychological differences between people of the same gender can be just as large as psychological differences between people of different genders, so at the end of the day it really is all down to an individual persons personality and psychology, not their gender. 

Modifié par EJ107, 18 février 2014 - 06:55 .

[CroGamer002]

iakus wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

Having four playersexual LIs, two of each gender, is actually quite clever from a budgeting point of view - you still guarantee that each sexuality and gender of player gets a minimum of two options, for the lowest possible price in terms of zots. Given that romances are far from their highest priority anyway, I can't really see a scenario where it'd be feasible or sensible to spend more money on LIs that are only available to one gender.

Replayability

Pretty much.

I love when I have significant amount of new and different content when I do another playthrough.

[ElitePinecone]

iakus wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

Having four playersexual LIs, two of each gender, is actually quite clever from a budgeting point of view - you still guarantee that each sexuality and gender of player gets a minimum of two options, for the lowest possible price in terms of zots. Given that romances are far from their highest priority anyway, I can't really see a scenario where it'd be feasible or sensible to spend more money on LIs that are only available to one gender.

Replayability

Half the players don't even finish the game, though. I know they like doing choices for the sake of doing choices, but it seems like a hard sell to justify single-gender LIs, especially the same-sex ones (and I say that as someone who would use the same-sex ones). 

We aren't privy to Bioware's thinking, but maybe they've concluded that it just doesn't make sense to do anything else *but* four playersexual LIs. If the choice is between saving a whole heap of money, and some players feeling grumpy, they might've concluded that saving money is the better option.

(And it has to be said that some or many fans *prefer* the playersexual options - especially players that intensely engage with the romance content and actually like that it allows any character to be romanced by both genders.)