303 réponses à ce sujet

[AresKeith]

@jnciesp As you said those examples are more character arc, which the PC will ultimately have some influence in.

But the PC/players should NOT have that when it comes to a character's preference

And on the topic of armors, that's kinda irrelevant now with the route they are going in DA:I

[KaiserShep]

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...

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.

What does the PC's gender have to do with the effort required on the part of the player to gain approval of the companion? Ironically, Ashley and Kaidan are very easy to initiate romances with, because there's no approval required at all. Hell it's so easy you can be ninjamanced and trigger a dialogue between the triangle of characters to pick one.

[AresKeith]

ElitePinecone wrote...

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.)

How would it be a hard sell to justify single-gender LIs?

And it's been said that some or many like set preferences

[Iakus]

ElitePinecone wrote...

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.)

By that logic, they might as well just do one LI per game and call it a day.  Or remove chocies altogether.  It's not like people will see the results of the other choices anyway, right?

Part of the joy of Biwoare games (and choice based rpgs in general) is having the ability to start a new game, make different choices and experience the story a different way.  Creating "exclusive content', (and that's what this is, and it's not limited just to romances) encourages that.  You can't romance this character unless you are playing that kind of character. 

It may be an expensive way of doing things, but I have often found it to be very rewarding.

[someguy1231]

ElitePinecone wrote...

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.)

The fact that playersexual characters are a cheap budget-saving measure and appeal to players who can't be bothered to finish the game or replay it is exactly why Bioware should NOT use them. Bioware used to be a studio respected for their detailed writing and choices in their games. Playersexual characters undermine that.

[Iakus]

ElitePinecone wrote...

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.)

By that logic, they might as well just do one LI per game and call it a day.  Or remove chocies altogether.  It's not like people will see the results of the other choices anyway, right?

Part of the joy of Biwoare games (and choice based rpgs in general) is having the ability to start a new game, make different choices and experience the story a different way.  Creating "exclusive content', (and that's what this is, and it's not limited just to romances) encourages that.  You can't romance this character unless you are playing that kind of character. 

It may be an expensive way of doing things, but I have often found it to be very rewarding.

[Tric]

EJ107 wrote...
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 think, think, there was a post by Anders's writer where she said that she felt that he would't tell LadyHawke about his previous relationship with Karl but that it was always part of his backstory. Don't take my word for it though, I can't find it anywhere and have terrible memory.

Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...
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.

I didn't say it wasn't? Not in relation to that at least. Although I have to admit I don't really see where this fits in this discussion exactly, I never claimed that people of different genders were exactly the same.

I was saying that I find it a bit off to single out gender preference as the make it or break it in a romance when there's so many other things that are, at least, more interesting and, in certain cases, important to use, and that don't remove options from people that already have few to being with normally.

Modifié par SomethingSome, 18 février 2014 - 07:24 .

[ElitePinecone]

Well, it's clearly been a hard enough sell that they went with four playersexual options instead for DA2. Resources have been enough of an issue that they decided to go with romances that could be accessed by everybody. Presumably if the game did get more money, doing something more like your suggestion would be more feasible.

Here's David Gaider's explanations:

[quote]As I’ve said before, my ideal would be to have an array of sexualities— including bisexuality— if there were enough romance plots to go around. Failing that, having bisexual romances is still the fairest way to go.[/quote]

[quote]Which leads me to my third thing: while I get that some people might not like the discovery that those followers can potentially romance either gender (something you can really only discover on subsequent playthroughs or by reading about it), a lot of the things people post on the subject is… awkward. “It makes the characters inconsistent.” Meaning that… bisexuality itself is indicative of inconsistency? Only people who can’t make up their minds are bisexual? “It’s unrealistic that everyone is bisexual!” Which ‘everyone’? Everyone in Thedas? Or are we talking four people in your party of folks who already exceptional in a large number of ways, two of which have no sexual past or preferences that they even discuss with you? “It just made them seem like they were all sexually available to me!” So… was it having three romance options for any PC gender, just like in Origins, that threw you off? Or does the idea of potentially sleeping with either gender just make them seem inherently wanton to you?[/quote]

[quote]To me, it’s never been about letting players romance “whoever they want to”. I do not believe any player has a right to romance whoever they like with whatever character they happen to be playing.

The point of the bisexual (or “playsexual’, whatever you want to call them) romances in DA2 was to ensure that anyone playing a character of a certain gender or sexuality had options. That’s it. Were there more characters with romance arcs, I’d have been just as happy making some specific to particular genders. Seeing as that wasn’t the case, I was okay with sacrificing what some saw as “realism” (I think what they really mean is “verisimilitude”, though I disagree even so) to allow more options for everyone. The writers wrote each character with a specific idea in mind for how they worked, and the only thing that changed from one PC to the next was the player’s perception of them— which is interesting to note, and doesn’t disqualify it in any manner from being real as they see it, even if I wouldn’t prioritize that over basic fairness.

What will be perhaps frustrating (and no doubt inevitable) if we ever do provide a larger number of romances and thus have no need to make them all bisexual/playersexual, is that the complainers will undoubtedly cry victory (“we made them change it!”) and at least some of those who liked how it worked will then complain that we either caved or that they have had their right to romance anyone they wish removed. Or both, I suppose.[quote]

[Iakus]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Which leads me to my third thing: while I get that some people might not like the discovery that those followers can potentially romance either gender (something you can really only discover on subsequent playthroughs or by reading about it), a lot of the things people post on the subject is… awkward. “It makes the characters inconsistent.” Meaning that… bisexuality itself is indicative of inconsistency? Only people who can’t make up their minds are bisexual? “It’s unrealistic that everyone is bisexual!” Which ‘everyone’? Everyone in Thedas? Or are we talking four people in your party of folks who already exceptional in a large number of ways, two of which have no sexual past or preferences that they even discuss with you? “It just made them seem like they were all sexually available to me!” So… was it having three romance options for any PC gender, just like in Origins, that threw you off? Or does the idea of potentially sleeping with either gender just make them seem inherently wanton to you?

Except the problem isn't really bisexuality (I don't hear many complaints about Lelliana, Zevran, or even Isabela) but playersexuality.  That the character's preferences are based on the player.  That is where the problem of inconsistency comes from.  That's where teh CC starts affecting characters other than my own.

I mean, I believe there were complaints that the surviving twin in DA2 was based exclusively on whether Hawke was a mage or not

If all LIs are, by some cosmic coincidence, all bi, well, that would be very odd, but I suppose I could roll with it.

[Ryzaki]

Star fury wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Wynne talks about mages having some means of birth control.

Wynne said only that her child was taken by templars from her.

Nope..

and already answered

Starsyn wrote...

Star fury wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Wynne talks about mages having some means of birth control.

Wynne said only that her child was taken by templars from her.

Nope, Wynne does make a brief mention about birth control to Alistair:

Alistair: So you... mentioned you had a son? What happened to him?
Wynne: I honestly don't know, Alistair. He was... taken from me. Such births are seldom, as there are ways to prevent it, but it does happen. And any child born to a Circle mage belongs to the Chantry.
Alistair: I... didn't know. I'm sorry.
Wynne: It's all right. It was a long time ago. A very long time ago.
Alistair: Couldn't you do something about it?
Wynne: Do what? I was weak from the birthing process and there were... no, there was nothing I could do.
Alistair: Do you think about him?
Wynne: All the time.

[Taleroth]

They don't even have "paths" as it is. Do you have high enough score on the friendship meter? Want to bang? There you go.

It's not a complicated system and I'm not under the impression Bioware wants it to be. It's just something simple tacked on to the characters.

[Ryzaki]

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

Not really.

A. Most people don't replay the game and B. What's stopping a playersexual LI from causing 2 playthroughs regardless (say one for female and one for male PC). The romances aren't exactly the same.

(Honestly I got more replayability out of DA2's rivalrymances than Morrigan and Alistair being restricted).

[Steelcan]

I'm still demanding a boneable Traynor in ME3

[ElitePinecone]

iakus wrote...

If all LIs are, by some cosmic coincidence, all bi, well, that would be very odd, but I suppose I could roll with it.

Neither Anders, Fenris nor Merril ever actually stated their sexuality, though... so unless someone at Bioware has called them playersexual, I don't see why people would make the assumption that they're actually changing to reflect the player. If they're fundamentally bisexual, that's true for any version of Hawke. I could be misunderstanding this though, since I didn't really follow how Bioware's writers responded to DA2.

I mean, someone who dates men then women is bisexual, or whatever they want to call themselves, not inconsistent. Anders can talk about girls all he likes in Awakening and that completely doesn't rule out a relationship with a man in either his past or future. Someone can like the same gender and not mention it in every topic of conversation, and it doesn't need to be obvious.

This debate came up for Mass Effect, where some people insisted that since Kaidan - to take an example - had mentioned a romantic relationship with a girl in his past, he was undeniably straight, and any future same-sex romance would be "inconsistent" and "changing his character". In reality, it was nothing of the sort - up until a character shows or tells us their sexuality, making assumptions (specifically assumptions of heterosexuality) is a bit of a minefield. As it turned out, Kaidan was a same-sex option for maleShep, and people got over it (well, all six of them who saved Kaidan on Vimire).

[AlexJK]

ElitePinecone wrote...

... unless someone at Bioware has called them playersexual, I don't see why people would make the assumption that they're actually changing to reflect the player...

The word "playersexual" was adopted by fans as far as I know, presumably to refer to those characters who will engage in romance with a player of either sex without explicitly stating a preference of their own. Or possibly simply as a term grouping the DA2 romances together, since they were all available to all players. I don't know, tbh.

Here's what David Gaider had to say about the DA2 romances, incidentally:

The point of the bisexual (or “playersexual’, whatever you want to call them) romances in DA2 was to ensure that anyone playing a character of a certain gender or sexuality had options. That’s it. Were there more characters with romance arcs, I’d have been just as happy making some specific to particular genders. Seeing as that wasn’t the case, I was okay with sacrificing what some saw as “realism” (I think what they really mean is “verisimilitude”, though I disagree even so) to allow more options for everyone. The writers wrote each character with a specific idea in mind for how they worked, and the only thing that changed from one PC to the next was the player’s perception of them— which is interesting to note, and doesn’t disqualify it in any manner from being real as they see it, even if I wouldn’t prioritize that over basic fairness.

What will be perhaps frustrating (and no doubt inevitable) if we ever do provide a larger number of romances and thus have no need to make them all bisexual/playersexual, is that the complainers will undoubtedly cry victory (“we made them change it!”) and at least some of those who liked how it worked will then complain that we either caved or that they have had their right to romance anyone they wish removed. Or both, I suppose.

But such is life.

From http://tmblr.co/ZIsNntzRbOy1.

Modifié par AlexJK, 18 février 2014 - 08:02 .

[jncicesp]

AresKeith wrote...

@jnciesp As you said those examples are more character arc, which the PC will ultimately have some influence in.

But the PC/players should NOT have that when it comes to a character's preference

And on the topic of armors, that's kinda irrelevant now with the route they are going in DA:I

I did say that. I was just listing things, not really replying to you. sorry.

Those character arcs could be completly different though, all on what your character wants(or you want to see)
...and it is a game not a depressing depressing real-esque world. 'Playersexual'(I always thought) is more forming their prefrences. Just cause it can be a game with restrictions based on your gender doesnt really add anything, It takes actual content away but I cant think of something it adds.

Armor doesnt matter everyone knows what theyre doing with it...But its Interesting to point out that people wanted more control over it when they had one(or two) Set look(s) just so they can make them look like how they want, Any Companion not just 4.

[AresKeith]

I remember seeing a Bioware dev use the term "Hawkesexual" which is basically Playersexual with the name Hawke

But I could be wrong on this

[AresKeith]

jncicesp wrote...

'Playersexual'(I always thought) is more forming their prefrences. Just cause it can be a game with restrictions based on your gender doesnt really add anything, It takes actual content away but I cant think of something it adds.

Like I said before we as the players should be allowed to do that. It should already be a part of them.

And there's nothing wrong with exclusive content or restrictions as some call it, that's what happens when you make a choice. All this does is make people seem pissy because they couldn't romance said character

[Sylvius the Mad]

iakus wrote...

Except the problem isn't really bisexuality (I don't hear many complaints about Lelliana, Zevran, or even Isabela) but playersexuality.  That the character's preferences are based on the player.  That is where the problem of inconsistency comes from.  That's where teh CC starts affecting characters other than my own.

I see this as a positive feature, and one I'd like expanded.  I want more control over the design of the companions, not less.

I mean, I believe there were complaints that the surviving twin in DA2 was based exclusively on whether Hawke was a mage or not

I objected to that, but not because it let us choose.  I objected because it constrained that choice by forcing Hawke and his surviving sibling always to be a mage/non-mage pairing, something I still don't think the story required.

[Mr.House]

There was alot of dialog differences if you romanced Isabela as Ladyhawke(from both parties).

[KaiserShep]

Mr.House wrote...

There was alot of dialog differences if you romanced Isabela as Ladyhawke(from both parties).

A weird addition is Gamlen's creepy uncle line about two women, despite one being his niece 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 18 février 2014 - 08:48 .

[jncicesp]

AresKeith wrote...

jncicesp wrote...

'Playersexual'(I always thought) is more forming their prefrences. Just cause it can be a game with restrictions based on your gender doesnt really add anything, It takes actual content away but I cant think of something it adds.

Like I said before we as the players should be allowed to do that. It should already be a part of them.

And there's nothing wrong with exclusive content or restrictions as some call it, that's what happens when you make a choice. All this does is make people seem pissy because they couldn't romance said character

The only way you can know it isnt a part of them is if you romance them on a play though and figure out you cant on another. if you dont see it at all then you have no way of knowing its there unless they tell you that they would have been interested in you if you were the right gender.
If a character is So important on being so set they shouldnt be a romance option.(not cause I cant have them but cause its clearly an important part of them that shouldnt be messed with by any player and thats fine.).

They are restrictions, what else would they be..its not exactly a bad word at all.

There isnt anything wrong with Exclusive content except that its going out of its way to tell you how to play. and putting things in the game that youre supposed want which is cool until you notice you dont/cant have anything you want.
there isnt anything with it being non exclusive either the only thing it takes away from is how much you want gender to matter. I(I meaning My own opinion) dont think that should be a choice that effects anything.

[jncicesp]

Ignore this...

Modifié par jncicesp, 18 février 2014 - 09:01 .

[spirosz]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I see this as a positive feature, and one I'd like expanded.  I want more control over the design of the companions, not less.

And I see that as a negative, as I prefer them to have their own set of rules that they follow.  Though I don't mind certain type of influences, but it all has to fall back on who that character is.  

[Sylvius the Mad]

spirosz wrote...

And I see that as a negative, as I prefer them to have their own set of rules that they follow.  Though I don't mind certain type of influences, but it all has to fall back on who that character is.

They do.  Those rules just change playthrough to playthrough.

I don't see why this would ever be a problem for anyone.