2090 réponses à ce sujet

[RynJ]

Using unambiguous gendered pronouns or gendered names ("Mary is missing, I'm so scared about her, please help") would be one way to imply an romantic connection without making every LGBT character literally state their sexuality, but it's difficult in a setting that uses fictional names. 

 

Heteronormativity is quite a significant issue when examining cultural representations of same-sex relationships, because we are so conditioned to see heterosexual partnerships as the norm - and it has been the norm, in the overwhelming majority of basically all (Western, modern) storytelling. The trope in RPGs of someone having a dead opposite-sex partner is so common that we'd probably think a person talking about their missing same-sex spouse was referring to their sibling. I think that, if I hadn't known about it beforehand, Steve's line about his husband would've made me do a double take.

 

Perhaps there's a greater willingness to think that if a woman or man mentions an opposite-sex person they care about, they must be in a relationship. But if a man is concerned about a man, or a woman about a woman, there's an initial hesitation to make that same logical assumption? Is that heteronormativity or fear of offending someone?

 

The second episode of the second season of Telltale's The Walking Dead tackled this by

 

Spoiler

having Walt talk about "Matt" like anyone would talk about their partner, and by other characters talking about them as a couple. It was extremely obvious by the second time Matt was mentioned that he was Walt's partner, but reading reviews and comments about the game people *still* didn't pick up on it. Maybe it was due to unfamiliarity with gay people (?) but I saw all sorts of comments that totally missed this incredibly obvious relationship. People were sort of tentatively afraid to make that assumption. But... would anybody have not noticed it if Matt had been a woman?

 

Spoiler

Doesn't he actually outright call Matthew his partner at one point? Some people really can't read into things at all!

 

But that's an interesting point, that some people won't even pick up on a gay relationship unless it's explicitly stated. The fact that the "default" relationship in many people's minds is heterosexual goes far deeper than I realize, sometimes. 

[Sylvianus]

Lmao for Morrigan. 

 

Mmh, a girl being nice, I don't know. But a girl being flirty with a man quite interested, yep, that could send the wrong message to the poor guy that misunderstands her lol. I once made that mistake. I felt like the biggest idiot on earth during a whole day. But a man can learn.   ( and I'll never do the same mistake again haha )

 

Otherwise, I'd rather not see the heart icon again. Romance are better without them in my opinion.

[Mes]

I second that!In fact it's difficult to be nice to anyone without some of them taking it the wrong way...(This or I'm possibly a ninja flirt.  )
Truth be told,even though the heart Icon response were not exactly what I imagined my character would say,I avoided many confusing situations(Yes I'm starring at you Anders!)

 

And they assume you're single... Like no one ever considers that you might not actually be available.... 

[Lebanese Dude]

I'm not against romances, but I don't like the fact that you can make everyone jump in bed with you by just pressing the heart icon and giving gifts. You can be a blood mage and romance Fenris. You can be extremely pro Templar and insult Anders at every turn and still he's willing to bang you.
The romance system needs an overhaul IMO.

This is flawed logic.

You are asking for a more "realistic" romance when you are the one who is sabotaging your own roleplaying, and by extension, your immersion.

Rivalry romances are not "happy" ones. They are more representative of romances triggered by lust and attraction, rather than developing from a friendship. These exist in real life as well and you'd be naive to think otherwise. "Belligerent sexual tension" is a very common trope in literature and movies. Why should games be excluded?

Now, when it comes to character details, its up to you to suspend disbelief if you insist on clicking heart icons when you shouldn't. A racist blood mage can romance Fenris (given the chosen dialogue makes sense to your character then it would be rival) because the game allows you to make your own choices. You can't ask for immersion and simultaneously ask for the developers to enforce limits. You are in charge of your decisions. Don't touch the button if you don't want to.

[CENIC]

And they assume you're single... Like no one ever considers that you might not actually be available....

If you aren't and you mention your SO, the guy who wants you is very offended.

[ElitePinecone]

Spoiler

Doesn't he actually outright call Matthew his partner at one point? Some people really can't read into things at all!

 

 

Also, possibly, a misunderstanding of the word "partner". I'm not sure if that line played for every option...

 

(Perhaps they interpreted it as a business partner, I don't know.)

[SurelyForth]

This is flawed logic.

You are asking for a more "realistic" romance when you are the one who is sabotaging your own roleplaying, and by extension, your immersion.

Rivalry romances are not "happy" ones. They are more representative of romances triggered by lust and attraction, rather than developing from a friendship. These exist in real life as well and you'd be naive to think otherwise. "Belligerent sexual tension" is a very common trope in literature and movies. Why should games be excluded?

Now, when it comes to character details, its up to you to suspend disbelief if you insist on clicking heart icons when you shouldn't. A racist blood mage can romance Fenris (given the chosen dialogue makes sense to your character then it would be rival) because the game allows you to make your own choices. You can't ask for immersion and simultaneously ask for the developers to enforce limits. You are in charge of your decisions. Don't touch the button if you don't want to.

 

"Belligerent sexual tension" should be removed from games when it bumps up against romanticizing truly fucked up relationship dynamics. For example, a rivalmance between Hawke and Merrill is problematic because Hawke, as a human of noble blood, has a huge amount of privilege that Merrill, as an elven woman, does not. When Hawke rivals Merrill, there is an element of "doing what is best for her", thus taking away her agency without allowing her to be anything but devoted to Hawke. For me, that crosses the boundary I mentioned above- it might be realistic, but it is not a dynamic that should be treated with basically the same respect as other relationships.

 

The same goes for all the rivalmances, really. I mean, you *can* play them as simple "we agree to disagree on this one issue, but respect each other, too", but it's still weirded by 1.  Hawke's position in society vs the love interests' position in society and 2. the fact that the companions have very little agency within the relationship, as they are coded to love Hawke whether Hawke supports them or whether Hawke undermines everything that they believe in. 

[TKavatar]

Now, when it comes to character details, its up to you to suspend disbelief if you insist on clicking heart icons when you shouldn't. A racist blood mage can romance Fenris (given the chosen dialogue makes sense to your character then it would be rival) because the game allows you to make your own choices. You can't ask for immersion and simultaneously ask for the developers to enforce limits. You are in charge of your decisions. Don't touch the button if you don't want to.

I don't know about you but I would never start a relationship with a person that goes against everything I believe in. Lust can only go so far.

And romancing Fenris as a bloodmage is completely OOC for him. It goes against all his beliefs. He might start a relationship with a mage, but a blood mage? The game should never allow that, unless you hoodwink him or you work to show him that you're good.

The player is not some all powerful Mary Sue with the power to bang every companion he meets with no regard for the companion's own beliefs. There should be limits to what the player can do.

[Lebanese Dude]

"Belligerent sexual tension" should be removed from games when it bumps up against romanticizing truly fucked up relationship dynamics. For example, a rivalmance between Hawke and Merrill is problematic because Hawke, as a human of noble blood, has a huge amount of privilege that Merrill, as an elven woman, does not. When Hawke rivals Merrill, there is an element of "doing what is best for her", thus taking away her agency without allowing her to be anything but devoted to Hawke. For me, that crosses the boundary I mentioned above- it might be realistic, but it is not a dynamic that should be treated with basically the same respect as other relationships.

 

The same goes for all the rivalmances, really. I mean, you *can* play them as simple "we agree to disagree on this one issue, but respect each other, too", but it's still weirded by 1.  Hawke's position in society vs the love interests' position in society and 2. the fact that the companions have very little agency within the relationship, as they are coded to love Hawke whether Hawke supports them or whether Hawke undermines everything that they believe in. 

 

She isn't "devoted" to Hawke until the end of Act 3 companion quest climax.

Til then she's obviously conflicted between continuing on her path (which she does) and loving you.

 

In the end, the option of romancing all LI interests is available to you, since no limits were coded beyond the companions' critical points at the end. 

If you're asking for more "limitation", then it's beyond the scope of efficient programming and is borderline nitpicking. If you personally believe that romancing Merrill makes no sense then don't romance her. The world is yours to bend in that directive. The option is allowed for those who don't care as much as you.

 

That's all.

[Lebanese Dude]

I don't know about you but I would never start a relationship with a person that goes against everything I believe in. Lust can only go so far.

And romancing Fenris as a bloodmage is completely OOC for him. It goes against all his beliefs. He might start a relationship with a mage, but a blood mage? The game should never allow that, unless you hoodwink him or you work to show him that you're good.

The player is not some all powerful Mary Sue with the power to bang every companion he meets with no regard for the companion's own beliefs. There should be limits to what the player can do.

 

And it's up the player to decide how much of a Mary Sue or Gary Stu he wants to be. 

 

Don't get me wrong. I don't actually mind relationship constraints by the companions, but not everyone cares for all these details and BioWare does a fine job in giving everyone the option they want.

 

I would never romance Fenris if I was a racist Hawke. It would make no sense to me. The game doesn't go out its way to make Fenris hate me for it, so I put the limit on myself.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I don't really buy the "lust" excuse for rivalmances. I can't understand why these people would even stick around you. I think the "breaking point" for leaving or trying to kill your PC is too low, honestly. I don't understand this "love and respect despite disagreeing" argument in context. That works, to an extent, but I think the DA games push it too far. Most people are not going to "love and respect" someone that supports putting their race in slavery, or a lot of the other decisions we make in game. It's just asking too much. Maybe even if there were more conversation checks or SOMETHING to denote the characters had some objection to what was happening. As is, it really does just seem absurd, to me. 

[SurelyForth]

She isn't "devoted" to Hawke until the end of Act 3 companion quest climax.

Til then she's obviously conflicted between continuing on her path (which she does) and loving you.

 

In the end, the option of romancing all LI interests is available to you, since no limits were coded beyond the companions' critical points at the end. 

If you're asking for more "limitation", then it's beyond the scope of efficient programming and is borderline nitpicking. If you personally believe that romancing Merrill makes no sense then don't romance her. The world is yours to bend in that directive. The option is allowed for those who don't care as much as you.

 

That's all.

 

It doesn't change the fact that the foundation of the rivalmances and some of the content is deeply problematic. That exists in the game whether I use it or not and, whether I use it or not, people are going to play that and think it's perfectly normal and healthy when it's absolutely not. 

 

I'm not against rivalmances that also treat both partners with respect and don't evoke RL abuse, but DA2 failed on that front. 

[CENIC]

I liked that the friend/rival system allowed you to complete a companion's personal arc (and keep them in your party) even if you didn't get along with them; this, I felt, was an improvement over DAO's approval system.

I agree with what others have stated about some of the rivalmances feeling unrealistic or unethical. Ideally, a romance under the friend/rival system wouldn't involve opposing the most important issue they stand for.
I have a feeling this may be one of the reasons they have made some changes to the system for DAI.

[ahellbornlady]

If you aren't and you mention your SO, the guy who wants you is very offended.

Also it's kind of gross the only way to get some guys to back off is if they think another man has "claimed" you.

 

Like forget just not being interested, right? I have to lie about being married/in a relationship all the time because so many guys just won't take NO for an answer. They take it as a challenge. I just want lecherous men to leave me alone.

[TKavatar]

And it's up the player to decide how much of a Mary Sue or Gary Stu he wants to be.

Don't get me wrong. I don't actually mind relationship constraints by the companions, but not everyone cares for all these details and BioWare does a fine job in giving everyone the option they want.

I would never romance Fenris if I was a racist Hawke. It would make no sense to me. The game doesn't go out its way to make Fenris hate me for it, so I put the limit on myself.

But why should players be given that much power over romances? The game doesn't allow us to do many things that we might want to do; we can't remove Bianca from Varric and sell it, we can't make Merrill learn creation spells (which she doesn't have the aptitude for), why should romances get a free pass?

[JakeLeTDK]

Also it's kind of gross the only way to get some guys to back off is if they think another man has "claimed" you.

 

Like forget just not being interested, right? I have to lie about being married/in a relationship all the time because guys just won't take NO for an answer. If you aren't rude and direct they think you're being coy or they'll change your mind. Sometimes you have to be a ******

Depends on which type of guy you are dealing with. Most guys I know back off as soon as the girl says she's not interest. A decent guy won't press you. 
And again, it's the whole confusing signal thing lol to some people "No not interested" and "playing hard to get" are very similar.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Honestly, what I'd like most is a chance to really try to change a character's mind about an issue, at least to get them to see a more moderate standard. I'm not saying completely change their personality and alignments, but it would be nice if you could get your companions to see a less militant side of things than they did in DA2. Instead of just having the option of agreeing on everything or blatantly going against the party members wishes without concern for how they feel, it would be nice if you could debate the point with them to some extent. I think there should still be some extreme cases where a choice violates their beliefs so deeply that they leave, or attack you, but overall I would prefer if we had some opportunities to explain our choices and maybe show them another side of the issue.

 

I mean, at the end of DA2 you can get basically the whole team on your side no matter how against your choice they are for the whole game, if you make the right choices. If they're going to throw their beliefs to the wind in the regardless, you might as well be able to persuade them throughout the game, so it's less jarring when it happens.

[Mes]

Also it's kind of gross the only way to get some guys to back off is if they think another man has "claimed" you.

 

Like forget just not being interested, right? I have to lie about being married/in a relationship all the time because so many guys just won't take NO for an answer. They take it as a challenge. I just want lecherous men to leave me alone.

 

Ugh I know what you mean!! And some guys just keep pushing you for a detailed explanation as to why you don't want to date them. "I'm just not interested" somehow isn't good enough. Like these dudes just don't understand that they're not automatically attractive to the entire female gender. Bwaaahaha.

[ahellbornlady]

Depends on which type of guy you are dealing with. Most guys I know back off as soon as the girl says she's not interest. A decent guy won't press you. 
And again, it's the whole confusing signal thing lol to some people "No not interested" and "playing hard to get" are very similar.

 

I guess sadly I haven't encountered many of these mythical "decent" guys. It's always safer to assume a girl isn't paying hard to get if her signals are "confusing" you. Lest you risk harassing her and making her feel uncomfortable.

[Iron Fist]

 

Also it's kind of gross the only way to get some guys to back off is if they think another man has "claimed" you.

 

Or another woman. I can't tell you how many lesbians and bisexual women I've been attracted to (not because of their sexuality, though). If a woman is only attracted to other women or is just in a relationship with another woman, then I back off.

 

Obviously, I can't speak for every straight man. Some guys like the idea of being with two women at the same time. Me, I'm a monogamous guy. One woman is enough for me. But I digress.

 

 

 

Like forget just not being interested, right? I have to lie about being married/in a relationship all the time because so many guys just won't take NO for an answer. They take it as a challenge. I just want lecherous men to leave me alone. 

 

Let's look at the flip side. If a woman is TOO receptive to my advances, then I think she wants something ulterior from me (money, favor/errand, etc).

 

Basically, both men and women (of all sexual orientations) can have issues when it comes to matters of the heart.

[Allan Schumacher]

While I empathize with the frustration of dealing with (un)romantic interactions going astray (and will openly admit that I have been the clueless guy as well), the woes of real life human interactions has probably gone on enough to distract from the topic in general?

 

Unless someone can show that I'm mistaken, I vote we pull it back in to Romances in BioWare's games again.

[Zyree]

Also it's kind of gross the only way to get some guys to back off is if they think another man has "claimed" you.

 

Like forget just not being interested, right? I have to lie about being married/in a relationship all the time because so many guys just won't take NO for an answer. They take it as a challenge. I just want lecherous men to leave me alone.

 

I'm bisexual but I prefer girls. A guy must be really amazing for me to want to date him, but most guys seem to take this as a challenge. It's super irritating, especially since I can guarantee that the majority of the guys who hit on me are people I am so not interested in.

 

Even telling most guys that I'm a lesbian doesn't help, they seem to think they can turn me straight or something. Won't take no for and answer and act super creepy about it. It's bad that we have to come up with excuses as to why we won't go out with them because they act so entitled and think we are playing hard to get.

 

If they really don't leave me alone, I ask to borrow their phone and call their moms and tell them that their son has been harassing me. Or I punch them.

 

Edit: Sorry Allan! Didn't see your post!

[ahellbornlady]

 

Or another woman. I can't tell you how many lesbians and bisexual women I've been attracted to (not because of their sexuality, though). If a woman is only attracted to other women or is just in a relationship with another woman, then I back off.

 

You back off when a woman isn't sexually interested in you? Please, have a cookie.

 

Spoiler

 

But very well. Back to the topic at hand. In the end, I do love Bioware romances, flawed as they may be. I know people say "it's not a dating sim" but I don't WANT to play a dating sim! I want action and fighting AND romance. I want it all.

[Iron Fist]

While I empathize with the frustration of dealing with us men (and will openly admit that I displayed such behaviours too!), the woes of real life human interactions has probably gone on enough to distract from the topic in general?

 

Unless someone can show that I'm mistaken, I vote we pull it back in to Romances in BioWare's games again.

 

No prob, Al.

 

I hope Cassandra is a LI. She is strong, confident, and passionate.

[Iron Fist]

wow you back off when a woman isn't sexually interested in you? have a cookie.

 

Spoiler

 

Sorry, I'm a dwarf.