Ce sujet est fermé
This is what annoys me the most, the 'first' companions always being the straight ones. Never bi (except Isabela but i'm not sure she was even the main) or even gay. Never. And that's a huge problem imo.
Actually they put the bi LI too, that is why I said the "male side" PC most of the time. For example you have Leliana and Isabela both in the CGI trailers. For Mass Effect is the same most of the times. Wait it is worse in the ME 3 trailer since Ashley is not even the F!shep LI LMAO
Give everyone the chance to experience Cassandra's and Cullen's passionate burning love (and who ever else becomes a LI).
Sounds painful!
Agreed. I've shared in the thread already, but just to reaffirm it, I think that any content that comes in would still have to be content that develops and fleshes out the companion characters some more.
Specifically, I think it would work better if that added content worked to personalize the (non-romantic) relationship between the companion and PC more, which I think is part of the allure of romances. Something like a more expansive version of the "hardening" dialogues that Origins had, where the player can look at the companion's story at the end of the tale and feel like this is something they have created.
This doesn't necessarily mean the PC shapes the companion's personality to their liking. It can have the opposite effect. I'm currently replaying DA2 and finding it to be a different experience, mainly because in my first playthroughs I took care to max everyone's friendship. In this playthrough I have 3 friends and 3 rivals. Quite unexpectedly, a strong undertone of the game has become the ways in which Aveline and (fem) Hawke have grown apart. Both came to Kirkwall poor and homeless. One joined the guard, the other became a criminal. The differences that led to those choices have only become magnified as the game progresses.
Last night, I had a huge falling out with Aveline during her shield gift dialogue. It began with Hawke taking exception to Aveline essentially discarding the gift. Much to my surprise Aveline resentfully brought up my decision 20 game-time hours earlier to sell Wesley's shield (bravo writers!) and how it reflected Hawke's disposition and the differences between them. Hawke can pragmatically use and discard as she needed (reflecting my dominant tone), but not me - says Aveline. She still desires to hold on to some parts of her past. "Better tell Donnic," says Hawke (whoa!).
This scene is filled with reactive content to PC decisions. Commenting on something I sold, commenting on being a criminal and my dominant tone, on the fact that Aveline and Hawke no longer see eye to eye (reflecting rivalry points) and finally on the Donnic relationship I had just helped set up not soon before. Without any romance at all, I've personalized this relationship.
If I were interested in Aveline romantically, would this type of content replace the desire for a romance? Probably not. Would it satisfy one of the primary reasons that I value romance in BW games? Absolutely.
Sounds painful!
You rather have Ice Coooooooooold love? 
You rather have Ice Coooooooooold love?
I like lukewarm love 
Much to my surprise Aveline resentfully brought up my decision 20 game-time hours earlier to sell Wesley's shield (bravo writers!) and how it reflected Hawke's disposition and the differences between them.
Oh yes, this great piece of dialogue catched me by surprise, too - it actually made me keep this shield in one playthrough, just to see whether there would be a different reaction.
Oh yes, this great piece of dialogue catched me by surprise, too - it actually made me keep this shield in one playthrough, just to see whether there would be a different reaction.
I keep it, too. I just have to remember to put it on her before doing that particular quest.
I'll be interested to see what they do. Since I agree with DG and liked the way DA:O did the LI, I'll just hope they go back to this.
Gaider stated that he prefers the DAO way, but only if they can give equal content for everyone.
DAO way was 2 straight LI and 2 bisexual/playsexual LI, not 2/2/2...
Yeah! I was astounded to find out that Orlais' secret power couple is two incredible women! Briala was my favorite character by the end of the book (next to Felassan) but Celene is probably the candidate I will support in the civil war.Well this makes me happy. I kind of love that we have a lesbian Orlesian empress in the game. That's kind of amazing to me.
DAO way was 2 straight LI and 2 bisexual/playsexual LI, not 2/2/2...
You don't have to tell me, I'm simply quoting what Gaider said. Its possible I read it wrong though.
DAO way was 2 straight LI and 2 bisexual/playsexual LI, not 2/2/2...
In the blog post that they are referring to, Gaider also recognizes that it was unevenly distributed and then clarifies that he would only be in favor of going back to this approach (with a variety of sexualities represented), if they could make it more evenly distributed (hence the 2/2/2 thing). If they couldn't do it that way, he stated that he prefers the all bisexual approach so it's even.
Like several others here, I really hope they do stay with the playersexual system. I think the NPC add ons make for a bad structure for the 2/2/2 system. To make the system fair and equal to playersexuality among the companions in DA2, they really need 6 companion LIs. I think there's a good chance that they realize that, though, and the addition of NPC romances wont change the system. Because Davide Gaider made one post about the issue on his personal blog, most people assume the likeliness of more than 4 companion LIs means the introduction of the 2/2/2 system, but I'm not convinced that's true. Consider that he wasn't necessarily working from the premise that 2 of the options would be NPCs and, also, that he's only one voice at Bioware. The 2/2/2 system is a possibility, but I wouldn't assume playersexuality is out just because we might get more than 4 LIs in some form.
The one thing I at least do feel comfortable with is that the DA team will cover the issue much more fairly and we wont see massive imbalances, like we did with ME. With Cullen as an NPC romance, we can at least be sure that they aren't going to push the homosexual romances off on the NPC slots.
Can I ask a clarifying question that's been bugging me?
When people say "playersexual approach"? What do they mean? Because I see a conflation between "playersexual" and "all bisexual". That's why I tend to say "all bisexual" instead of playersexual.
Do people want playersexual (where the gender of the PC determines the character's sexuality? Or do they want all bisexual LIs? These are not the same thing to me. Playersexual would mean that Cassandra is straight in a male PC game and lesbian in a female PC game. Is that what people are advocating for?
Can I ask a clarifying question that's been bugging me?
When people say "playersexual approach"? What do they mean? Because I see a conflation between "playersexual" and "all bisexual". That's why I tend to say "all bisexual" instead of playersexual.
Do people want playersexual (where the gender of the PC determines the character's sexuality? Or do they want all bisexual LIs? These are not the same thing to me. Playersexual would mean that Cassandra is straight in a male PC game and lesbian in a female PC game. Is that what people are advocating for?
For my intents and purposes, the two terms are synonymous.
I personally prefer bisexual as I don't mind if other things aside from gender can limit a romance (such as morality). And I definitely don't want it being stated outright that ticky box in the CC can actually CHANGE a sexuality. I, however, do not mind if it's kept vague.
Can I ask a clarifying question that's been bugging me?
When people say "playersexual approach"? What do they mean? Because I see a conflation between "playersexual" and "all bisexual". That's why I tend to say "all bisexual" instead of playersexual.
Do people want playersexual (where the gender of the PC determines the character's sexuality? Or do they want all bisexual LIs? These are not the same thing to me. Playersexual would mean that Cassandra is straight in a male PC game and lesbian in a female PC game. Is that what people are advocating for?
I myself want playersexual. That way if someone wants someone straight, they're straight. If someone wants someone gay, they're gay. If someone wants someone bi, they're bi. Everyone gets what they want.
I myself want playersexual. That way if someone wants someone straight, they're straight. If someone wants someone gay, they're gay. If someone wants someone bi, they're bi. Everyone gets what they want.
So in a playersexual approach, how would a character be "bisexual" (unless they are explicitly stated as bisexual, like Isabela)?
I've seen concerns that the "all bisexual" approach eliminates straight and gay characters as LIs, which seems legitimate to me on some level. But wouldn't the "playersexual" approach just eliminate bisexual characters as LIs? Because if Cassandra, say, were straight if I played as a male and lesbian if I played as a female, wouldn't there be no way in this approach for her to bisexual?
Can I ask a clarifying question that's been bugging me?
When people say "playersexual approach"? What do they mean? Because I see a conflation between "playersexual" and "all bisexual". That's why I tend to say "all bisexual" instead of playersexual.
Do people want playersexual (where the gender of the PC determines the character's sexuality? Or do they want all bisexual LIs? These are not the same thing to me. Playersexual would mean that Cassandra is straight in a male PC game and lesbian in a female PC game. Is that what people are advocating for?
I use them synonymously, but my preference is a blend of the two, basically like DA2's approach without the issue of leaving Anders' relationship with Karl out for female characters. I'd like them to confirm some as bisexual and leave others ambiguous. This way, people can continue to head canon some LIs as hetero/homosexual in their playthroughs, if that's something that's important to them.
To be honest, though, I wouldn't care at all if the sexualities switched depending on what gender you chose. It doesn't bother me in the least if you get a slightly different reality depending on what character you load out with.
So in a playersexual approach, how would a character be "bisexual" (unless they are explicitly stated as bisexual, like Isabela)?
I've seen concerns that the "all bisexual" approach eliminates straight and gay characters as LIs, which seems legitimate to me on some level. But wouldn't the "playersexual" approach just eliminate bisexual characters as LIs? Because if Cassandra, say, were straight if I played as a male and lesbian if I played as a female, wouldn't there be no way in this approach for her to bisexual?
As I said, it is up to the player. They can imagine if they are bisexual or not. It doesn't eliminate that sexuality.
DAO way was 2 straight LI and 2 bisexual/playsexual LI, not 2/2/2...
DA:O had 2 bisexual LIs not playersexual LIs. Both Leliana and Zevran are pretty open about the fact that they find both men and women attractive - although Zevran does state a preference for women.
Playersexual implies that the gender of the player determines the sexuality of the LI - unless stated otherwise, like Isabela.
I have no issue with either way of doing LIs, but I do think its important to keep the two terms distinct as the DA universe has a number of open bisexual characters and using the terms interchangeably it may led to confusion.
DA:O had 2 bisexual LIs not playersexual LIs. Both Leliana and Zevran are pretty open about the fact that they find both men and women attractive - although Zevran does state a preference for women.
Playersexual implies that the gender of the player determines the sexuality of the LI - unless stated otherwise, like Isabela.
I have no issue with either way of doing LIs, but I do think its important to keep the two terms distinct as the DA universe has a number of open bisexual characters and using the terms interchangeably it may led to confusion.
To me all of DA2 romance were bisexual. I consider NPCs background and personality to be fixed regardless of what I pick on the character creation screen. If a NCP is attracted to M!Hawke and F!Hawke than that character is bisexual, even if he doesn't mention it to the PC.
I'm not going to make different possible NPC background to account all the sexual preferences of all the NPCs based on the gender I'm currently playing. That's just stupid.
DA:O had 2 bisexual LIs not playersexual LIs. Both Leliana and Zevran are pretty open about the fact that they find both men and women attractive - although Zevran does state a preference for women.
Playersexual implies that the gender of the player determines the sexuality of the LI - unless stated otherwise, like Isabela.
I have no issue with either way of doing LIs, but I do think its important to keep the two terms distinct as the DA universe has a number of open bisexual characters and using the terms interchangeably it may led to confusion.
This is exactly how I feel about it. I also think this conflation is why the conversations often get heated and flame out with mod closings. When someone states that "playersexuality weakens the character" (which, for the record, I don't necessarily agree with, even if I don't love playersexuality), people read that as "bisexuality weakens the character" and get offended. Or, someone who means "playersexuality" actually says "bisexuality" and causes a ton of issues. Now, of course, that's not to state that there aren't a bunch of people who are actually saying what they mean, but I've seen enough of the former to know that the wording should be sorted out.
For the record, I'm not convinced that any of the DA LIs were playersexual. We can clearly rule out Alistair, Morrigan, and Sebastian because they aren't open to the same gender; and Zevran, Leliana, Isabela, and (with slightly less substantial evidence) Anders, who all present evidence of being bisexual in the game.
So really, it's just Fenris and Merrill who even might be playersexual. And in no way do either give an indication about what their sexualities might be (outside of the Fenris hooks up with Isabela thing, which only means he's not gay, which we already knew because he could romance female Hawke). Some people interpret this as evidence that they are playersexual, but I'm not convinced. I would need to see Merrill say, "I'm straight" to a male Hawke and "I'm a lesbian" to a female Hawke for me to be convinced that she's playersexual.
Regarding my own personal preferences? I'm not a fan of playersexual because I don't like the idea that a character's sexuality can be changed by the PC. However, I'm fine with either the 2/2/2 approach, even if it means that someone won't get two companion romances OR the all bisexual approach. Either of them works for me. However, I do agree that we should probably not use playersexual to equal bisexual because they are not the same thing regarding gender (I'm not even opening up the can of worms around playersexuality and PC actions!).
I'm not going to make different possible NPC background to account all the sexual preferences of all the NPCs based on the gender I'm currently playing. That's just stupid.
Can you try to be less insulting, perhaps? 
I don't really understand why people can't just believe whatever they want about vague characters. If somebody wants to pretend that Merrill is a lesbian in one game, straight in the next and bi in the third, then it is literally of no consequence, to me. The only thing that effects my game is when the characters are actually gated into those roles and I lose access to them. The pretend games other people want to believe for themselves benefits them and doesn't hurt me, so I say they can knock themselves out. I don't understand why some people are so vehemently insistent that everyone just admit the characters are always bisexual based on meta knowledge.
Retour en haut