2090 réponses à ce sujet

[Chari]

2/2/2 spreads the count thinner and maybe cuts down the amount of companion LIs available vs NPC LIs, so I'm not convinced of this.

2/2/2 allows to make sexuality a part of the character, giving it more depth and realism. In case of playersexuality character's preferences at best are vague, but usually just don't exist.
DA is an RPG game and the only thing we can and should be able to change is the PC and their choices. Everything and everybody else are independent.
I'll say the same thing I say about the idea of "gay on/off" button: NPCs and companions are not our dolls, they have a right to have their own preferences and personalities regardless of how we feel about them

[Nocte ad Mortem]

2/2/2 allows to make sexuality a part of the character, giving it more depth and realism. In case of playersexuality character's preferences at best are vague, but usually just don't exist.
DA is an RPG game and the only thing we can and should be able to change is the PC and their choices. Everything and everybody else are independent.
I'll say the same thing I say about the idea of "gay on/off" button: NPCs and companions are not our dolls, they have a right to have their own preferences and personalities regardless of how we feel about them

Bisexuality is a "real" sexuality that allows the same options. Playersexuality isn't the only way to make 4 available companion LIs. 

 

Though, honestly, I'm skeptical that a lot more "depth" than just being gay or straight couldn't be added to the characters with the resources spent on another two entire LI plots. 

[Blackrising]

Playersexuality is essentially quantity over quality

 

I'm not advertising for playersexuality, I'm advertising for bisexuality.

There is also no possible way to say that playersexuality results in a loss of quality as we have not yet had confirmed playersexuality in any of the DA games.

 

 

But I have seen people saying that they might not buy the game based on the LI setup. Not buying a game because a particular character is not available as an LI is completely ludicrous, in my opinion. 

 

Further to that, we don't even have all of the companions revealed yet, let alone who will be LI's, so it is far, far too early to start complaining that the companion you like the most isn't available as an LI.

 

It is not ludicrous if the particular LI setup leads to dissatisfaction and frustration. If the entertainment value of the game vastly suffers due to it (which is quite possible for someone who adores the romance scenarios), then it is perfectly reasonable to not buy the game. Why spend money on something that does not make you happy? The deal everyone of us has with Bioware is that we exchange our money for a product they made that will entertain us. If someone suspects that deal will not be upheld to their satisfaction, the deal is off. And it is not within anyone's rights to judge what a customer might derive enjoyment from and what not.

 

I am also simply responding to the reasonable fear that such a situation might indeed occur and trying to explain my feelings on the matter. Therefore, I am not complaining. I am angsting, along with wallowing in a healthy dose of self-pity. There is a world of difference.

[Ianamus]

 

It is not ludicrous if the particular LI setup leads to dissatisfaction and frustration. If the entertainment value of the game vastly suffers due to it (which is quite possible for someone who adores the romance scenarios), then it is perfectly reasonable to not buy the game. Why spend money on something that does not make you happy? The deal everyone of us has with Bioware is that we exchange our money for a product they made that will entertain us. If someone suspects that deal will not be upheld to their satisfaction, the deal is off. And it is not within anyone's rights to judge what a customer might derive enjoyment from and what not.

 

I think it is ludicrous to not buy Inquisition solely because "That character I saw a few images of and read a snippet of information about isn't available as a romance for my gender", even though there are two other options who are. Remember that you haven't even met any of these characters in-game at this stage. Not buying the game because there is a 2/2/2 split rather than 4 bisexual is also silly, because as I said earlier, either way you will have two options. 

[Nocte ad Mortem]

It's not just about the romance paths, though. If they do a 2/2/2 split with set sexualities we would probably get a homosexual companion, which even ignoring romances entirely would be fantastic, as we still have not had one yet in any Bioware game. 

That's not particularly important to me. Bisexual LIs are absolutely fine with me. I'd rather have 2 companion LIs than ever see a homosexual LI. They could have homosexual non-LI companions and NPCs just as easily for representation. 

 

But like I said, 2/2/2 wouldn't effect whether I'd buy the game. My original post about this (not just the clipped line of text that was quoted) says that pretty clearly. I never said I wouldn't buy the game over not being able to romance one specific character, or anything like that. I said I wouldn't buy it if they discontinued having 2 same sex LIs, that's all. I also said I didn't think they were actually going to do that. 

[Blackrising]

I think it is ludicrous to not buy Inquisition solely because "That character I saw a few images of and read a snippet of information about isn't available as a romance for my gender", even though there are two other options who are. Remember that you haven't even met any of these characters in-game at this stage. Not buying the game because there is a 2/2/2 split rather than 4 bisexual is also silly, because as I said earlier, either way you will have two options. 

 

And I explained why it doesn't matter to me how many options I have if I cannot have the option I actually want.

It's not so different in real life. What do I care whether an entire city is looking to get into my pants if the one person I like is busy shacking it up with someone else?

 

If someone has serious doubts that they will enjoy the game as much as they should considering how much money they dish out for it, why would it be silly of them to not buy it? Nobody accuses people of being silly for not buying a game because the combat they've only seen a few images of and read a snippet of information about doesn't seem to be to their liking. Neither are people who didn't want to buy Inquisition before playable races were announced silly. Whatever reason someone has to think the frustration over the game might outweight their enjoyment of it, it is a perfectly valid one no matter what it is.

[WildOrchid]

It's not about the options being even. Having the same number of options doesn't mean sh*t to me if the one character I want to romance above all others is not one of the options available to me.

 

This. I could care less about the 2/2/2 ratio as long as i can romance the character i like most and in this case happens to be Cassandra.

In DA2 happened to be Isabela but tHANK GOD she ended up bi.

In ME it was Ashley and i was pinning for her from the first game... and when in ME3 found out Kaidan was bi, i hoped the same for Ashley and boom. Got my hopes crushed instantly.

 

Cassandra is the type of woman i usually go for (and Isabela too, i'll never forget my pirate queen). I like ladies who take no **** from others, are sassy and strong. Vivienne also seems that type of woman (takes no **** and is sassy as hell, my god dat sass game.) who i also like. She reminds me of Isabela, with a more serious personality.

 

If Cass ends up male only, then PLEASE can I have Vivienne as the gay lady? We don't even know about the other ladies and something tells me they'll have the importance of Leliana or Traynor (while Leli does have some importance in da2 and possibly dai, she wasn't that important in dao). Bi/gays always end up romancing 'side' characters who are there just for the sake of it. I really dislike this way bioware does it.

 

I want my first gay or bi 'main' lady, which in dai's case happen to be Cass and possibly Vivienne. If Cass is not for ladies, at least give us Vivienne for ladies only.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Most people are theorizing the female companion LIs will be Cassandra and Sera. If Cassandra isn't available for f/f romances, then Sera probably will be, assuming the other isn't actually Vivienne. If they do 2/2/2, then they probably wouldn't have two NPC female romances. One would be, at worst. 

 

Not saying this should change your mind if you're set on Cassandra, or anything. Just that you probably wont get stuck with a Traynor level romance as an only option. 

[WildOrchid]

We don't even know who Sera is, dammit. (admittedly she does look interesting in the pics but that's all) >.>

My problem is, the ladies who are always first to be revealed, always end up straight. This right here is what i can't stand and Bioware's obsession with straight main romances.

[Gikia-Kimikia]

Wait, weren't you the one who called him a dandy?

I think *I* was the one who was hoping Dorian would be a badass dandy, actually, hehe.

That aside, I'm honestly still hoping for the "everyone is bi" option. I know it's controversial and some people have a problem with it, but I honestly don't find it that jarring. Plus, I prefer the maximum amount of options.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

We don't even know who Sera is, dammit. (admittedly she does look interesting in the pics but that's all) >.>

My problem is, the ladies who are always first to be revealed, always end up straight. This right here is what i can't stand and Bioware's obsession with straight main romances.

To be fair, we don't know that Cassandra will be more embedded in the plot than Sera. Cassandra may have just been introduced first because she and Varric are the characters we already know. I mean, nobody thinks Varric is going to be the "main romance", or at least extremely few people. He was introduced at the same time. 

 

I'm not saying your concerns definitely aren't valid, though, they may be. 

[Vapaa]

IF they go with the 2/2/2 (Maker, no), I hope we at least will have the option to flirt and have a clear rejection. Up until now the gender restrictions have felt totally artificial because the "wrong" PC didn't even get a chance, so in theory it was "you can't romance him/her cause s/he's straight/gay" but in reality it felt "you can't romance him/her cause the game says you can't" (that's kind of cheapening™, isn't ? ).

 

EDIT: In fact I consider Samantha as the only character who's sexuality is clearly defined, cause she tells Maleshep a flat NOPE, even Steve, with all his husband drama, isn't as clear.

[Ianamus]

 

If someone has serious doubts that they will enjoy the game as much as they should considering how much money they dish out for it, why would it be silly of them to not buy it? Nobody accuses people of being silly for not buying a game because the combat they've only seen a few images of and read a snippet of information about doesn't seem to be to their liking. Neither are people who didn't want to buy Inquisition before playable races were announced silly. Whatever reason someone has to think the frustration over the game might outweight their enjoyment of it, it is a perfectly valid one no matter what it is.

 

The difference is that the race you pick stays with you throughout the entire game, and the combat is what you will be doing about 60% of the time. 

 

Romances are a tiny fraction of the game, and while I can sort of understand maybe not buying the game if there are no romances at all refusing to buy the game because one particular character is not a romance for your gender is absolutely insane. 

 

It would be like refusing to buy the game because Qunari can only have white hair and you wanted a Qunari with black hair. I would never consider that a valid reason for not purchasing the game because it is so petty and trivial. 

[Vapaa]

It would be like refusing to buy the game because Qunari can only have white hair and you wanted a Qunari with black hair. I would never consider that a valid reason for not purchasing the game because it is so petty and trivial. 

 

Your opinion is irrelevant to other people's purchases.

 

And get over yourself, who are you to judge ?

[WildOrchid]

To be fair, we don't know that Cassandra will be more embedded in the plot than Sera. Cassandra may have just been introduced first because she and Varric are the characters we already know. I mean, nobody thinks Varric is going to be the "main romance", or at least extremely few people. He was introduced at the same time. 

 

I'm not saying your concerns definitely aren't valid, though, they may be. 

 

Something tells me Cass will be more important to the story than the other ladies. She's the first to be shown in the trailers, therefore more content for her.

I don't know, just a gut feeling. This case always seemed to happen in Bioware games.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

The difference is that the race you pick stays with you throughout the entire game, and the combat is what you will be doing about 60% of the time. 

 

Romances are a tiny fraction of the game, and while I can sort of understand maybe not buying the game if there are no romances at all refusing to buy the game because one particular character is not a romance is absolutely insane. 

 

It would be like refusing to buy the game because Qunari can only have white hair and you wanted a Qunari with black hair. I would never consider that a valid reason for not purchasing the game because it is so petty and trivial. 

I think instead of saying someone wouldn't buy the game if they couldn't romance one specific character, what they're more saying is that they wont buy it if they can't romance at least one that they actually like. If you don't think you'd enjoy any of the romances, then it's basically the same as there being no romances, in a practical sense. If you could understand why someone wouldn't buy the game due to lack of romances, it's not much of a stretch to understand this is basically the same reasoning. 

[phantomrachie]

IF they go with the 2/2/2 (Maker, no), I hope we at least will have the option to flirt and have a clear rejection. Up until now the gender restrictions have felt totally artificial because the "wrong" PC didn't even get a chance, so in theory it was "you can't romance him/her cause s/he's straight/gay" but in reality it felt "you can't romance him/her cause the game says you can't" (that's kind of cheapening™, isn't ? ).

 

I agree if they do go with 2/2/2/ then I'd like there to be an out and out rejection or some other indication of why you can't romance an LI rather than just because the game says so.

 

Samantha turned male shep down, Steve talked about his husband, Morrigan and Alistair make no indication at all that they are only into the opposite sex, other than the fact that the game won't let you romance them.

 

I remember many moons ago during my first playthrough of DA:O I tried to romance Morrigan with my female mage, frustrated that nothing seemed to be working, searched online to see what I had to do and only then did I discover that she was a male only romance.

 

I'd prefer if we could filt with everyone and then the LI could make it clear that they are not into us by either rejecting our advanced or by bringing up past relationships.

[Ianamus]

Your opinion is irrelevant to other people's purchases.

 

And get over yourself, who are you to judge ?

 

And yet you're judging me by telling me to "get over myself".

 

I think someone refusing to buy the game solely because they cannot romance a particular companion is ridiculous and I'm allowed to voice that opinion. By telling me that I'm not allowed to voice that opinion you are doing exactly what you are telling me not to do. 

[Blackrising]

The difference is that the race you pick stays with you throughout the entire game, and the combat is what you will be doing about 60% of the time. 

 

Romances are a tiny fraction of the game, and while I can sort of understand maybe not buying the game if there are no romances at all refusing to buy the game because one particular character is not a romance for your gender is absolutely insane. 

 

It would be like refusing to buy the game because Qunari can only have white hair and you wanted a Qunari with black hair. I would never consider that a valid reason for not purchasing the game because it is so petty and trivial. 

 

So does the knowledge that the particular romance you wanted isn't available to you. Granted, this is more of a mind thing, but still very relevant. Having to remember that you aren't getting what you wanted (while others do) is a very good way to ruin someone's mood.

 

The other romances are not relevant if they do not interest me. They might as well not be there as far as enjoyment goes.

 

What one values in a game is entirely subjective. I find the subject of playable races very trivial, for example A human-only PC wouldn't have bothered me in the slightest, yet other people value it incredibly highly. I also think there is a difference between something that isn't in the game at all and something that isn't in the game for you. Let's take your example of black hair versus white hair.

 

So I am someone who really really REALLY wants to play a Qunari with black hair. My entire character build revolves around the PC having black hair. I have spent weeks upon weeks imagening what my Inquisitor is gonna look like with their shiny black hair. But then the devs announce that only male Qunari will be able to have black hair, and I don't want to play male PCs or am unable to part from the image of a female Qunari Inquisitor with a delicious dark mane. Of COURSE I would be pissed that those people who play male characters will get the thing that I've been longing for, when there is no real reason for it and Bioware could have just as easily given us both the option. So I know that this thought will linger in my head the entire game. What I wanted for my Inquisitor cannot be achieved any longer and anything else seems inferior compared to that. I know I won't enjoy the game as much as I would have liked, so I don't buy it.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable scenario to me. I mean, the logic behind not buying something because you don't like a particular feature stays the same, regardless of what feature that is.

[azarhal]

To me the whole point of having 6 LI's is that you can represent different sexualities while keeping the options even. 

 

Even?

 

2/2/2 is 2 straight choices, 2 gay choices and 4 choices for the bisexual  PC.

A straight PC will have the choice between the straight option and the bisexual one of the opposite gender.

A gay PC will have the choice between the gay option and the bisexual one of the same gender.

A bisexual PC will have the choice between one straight option, one gay option and both bisexual options.

 

If you ignore the bisexual options you have even less choices.

 

The number of choices is exactly the same with 4 bisexual/playersexual LI by the way.

A straight PC will be able to choose among the 2 LI of the opposite gender.

A gay PC will be able to choose among the 2 LI of the same gender.

The bisexual PC will be able to choose among all 4 LI.

[daveliam]

2/2/2 allows to make sexuality a part of the character, giving it more depth and realism. In case of playersexuality character's preferences at best are vague, but usually just don't exist.
DA is an RPG game and the only thing we can and should be able to change is the PC and their choices. Everything and everybody else are independent.
I'll say the same thing I say about the idea of "gay on/off" button: NPCs and companions are not our dolls, they have a right to have their own preferences and personalities regardless of how we feel about them

 

I'm not a fan of playersexuality (true playersexuality, where the sexuality of the character changes depending on the gender of the PC; this is very different from all bisexual, which I approve of), however I always find it funny that people the "we shouldn't be able to change the characters" stance.

 

We can, literally, completely alter Alistair's and Leliana's outlooks on life by hardening them.  We can change companions weapons, their outfits, their ability specs, their tactics in combat, whether they live or die, etc.  There are so many places where we can alter their "preferences" and their "personalities", but the only one that ever seems to get any resistance is sexuality and it's almost always in response to making less characters open to both genders (not the way other way around). 

 

That aside, I'm honestly still hoping for the "everyone is bi" option. I know it's controversial and some people have a problem with it, but I honestly don't find it that jarring. Plus, I prefer the maximum amount of options.

 

I actually don't think that the all bi option is that controversial.  I think it's only "controversial" to people who conflate "bisexual" with "playesexual" and the handful of people who bang on about "realistic statistical representation" (even though we have, literally, zero information on the sexuality statistics for Thedas).  While some people might not prefer the all bisexual approach, few people have really solid arguments against it outside of personal preference.

[daveliam]

Even?

 

2/2/2 is 2 straight choices, 2 gay choices and 4 choices for the bisexual  PC.

A straight PC will have the choice between the straight option and the bisexual one of the opposite gender.

A gay PC will have the choice between the gay option and the bisexual one of the same gender.

A bisexual PC will have the choice between one straight option, one gay option and both bisexual options.

 

If you ignore the bisexual options you have even less choices.

 

The number of choices is exactly the same with 4 bisexual/playersexual LI by the way.

A straight PC will be able to choose among the 2 LI of the opposite gender.

A gay PC will be able to choose among the 2 LI of the same gender.

The bisexual PC will be able to choose among all 4 LI.

 

Well, yeah, there's literally nothing that they can do to limit the fact that bisexual PCs will always have more options than straight or gay PCs.  So I'm not really sure what the point of that was.  Are you advocating for limiting options for bisexual PCs?  Are you advocating adding in LIs who just won't romance bisexual PCs?  Are you advocating not allowing a player to roll a bisexual PC?  I'm not sure I get it.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

It's not just about the romance paths, though. If they do a 2/2/2 split with set sexualities we would probably get a homosexual companion, which even ignoring romances entirely would be fantastic, as we still have not had one yet in any Bioware game. 

Juhani in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic was lesbian, so Bioware never having a homosexual companion is not true.

[Ianamus]

So does the knowledge that the particular romance you wanted isn't available to you. Granted, this is more of a mind thing, but still very relevant. Having to remember that you aren't getting what you wanted (while others do) is a very good way to ruin someone's mood.

 

The other romances are not relevant if they do not interest me. They might as well not be there as far as enjoyment goes.

 

What one values in a game is entirely subjective. I find the subject of playable races very trivial, for example A human-only PC wouldn't have bothered me in the slightest, yet other people value it incredibly highly. I also think there is a difference between something that isn't in the game at all and something that isn't in the game for you. Let's take your example of black hair versus white hair.

 

So I am someone who really really REALLY wants to play a Qunari with black hair. My entire character build revolves around the PC having black hair. I have spent weeks upon weeks imagening what my Inquisitor is gonna look like with their shiny black hair. But then the devs announce that only male Qunari will be able to have black hair, and I don't want to play male PCs or am unable to part from the image of a female Qunari Inquisitor with a delicious dark mane. Of COURSE I would be pissed that those people who play male characters will get the thing that I've been longing for, when there is no real reason for it and Bioware could have just as easily given us both the option. So I know that this thought will linger in my head the entire game. What I wanted for my Inquisitor cannot be achieved any longer and anything else seems inferior compared to that. I know I won't enjoy the game as much as I would have liked, so I don't buy it.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable scenario to me. I mean, the logic behind not buying something because you don't like a particular feature stays the same, regardless of what feature that is.

 

Let's be realistic here though: If someone has played the previous dragon age games they obviously enjoy the franchise, and while romance may be their favourite aspect they probably enjoy other parts of it as well. 

 

If you refuse to buy games that don't let you play as a female or create your own character then you are limiting yourself to few games. If you only play games where there are romance options you are limiting yourself further. Insist that there must be same-gender romances and the numbers are fewer still, say that there must be an even number (or a choice) in same gender romances and you've got a few Bioware games. Maybe a handful of others that I'm not aware of as well. That's it.

 

That's a tiny number. If you then say you'll only buy a game if there is a romance option you like the look of you could very well have 0 games in existence that meet your criteria. This person probably plays games with no romance at all, so why are they suddenly so particular about Bioware games? Do they really find so little enjoyment in the rest of the game that if there isn't that 10 minute scene with an LI they like it's a no deal?

 

And that's assuming there are no romances at all. They might have really enjoyed one of the other romances available, perhaps even more than the one they originally wanted. But they will never get to experience it because they rejected the game before they had the chance to meet that companion. And at this stage it feels less like choosing games and more like a virtual dating site: Looking at images and brief descriptions of potential romance candidates and rejecting the entire game if none meet the persons standards. If it reaches this stage things have become a bit sad. 

 

 

Juhani in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic was lesbian, so Bioware never having a homosexual companion is not true.

 

That's true, though It was very glossed over (I don't remember ever realizing she was playing as a male character, though I was very young at the time so I don't remember much about the game at all). 

 

That game is really old though, we haven't seen any recently. 

 

 

Even?

 

2/2/2 is 2 straight choices, 2 gay choices and 4 choices for the bisexual  PC.

A straight PC will have the choice between the straight option and the bisexual one of the opposite gender.

A gay PC will have the choice between the gay option and the bisexual one of the same gender.

A bisexual PC will have the choice between one straight option, one gay option and both bisexual options.

 

If you ignore the bisexual options you have even less choices.

 

The number of choices is exactly the same with 4 bisexual/playersexual LI by the way.

A straight PC will be able to choose among the 2 LI of the opposite gender.

A gay PC will be able to choose among the 2 LI of the same gender.

The bisexual PC will be able to choose among all 4 LI.

 

 

I don't get the point of what your saying. Obviously the bisexual PC will always have more options, nothing can change that. 

 

6 is the smallest number of LI's you can have while representing all sexualities in the romances and giving straight and gay PC's the same number of options. I don't see how you can argue against that. 

[TKavatar]

We can, literally, completely alter Alistair's and Leliana's outlooks on life by hardening them. We can change companions weapons, their outfits, their ability specs, their tactics in combat, whether they live or die, etc. There are so many places where we can alter their "preferences" and their "personalities", but the only one that ever seems to get any resistance is sexuality and it's almost always in response to making less characters open to both genders (not the way other way around).

I actually don't think that the all bi option is that controversial. I think it's only "controversial" to people who conflate "bisexual" with "playesexual" and the handful of people who bang on about "realistic statistical representation" (even though we have, literally, zero information on the sexuality statistics for Thedas). While some people might not prefer the all bisexual approach, few people have really solid arguments against it outside of personal preference.

We can change their outfits and choose their spells because of gameplay and story segregation. We can alter their outlook in life by interacting with them in game, same with deciding who lives and dies. Not so with playersexuality, because romances fall under story and companion sexuality is instantly determined by a checkbox you tick outside the game world in the CC. Players might have the power to change the fate of Thedas, but that's done through in game choices and decisions that you make.