2090 réponses à ce sujet

[Chari]

So I ask why do they have to have set sexualities when them being available to everyone still accomplishes this? I mean, a couple lines being changed to reflect that they are dating either a male or female character is all you need. 

Marriage, family and courting exists purely for one reason - to make sure the species, race or culture does not disappear. Love, romance is all dandy and stuff, but basic meaning of a family is being together do you don't die from hunger or sickness all alone in a terrible, merciless world. Oh, and make more babies, keep them safe until they can reproduce. 

Meaning that even in LGBT-friendly Thedas heterosexual relations are more common, or at least more traditional. We have heard Gamlen and Oghren throwing pretty much insults at homosexual and bisexual couples, so it is not impossible. 

At the same time Thedas is LGBT-friendly, there are no laws, no rules or taboos. So how do they handle a situation when a couple biologically can have no babies? Concubines? Lovers? What is an approach among nobles? Wow do farmers and other lower casts deal with it? 

It probably is not a problem at all among humans, but elves and dwarves have a real threat of dying out in future. elves can not breed with any other race. Dwarves have fertility-problems to the point that having a concubine is a norm among nobles. 

Mages, apparently, have no problems or restrictions whatsoever. They don't raise their children, they have no family expecting them to make grandkiddies or keep the bloodline "clean".

All of that would probably be reflected in a LI's attitude: city or dalish elf being relucent to date a human, mages being careless and not knowing what to do if someone gets pregnant, dwarves stuggling with being unable to even have kids. 

Of course there would be exceptions, but even exceptions have something that shows the way they were brought up: rebels do not exist unless there is something to rebel against.

Granted, all of this should be reflected in the world itself through NPCs, quests and codex, not just LIs. 

[daveliam]

 

Marriage, family and courting exists purely for one reason - to make sure the species, race or culture does not disappear. Love, romance is all dandy and stuff, but basic meaning of a family is being together do you don't die from hunger or sickness all alone in a terrible, merciless world. Oh, and make more babies, keep them safe until they can reproduce. 

Meaning that even in LGBT-friendly Thedas heterosexual relations are more common, or at least more traditional. We have heard Gamlen and Oghren throwing pretty much insults at homosexual and bisexual couples, so it is not impossible. 

At the same time Thedas is LGBT-friendly, there are no laws, no rules or taboos. So how do they handle a situation when a couple biologically can have no babies? Concubines? Lovers? What is an approach among nobles? Wow do farmers and other lower casts deal with it? 

It probably is not a problem at all among humans, but elves and dwarves have a real threat of dying out in future. elves can not breed with any other race. Dwarves have fertility-problems to the point that having a concubine is a norm among nobles. 

Mages, apparently, have no problems or restrictions whatsoever. They don't raise their children, they have no family expecting them to make grandkiddies or keep the bloodline "clean".

All of that would probably be reflected in a LI's attitude: city or dalish elf being relucent to date a human, mages being careless and not knowing what to do if someone gets pregnant, dwarves stuggling with being unable to even have kids. 

Of course there would be exceptions, but even exceptions have something that shows the way they were brought up: rebels do not exist unless there is something to rebel against.

Granted, all of this should be reflected in the world itself through NPCs, quests and codex, not just LIs. 

 

 

I think this is all true, but couldn't this just as easily be addressed with all bisexual LIs?

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I think this is all true, but couldn't this just as easily be addressed with all bisexual LIs?

In a word: yes. 

[Chari]

Yeah, so those are posts of people calmly explaining their thoughts.  Your "quote" that provided earlier was:  "but i wan hump that char if i cant it is so unfair!!!111".  So, again, you were just exaggerating what other people were saying in order to try to make them look ridiculous.  People are allowed to make whatever decisions they want about which games they are going to buy.  Why does that give you the right to mock them for it?

Of course that was an exaggeration: I don't recall anyone but Vect having such a bad spelling and grammar when it comes to English

Well, and I have a right to express my opinion :3 Calmly as well

Saying that game and terrible and unfair just because you cannot romance that one guy/gal is odd at best. Just because someone doesn't want your character it doesn't mean the writers are being unfair, it means that the character doesn't want it. And that's okay

I can't romance Sten and you don't see me crying and complaning because of that. I get it, he is qunari, they are brought up this way

[Chari]

I think this is all true, but couldn't this just as easily be addressed with all bisexual LIs?

Only if the writers actually adress the matter. Not to mention showing three, ehh, major? sexualities can show us all the romance stuff from different angles

And different angles in a story is very cool, it shows us that the world is complex, complex fantasy worlds are cool

[Vapaa]

Only if the writers actually adress the matter. Not to mention showing three, ehh, major? sexualities can show us all the romance stuff from different angles

And different angles in a story is very cool, it shows us that the world is complex, complex fantasy worlds are cool

 

You make it sound like the romances are some deep and complex feature when...it isn't.

 

That's why I'm against romances restrictions, I'm all for dynamic relationships, depending of in-game actions, but shallow gender restrictions are unwelcome in my book.

[AresKeith]

You make it sound like the romances are some deep and complex feature when...it isn't.

 

That's why I'm against romances restrictions, I'm all for dynamic relationships, depending of in-game actions, but shallow gender restrictions are unwelcome in my book.

 

Would it still be shallow if they turned you down after your flirt attempts?

[Chari]

You make it sound like the romances are some deep and complex feature when...it isn't.

 

That's why I'm against romances restrictions, I'm all for dynamic relationships, depending of in-game actions, but shallow gender restrictions are unwelcome in my book.

Since when race, class and gender-related-romance restrictions are shallow if they're part of a character's personality or the lore?

[BioWareM0d13]

I'm all for some restrictions, but the key word is some. I think race, class, and gender would end up being far too restrictive if you also combine it with world view. In many playthroughs you'd either end up limited to a sole LI choice or perhaps none at all. 

 

I'd just have the restrictions be based on world view (pro-mage, pro-Templar, anti-Elf, ect, ect) and for characters who aren't bisexual, gender. I'd cut race and class restrictions.

[Abelas Forever!]

Okay, I guess I understand that, but I don't really see how it's relevant to this conversation because I don't think that Bioware has ever had a companion who talked about their perspective in terms of their sexuality.  And I also don't know if there are many people who are asking for this content.  I guess it's possible that they could implement this in the future, though.  I'm just not sure what that would add to the story.  Like, what would it add to have Cassandra (for example) say, "As a straight woman, I think....."  Or "Well since I'm straight, this has been my experience....."

Well I would be interested in hearing about characters' perspective in terms of their sexuality. If BioWare hasn't done it it doesn't mean that they wouldn't do it and if nobody says that they would like to hear these things then they might not do it because they don't know it. I'm not saying that what I say here has any impact on anything.

 

I think that having different kind of sexualities is important. I'm trying to explain it here. I wouldn't want it to be something like as you said "As a straight woman, I think.....". No. For example my female protagonist could try to flirt with a gay man and he could say that "I'm sorry but that is pointless. I'm actually a gay." or that some other character could say that "I was at Orlais and there are a lot of interesting girls, I can tell you that you would like it there" and you could say that "Oh really? What about the men? I'm not really interested in women." What I'm trying to say that if all LIs are bisexual it also affects to the story. It doesn't matter if you romance them or not. And what I mean by affecting the story is that suddenly you have 6 bisexual companions for example. Nothing bad in that. So somebody might say that 6 bisexual companions are better because then everybody could just romance whoever they want. Yes that's true. But then there might not be those examples about interactions I give earlier when everybody is bisexual. So I guess I'm also trying to say that the sexuality is a part of the character and it enables the character to do certain things or disables them. And the characters also impact the atmosphere of the game. So I'm just saying that it matters. So having equal amount of women and men as well as different sexualities is in my opinion the equal way to have companions. I guess there tradeoffs what comes to equality in companions and how people would want to handle romances.

[daveliam]

Since when race, class and gender-related-romance restrictions are shallow if they're part of a character's personality or the lore?

 

But I think that this is the problem.  It hasn't really even been written in a meaningful way.  Restricting based on gender isn't necessarily meaningful.  Alistair is no deeper or more meaningfully written because he's straight.  Perhaps restrictions based on class or race could be more meaningful if there is a reason why they feel that way outside of "it's just their preference".  If a lawful warrior, like Aveline wouldn't romance a rogue, that could make sense.  If a templar character wouldn't romance a mage, that could make sense.  If an elf like Velanna would only romance elves, that could make sense.  But restricting on gender doesn't really make sense any more than restricting on skin color would.  It could be something you write in as a character trait, sure, but it doesn't, in and of itself, mean much.

 

I'm all for some restrictions, but the key word is some. I think race, class, and gender would end up being far too restrictive if you also combine it with world view. In many playthroughs you'd either end up limited to a sole LI choice or perhaps none at all. 

 

I'd just have the restrictions be based on world view (pro-mage, pro-Templar, anti-Elf, ect, ect) and for characters who aren't bisexual, gender. I'd cut race and class restrictions.

 

Agreed except that I would switch class and gender.

[daveliam]

 

I think that having different kind of sexualities is important. I'm trying to explain it here. I wouldn't want it to be something like as you said "As a straight woman, I think.....". No. For example my female protagonist could try to flirt with a gay man and he could say that "I'm sorry but that is pointless. I'm actually a gay." or that some other character could say that "I was at Orlais and there are a lot of interesting girls, I can tell you that you would like it there" and you could say that "Oh really? What about the men? I'm not really interested in women." What I'm trying to say that if all LIs are bisexual it also affects to the story. It doesn't matter if you romance them or not. And what I mean by affecting the story is that suddenly you have 6 bisexual companions for example. Nothing bad in that. So somebody might say that 6 bisexual companions are better because then everybody could just romance whoever they want. Yes that's true. But then there might not be those examples about interactions I give earlier when everybody is bisexual. So I guess I'm also trying to say that the sexuality is a part of the character and it enables the character to do certain things or disables them. And the characters also impact the atmosphere of the game. So I'm just saying that it matters. So having equal amount of women and men as well as different sexualities is in my opinion the equal way to have companions. I guess there tradeoffs what comes to equality in companions and how people would want to handle romances.

 

So I agree with you that adding in a variety of sexualities would increase the diversity.  Of course that makes sense.  But I'm just not convinced that a statement like, "Well, I'm not into girls so I can't tell you about the girls in Orlais" really adds any meaningful depth so I'm not sure if it seems to me like it's worth losing romance options for fairly superficial and meaningless dialogue options.  I think it's just a case of having to agree to disagree on this.  I see where you are coming from, but I guess we just value different things in the romance function.

[BioWareM0d13]

By class are we referring to the Inquisitor's social class in Thedas (noble, commoner, ect) or his or her gameplay class?

[Vapaa]

Would it still be shallow if they turned you down after your flirt attempts?

 

No, it would actually exist (as in, the char's sexuality would be officially stated) but it wouldn't be more deep.

 

What I mean is, Thedas is a place where a lot of things are polarizing but sexuality isn't, so it would be jarring to me to focus on what it basically is a non-issue (in-universe) where there are more pressing issues are hand (like magic, or racism).

 

I don't see what restricted LIs would bring ? believability ? I don't buy it...variety in the representation of sexuality ? well yes, but DA has more than enough NPCs to do that, or even non-romanceables companions (now that's something I would like to see)....but for actual LIs, having more options is more important for me.

[daveliam]

By class are we referring to the Inquisitor's social class in Thedas (noble, commoner, ect) or his or her gameplay class?

 

Sorry, you're right, that could have been clearer.  Not social class because we don't get to pick that, I'm gathering based on the fact that the Inquisitor's backstory is going to be set. 

 

i was referring to player class, like a mage wouldn't romance a templar spec'd warrior.  Or a templar who wouldn't romance a mage.  Something like this.  Like if Fenris would have been restricted to a mage, that would make sense to me and their could have been some dialogue around that as a mage hawke explored that in their conversations.

[Abelas Forever!]

So I agree with you that adding in a variety of sexualities would increase the diversity.  Of course that makes sense.  But I'm just not convinced that a statement like, "Well, I'm not into girls so I can't tell you about the girls in Orlais" really adds any meaningful depth so I'm not sure if it seems to me like it's worth losing romance options for fairly superficial and meaningless dialogue options.  I think it's just a case of having to agree to disagree on this.  I see where you are coming from, but I guess we just value different things in the romance function.

I guess I'm also looking this bisexual LI aspect from other perspective than just romance perspective as well. Meaning that I guess I value diversity of sexualities more than the aspect of everybody been able to romance whoever they want.  I also like the fact that I'm not able to do everything such as romancing everybody. I guess I just treat these restrictions diffrently than just about restrictions of the gender. If I just can't do something then I just can't.

 

If we think about statement like "Well, I'm not into girls so I can't tell you about the girls in Orlais". It doesn't have to be deep. It might be amusing in some context. For example if some character would say that kind of sencence suddenly when you are talking about Orlais and then you could say that "Well I wasn't even asking but good to know". Well It just doesn't have to be deep. It could just exists.

 

I just have hard time to see that bisexual way is the best. So I'm guessing that the bisexual romance way is just the same no matter your sexuality. Only when the LI addresses you then the only difference is that he/she doesn't use words like she/he or other similar words. I guess I just want more targeted romances as well. That I can romance a man and he sees me as a woman and it matters that I'm a woman. I guess I value quality over quantity. And I guess if somebody doesn't like any of the LIs at all then she/he might be disappointed no matter the quantity of the LIs.

 

But I guess we will disagree.  No hard feelings?

[frankf43]

Take the last game.
Aveline was unavailable
Bethany was your sister
This leaves Merrill and Isabella as possible female LI's if they hadn't been bi you would have had only one possible female to romance either your male or female Hawk. If you didn't like that character you would have been romance-less.

Same with the male companions unless you doled out for the Sebastian DLC, which I didn't, you are given the option of Fenris or Anders if they were not bi you would have been stuck without a choice for your romance.

Only having 2 female and 2 male LI's is not an issue if they are all bi but making them a defined sexuality would mean adding extra LI's in order to give people choice. This would take time and money that could be spent else where.

[daveliam]

But I guess we will disagree.  No hard feelings?

 

Of course.  Absolutely no hard feelings on my end.  I hope I didn't give that impression.

[Abelas Forever!]

Of course.  Absolutely no hard feelings on my end.  I hope I didn't give that impression.

No but I just wanted to be sure.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

My ideal is all bisexual or vague, but I wouldn't have any real problem with 2/2/2 if it were 6 companions. My entire problem with it in DA:I is that it will likely contain NPCs. If this goes for the long term, I'm just not confident that it wont work against LGB players. In the past, DA games have usually had "main" romances that were more embedded in the plot. For males, Alistair was easily the "main" romance in DA:O and has been one of the most featured characters in comics/novels. In DA2, Anders was, again, easily more vital to the plot than Fenris. So, basically, what we'll probably end up with to go around is a "main" companion romance, a side companion romance and an NPC romance. The chances of them making the "main" romance homosexual is slim to none, so to have access to it at all, we have to opt to make it bisexual and fill the NPC slot with the homosexual characters. LGB slots are always going to be either NPCs or side romances under this system, I don't see anything else logically happening. 

 

If they did 2/2/2 with companion romances and just made the "main" romance bisexual with two side romances for each set sexuality, I'd be fine with it. I just can't see the system with NPC romances ending up being fair to everyone. You're dividing up unequal choices. There's no way that will end up fair. 

[Abelas Forever!]

Only having 2 female and 2 male LI's is not an issue if they are all bi but making them a defined sexuality would mean adding extra LI's in order to give people choice. This would take time and money that could be spent else where.

Sure. I guess it makes sense that every one of the LI is bisexual when there are only 4 options but I was just thinking if there would be 6 LIs then making LIs not available to everyone would be more interesting. I guess I would be happy to have at least one romance option which I like. Of course when you have more options then it's more likely that you will like some of them. But I don't think it's all about the quantity of the options what matters than it is that there are certain LI that you like and if there isn't then you might be disappointed. I guess just one might be enough. At least for me.

[Ianamus]

My ideal is all bisexual or vague, but I wouldn't have any real problem with 2/2/2 if it were 6 companions. My entire problem with it in DA:I is that it will likely contain NPCs. If this goes for the long term, I'm just not confident that it wont work against LGB players. In the past, DA games have usually had "main" romances that were more embedded in the plot. For males, Alistair was easily the "main" romance in DA:O and has been one of the most featured characters in comics/novels. In DA2, Anders was, again, easily more vital to the plot than Fenris. So, basically, what we'll probably end up with to go around is a "main" companion romance, a side companion romance and an NPC romance. The chances of them making the "main" romance homosexual is slim to none, so to have access to it at all, we have to opt to make it bisexual and fill the NPC slot with the homosexual characters. LGB slots are always going to be either NPCs or side romances under this system, I don't see anything else logically happening. 

 

If they did 2/2/2 with companion romances and just made the "main" romance bisexual with two side romances for each set sexuality, I'd be fine with it. I just can't see the system with NPC romances ending up being fair to everyone. You're dividing up unequal choices. There's no way that will end up fair. 

 

I can see the argument, but I don't think it will be the case in Inquisition. For one, Cullen appears to be a NPC romance and there is no way he is the male only option, so if there is a 2/2/2 split we won't get a repeat of ME3 where the homosexual options are the NPC's. 

 

To make it fair just make the male and female only options the companions and make the NPC bisexual. As long as you don't have a "main" companion romance then there's no issue.

 

I don't think Dragon Age 2 had any "main" companion romances. You could argue that Anders and Isabela were, but the plot connection was minimal and having them as good friends had an equal impact. Plus, Merrill moved into your house, which Isabela did not. The romances in DA2 were very equal in terms of content, I feel.

[daveliam]

 The chances of them making the "main" romance homosexual is slim to none, so to have access to it at all, we have to opt to make it bisexual and fill the NPC slot with the homosexual characters. LGB slots are always going to be either NPCs or side romances under this system, I don't see anything else logically happening. 

 

 

I'm with you until you get to this part.  There has only been one game that had NPC romances and it was done by the ME team (not exactly the most inclusive bunch of writers).  We've yet to see what the DA team does with NPC romances.  For all we know, Cass could be a lesbian.  We just don't have enough information at this point to make this statement without using pretty substantial assumptions.  Could you be correct?  Sure.  Could you be incorrect?  Sure.  So I'd rather wait to see what they do. 

 

Odds are, Cullen is an NPC and he fits the "main romance" trope pretty well.  Let's see if they make him straight or bisexual.  If he's straight and an NPC, then that means that we'll probably have our first gay male companion.  If he's bisexual, then that means that the "main" guy might not be straight (provided he is the "main guy").  There's alot of room for this too go well for us, still. 

[frankf43]

Sure. I guess it makes sense that every one of the LI is bisexual when there are only 4 options but I was just thinking if there would be 6 LIs then making LIs not available to everyone would be more interesting. I guess I would be happy to have at least one romance option which I like. Of course when you have more options then it's more likely that you will like some of them. But I don't think it's all about the quantity of the options what matters than it is that there are certain LI that you like and if there isn't then you might be disappointed. I guess just one might be enough. At least for me.

Yeah one right LI is all that is needed. The problem would come if the one right LI was not compatible with your current PC. It doesn't matter if you have eight choices if the one you click with is not available.

I must admit I would have loved to have been able to romance Aveline, but hey them's the breaks

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I can see the argument, but I don't think it will be the case in Inquisition. For one, Cullen appears to be a NPC romance and there is no way he is the male only option, so if there is a 2/2/2 split we won't get a repeat of ME3 where the homosexual options are the NPC's. 

 

To make it fair just make the male and female only options the companions and make the NPC bisexual. As long as you don't have a "main" companion romance then there's no issue.

 

I don't think Dragon Age 2 had any "main" companion romances. You could argue that Anders and Isabela were, but the plot connection was minimal and having them as good friends had an equal impact. Plus, Merrill moved into your house, which Isabela did not. 

I think Anders was easily more plot relevant than Fenris and he also moved into your house when I believe Fenris didn't. Even if Inquisition breaks the mold and doesn't have "main" romances, this trend has gone into both other games, so I'm skeptical if they'll always avoid it in future games. 

 

I also just can't see this as an improvement. In the 4 LI system, everyone got the choice of the "main" companion romance and the side companion romance. In this system, everyone will get an NPC romance and hope either their sexuality gets the main romance or they balance all the romances for the first time. 

 

I'll be fine with 2/2/2 if it becomes a system with 6 companions, but I'm not interested in NPC romances, so this isn't at all appealing to me.