97 réponses à ce sujet

[pallascedar]

 

So you're saying that people would have no issues with certain characters not being romanceable? You're saying that those same people would have no issue with the romances being removed either? Because right now I'm seeing the same people complaining about a certain elf companion being bald, because they don't like him being bald. And I also saw people whining about not being able to romance someone they wanted to romance (because it doesn't fulfill their fantasy to the fullest) and thus they were enraged. So yes, in a community where people whine about the fact that one of the companions is bald, you have people that whine about how every companion doesn't automatically love and adore them.

 

Ok, a character doesn't need a reason to be bi. That totally misses the point in an embarassing way. Now tell me how the reason that character is bi isn't fan service. Is everyone being straight fan service? Nope. Is everyone bi in DA because, otherwise, a very small, pissy, entitled group of people would get enraged because the way they imagined their DA fantasy to play out isn't available? Yeah. They don't need a reason. But if one of the reasons everyone is bi in DA is so a very small group of people don't get really angry at such a minor detail that they perceive to be big, then you need to tell me how everyone being bi for the sake of fan service is a good thing, and how it doesn't devalue the character. Why isn't sebastian bi in DA2? Why doesn't he have sex with you? Because it would ruin his character, since he is a hardcore altar boy and being bisexual while having one night stands isn't something you would imagine an altar boy to do. While the fan service bisexuality doesn't ruin the other characters that much to the point of breaking their integrity, it still cheapens them because an aspect of them is not to characterize them, but to satisfy a very small group of players, who would be distraught if that feature was not in the game.

Fine, you're right that people whine about stuff on this forum, but they didn't make the change as a reaction to whining. If they did then clearly it was a silly decision because now you're whining about something stupid. They didn't solve much .

 

I'm going to leave a final post because I'm silly and don't learn. First off, I'm not missing the point, you're claiming that the only reason a character is bi is fan service, and I say "So, who cares? Who does this hurt?" As evidenced by Sebastian, if the writers believe that making a character bi would undermine their integrity, they won't do it. Simple as that. You're under the silly fantasy that everything not written explicitly for you is fan service, but it's not. It's just part of the game, it's no fan service anymore than the ability to shoot fireballs at dragons is fan service. Millions of people with millions of different interests play this game, and you need to get over yourself.

 

I'll agree on a final point: I would prefer it if the characters in the game had a mix of sexualities from gay to straight to bi. But ultimately I think it's more important to give PCs options on who to romance. In the light of limited resources having multiple bisexual characters makes sense, it wastes no resources and it only breaks immersion if you think way too hard about these things.

[Veruin]

But the issue is that making all of the companions bisexual is the easiest and quickest way of responding to that concern. Obviously it's not ideal, but is it better to have a mixture of straight and bisexual companions but even number of choices or to have an even number of choices but have all of the LI's be bisexual? That's the real issue. 

 

Obviously ideally just have a wide span of Li's of all orientations, but how viable is that? 

It is ideal, but that doesn't mean we aren't allowed to advocate for doing it better.

 

Exactly. I have to say, I'm very curious how people who complain about all the LIs in DA2 being bisexual would react if we got 4 LIs, two bisexual and two gay, in DAI.

Gaider specifically pointed out that all LIs (barring Isabella) are player sexual.  Not bisexual.  Which is really my main beef about it.

 

Building on that, do the Lis go that way because I got that way?  Or is it just how they roll?  One is acceptable, the other is not.

[EmperorSahlertz]

By the way, what is up with that obsession that all sexualities should have equal representation in available romance options? Attitude like that is EXACTLY part of the problem.

[Heimdall]

So I take it you do want the six-LI one?

I would prefer it.

 

I know it has financial and resource drawbacks, but it is my preference.

[Veruin]

By the way, what is up with that obsession that all sexualities should have equal representation in available romance options? Attitude like that is EXACTLY part of the problem.

Being progressive and all that jazz.

[Allan Schumacher]

If you can find *one* reason outside of fan service for all the characters to be bi, then you're making a sound argument.

 

Because why not?

 

Give me one reason why they shouldn't be bisexual.  Note: "realism" is an invalid argument in a fantasy universe.

[Xilizhra]

By the way, what is up with that obsession that all sexualities should have equal representation in available romance options? Attitude like that is EXACTLY part of the problem.

Because a much larger percentage of the fanbase would go nuts if they only had one bisexual romance option to choose from, with the other one being gay. So it's best for everyone.

[Infighter]

That should depend on the character they are trying to create. For example Isabela's voracious sexuality was an important aspect of her character, whereas with Merrill it was not.

Look, I don't want to start calling names but just reread what you wrote. You're saying that it's okay for Isabela to be bisexual because she likes sex but it's not okay for Merrill because she's more shy about it?

 

Sexuality =/= Personality. 

 

Nobody's saying it should be only straight or only gay, but sexuality is an important part of people's identity.  It can't NOT be part of someone's character.

I don't disagree with you, but that is not the point I was trying to make. A character's sexuality should never be be something you write a character on, because sexuality does not define anything. Isabela's character, for example, would still have made if she was only straight or only lesbian.

 

I have to agree on the representation thing Ianamus mentioned simply because representation is important.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Being progressive and all that jazz.

It is not progressive. Not progressive at all. As a matter of fact it is regressive. There is no acceptance in the demanding of equal availability.

[AresKeith]

I'm pretty sure the writers have some form of idea when they are, y'know, writing the character.  I'm sure they have more info on them than we ever will.

You had Cullen flirt with the female mage warden, Cassandra called Male Hawke romantic in a crush type face. Varric told femHawke that he's not into humans.

So it possible for Bioware to do it

[Xilizhra]

It is not progressive. Not progressive at all. As a matter of fact it is regressive. There is no acceptance in the demanding of equal availability.

It's called "letting the largest number of players possible interested in romance content have fun with it."

 

Cassandra called Male Hawke romantic in a crush type face.

And FemHawke.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Look, I don't want to start calling names but just reread what you wrote. You're saying that it's okay for Isabela to be bisexual because she likes sex but it's not okay for Merrill because she's more shy about it?

 

Sexuality =/= Personality. 

Uhm.... No? YOU were saying that sexuality should NEVER be an important aspect of a character. I refuted that, by showcasing Isabela, where her sexuality happens to be a very important aspect of ehr character. In comparison to Merrill in which case her sexuality was NOT an important aspect of her character.

 

What I did NOT do, was comment on the correctness of a characters sexuality.

[EmperorSahlertz]

 

It's called "letting the largest number of players possible interested in romance content have fun with it."

 

Since when was Dragon Age a game centered around the available romance options?

[Ianamus]

Because why not?

 

Give me one reason why they shouldn't be bisexual.  Note: "realism" is an invalid argument in a fantasy universe.

 

It means that we are unlikely to ever get a homosexual companion, and will never get a homosexual companion who is an LI. 

 

I'm all for equal options but I'd like to see all orientations represented, not just straight and bisexual. 

[Taleroth]

perhaps the most important part. It determines not only whom one is attracted to but life goals as well. 

Why does this make my eye twitch?

 

Your sexuality does not determine your life goals. Unless your life goals are exclusively about finding a mate and whether or not you'll have children. But that's notably mundane and definitely not the rule for most fantasy adventure characters.

[Allan Schumacher]

It means that we are unlikely to ever get a homosexual companion, and will never get a homosexual companion who is an LI. 

 

Is this a reason why the characters cannot be bisexual, or simply a stated preference that you have?

[mucusShifters]

 

 

Fine, you're right that people whine about stuff on this forum, but they didn't make the change as a reaction to whining. If they did then clearly it was a silly decision because now you're whining about something stupid. They didn't solve much .

 

I'm going to leave a final post because I'm silly and don't learn. First off, I'm not missing the point, you're claiming that the only reason a character is bi is fan service, and I say "So, who cares? Who does this hurt?" As evidenced by Sebastian, if the writers believe that making a character bi would undermine their integrity, they won't do it. Simple as that. You're under the silly fantasy that everything not written explicitly for you is fan service, but it's not. It's just part of the game, it's no fan service anymore than the ability to shoot fireballs at dragons is fan service. Millions of people with millions of different interests play this game, and you need to get over yourself.

 

I'll agree on a final point: I would prefer it if the characters in the game had a mix of sexualities from gay to straight to bi. But ultimately I think it's more important to give PCs options on who to romance. In the light of limited resources having multiple bisexual characters makes sense, it wastes no resources and it only breaks immersion if you think way too hard about these things.

 

I never said I'm not a whiner, no reason to mention that as if it somehow helps your argument.

 

I already explained how it hurts the character, in my opinion. Now it's up to you to tell me how it doesn't. And I'd like you to actually explain how it does instead of just making a statement like "Well it doesn't let's leave it at that". It devalues an aspect of the character because their sexuality is not intented to be a part of the character, it's intented to make a very small minority happy at the expense of how much the character is believable. It's up to you tell me how that isn't a bad thing.

 

You seem to define "fan service" as anything that makes the player happy. No, fan service is something that serves no other function but to make a player superficially happy, and that feature that is fan service is a feature that would not otherwise be there, if that group of players had not asked for them. That is fan service. Is shooting fireballs at dragons fan service? You need something to damage dragons with, so why not pick a fireball? I don't know how many people would mind if it wasn't a fireball and instead it was something else. But how much do you "need" everyone to be bi? You don't, that's the point. Is the only reason everyone in DA is bi the fact that some players would be angered if they weren't? Yes. It's fan service. Would everyone in DA be bi if NO ONE WAS UNHAPPY OTHERWISE? No, they wouldn't. Would everyone in DA still be bi if there were no romances in the game? No, they wouldn't. Even if you decide to still stick to your definition of "fanservice", you can't deny that fireball vs. everyone is bi is 2 different types of fanservice.

 

Yeah, it breaks immersion in the same way our companions being bald breaks immersion.

[Xilizhra]

Since when was Dragon Age a game centered around the available romance options?

Since when did a companion's sexual orientation affect anything beyond the romance options and maybe party banter? If you're not interested in romance, why do you even care?

[themikefest]

I wil post what I did in another thread.

 

Until I have more information about who is romanceable and what their sexual orientation is, I won't worry about it

[EmperorSahlertz]

Because why not?

 

Give me one reason why they shouldn't be bisexual.  Note: "realism" is an invalid argument in a fantasy universe.

Because it is a blatant objectification of the characters?

[Heimdall]

I don't disagree with you, but that is not the point I was trying to make. A character's sexuality should never be be something you write a character on, because sexuality does not define anything. Isabela's character, for example, would still have made if she was only straight or only lesbian.

 

I have to agree on the representation thing Ianamus mentioned simply because representation is important.

I don't think its something a character should be written onto either.  The issue is more that their sexuality is decided transparently as a matter of convenience for the players in DA2, which some people feel disrupts the illusion of these characters as agents of individual will.

[Allan Schumacher]

Since when was Dragon Age a game centered around the available romance options?

 

Excellent point.  So it's a non-issue and at this point, the argument is moot because it doesn't matter what the NPC sexualities are, right?  I mean, the game isn't focused on it, so I take it as tacit admission that their sexual orientations are a non-factor for you?

[Allan Schumacher]

Because it is a blatant objectification of the characters?

Excellent, then this thread now gets locked.  This is a poor reason that characters cannot be bisexual.  It's meta and irrelevant within the context of the game universe (because it's not within the context of the game universe).  Thank you for proving my point.