22 réponses à ce sujet

[Brass_Buckles]

"Playersexual" basically means, whatever race or gender the player's character is, the romanceable character finds the player character attractive and can be romanced.

 

I'm in favor of having all future romanceable characters be playersexual, and I hope I'm not opening up a can of worms here.

 

It's not realistic and maybe not even ideal (ideal might be two straight, two bisexual, and two homosexual romances with an even split between male and female), but as I said in another thread, it is fair--both sexes get an equal number of romances for straight, bisexual, and homosexual preferences that way.

 

I know that when this was done in DA2 with all "true" romances, there was some backlash.  And, at the time I somewhat agreed, because your gender preference is part of who you are, and shouldn't it be the same for characters, too?  Except, thinking about it, whatever their gender preference, they're the same character.  And you're also suddenly limiting people's options because only X amount of characters will be made who can be romanced.  So maybe you have a straight woman, a straight man, a bisexual man and woman, and a gay man and lesbian woman.  That's two extra characters.  Or, someone might just be left out entirely, or not get as many options (straight women who played Mass Effect 3 as straight female Shepard, here's to you and your total of ONE option left, if you didn't hook up with a certain turian during ME2).

 

So making everyone who can be romanced "playersexual," makes sense from an equal treatment standpoint, and I support it.  Does that mean that the playersexual character is necessarily bisexual?  Depends on how you want to look at it.  Maybe in your particular playthrough they are actually straight or gay or pansexual--it only depends how you perceive them.  Point being, they're the same character in all other respects regardless of who chooses to romance them (if anyone), and only their gender preference changes depending whether you play as male or female.  They're characters; if they flirt with anyone else, it's going to be at least in part because of your actions as the player.  And after thinking about it, I really don't get why that makes people angry, as long as they don't do like Zevran when he was romanced by a male (i.e. stating he prefers the opposite gender, actually, but you'll do just fine because he's not picky).

 

The one thing I will argue if "playersexuality" is used in the future is that "flirting" should be a separate option, in this case, from the "nice" or "friendly" or "sensitive" option--whatever you want to call it, so that people won't complain that they accidentally romanced someone of the wrong gender, etc.

 

I'm curious if anyone agrees with me, or if you have compelling arguments against the idea of romances being "playersexual."  But please, keep it civil.

 

Mods/devs:  If this thread needs to be part of the "romances" thread instead of its own, please feel free to move it there.  But this is something I feel needs to be discussed.

[Allan Schumacher]

And if I do happen to complain about it(this is a hypothetical situation, in reality I really won't care that I have only one LI that I prefer in the game so please bear that in mind), I would like Bioware to tell me something like "too bad, better luck next game", rather than sacrificing character quality by making all companions playersexual.

Is it possible that other people have not had the same experiences, and as such any anecdotes you provide about whether or not you'd be okay with it are entirely not applicable to them?

Note that what I get from your post is that, based purely on someone's sexual preference outside of the game, you wish to tell them "too bad, better luck next game." In other words, "Sorry, this game isn't really for you. Better luck next game."


 

No, the real problem is they don't feel like complete, fully realized characters, because a part of their personality has been reduced to a gameplay mechanic. Knowing this as the player, it hurts my immersion in their part of the story.

Do you even know what my sexual preference is? Does it seem as though there is a void in you understanding, and interacting with me, because of not knowing what mine (or someone else's) sexual preference is? How does my sexual preference affect my personality? Are you saying that you'd have assumptions as to how I would behave simply on knowing my sexual orientation?

In this case, I have to ask, is there any possibility that the assumptions that you make about what my personality would be based on my sexual orientation are not actually correct, but instead stereotypes and myths perpetuated for a while without actually reflecting reality?


Or am I just not a complete, fully realized person to a lot of people here because they don't know what my sexual orientation is?

(1) Of course not; I don't recall anyone making that claim here.

Well, then I guess this is a source of confusion because it *really* seems like you're saying that someone's sexual orientation has a non-trivial influence on their personality.

[Allan Schumacher]

**Shrugs** It's not your story that's being put out there. Everything I've said has been based on/in reference to characters in-game. And when a character is a love interest, his/her sexuality becomes a VERY apparent part of his/her personality.

In what ways does it affect their personality? Does it make them more aggressive? Can I tell you "That character is gay" and are there assumed traits that makes that character "believable" to you?

And why would I or anyone else for that matter say "the game is not for you"?

Because that's the phrasing that you used. Since you used it, I'd gather it's something that you have to answer for yourself, not me.

I thinks it's just an issue of language. While claims that someones personality is impacted by their sexual orientation irritate me as well I don't think they really meant "personality" but "person". And I have to agree to an extent that a person is influenced by their sexuality, however small, and while it may have no impact on their personality it will impact a lot of other things, like their view on relationships and such.

Okay. How does my sexuality affect my view on relationships and such? Can you make a prediction over my sexual preferences based on how I interact with the fanbase?

You might see it that way, but, rather then "Sorry, this game isn't really for you. Better luck next game." how about "Sorry, but this particular character have preferences and they will not bend to the mighty PC just because you want them to"

He was the one using the phrasing and that's how it comes across.

Why is it so outlandish to you that players prefer characters with different sexualities? Just as the DA world is filled with people on different opinions and preferences in many subjects, it's not too hard to imagine characters with different sexual preferences, no?

The fun part of this question is how easily it's turned around. Why can each playthrough not exist in its own universe? The realization that a character's sexual preference is not explicitly defined is an entirely meta affair. As Sylvius alludes to, plenty of people lament that they can't change the character's clothes, or give them different weapons. I remember the outrage when people exploiting free level ups (i.e. Duncan) because the future characters they meet have their talents/spells already picked for them. But *this* is the line that just cannot be crossed?

[Allan Schumacher]

You can consider it diversity, but from were I see it, it would feel more like cheapening it. Allow me to elaborate. How would you feel if this particular companion were to agree with your every decision on a quest? No matter if you decide to save an group of people or murder them all, they will aways agree with you. Wouldn't you find that cheap? They don't have personal opinions at all. They are agreeable simply for the sake of pleasing the player. That's how I see the "playersexual" romances. These characters don't have these preferences for personal reasons or choice, they are just the way they are to please you. I don't want to see that. I want to see characters who will have set preferences, and if you don't happen to fulfill such preferences, you will have accept it and move on, the same way as would need to accept and move on if an character disagree with your choice, or even leave you for it.

Because your example here is actually a character's personality. Within the context of a single playthrough, it's probably not that trivial to actually make the character behave in woefully inconsistent ways which is immersion breaking.

Unless you're suggesting that that character should behave in a different way by virtue of their sexuality (as opposed to implications that one's sexuality may have on how people treat them, which is very different). But that's a can of worms I definitely prefer to not open.

 

Maybe you were able to convince Anders in your game and stop him from blowing up the chantry, no? This is how I feel about sexual orientation too, it does not change with playthrough.

Heh. What about the mirror? What about Zevran's affiliation with the Crows? What about the elves/humans/werewolves?

Look, I can appreciate (and prefer) situations where player control isn't paramount (I'm the guy that didn't mind the ME3 endings and said so at release), and sometimes characters behave in a particular way. In fact, I even made the exact same concerns during DA2's development. Until I came to grips that the *only* way I can have a reservation with this is through extensive metagaming (which I'm of the opinion we shouldn't waste time trying to mitigate), while at the same time realizing that one's sexual orientation doesn't define their personality.

What *does* define their personality is the consequences of having a particular orientation. And I really get the impression that people who take part in discussions like this feel that the consequences of being gay/bisexual on Earth should also be applied in Thedas. (Hence, "believability" arguments about 2/3 of the companions being interested in the PC) and so forth. But it's not.

[Allan Schumacher]

Touché
 
It baffles me that people go on about sexuality in a game (or rather, a series) that gives you a free pass on every other aspect.
I say make the 4 LI bi and call it a day. Want gay characters ? well isn't DA famed for its organic NPCs ? there you go.

What I find more baffling is all the people that claim to not care about romances that inevitably cannot avoid said threads and continuously talk it up to the extent that it honestly seems like romance and the sexuality of characters is probably the most important thing in the game for them.

As though they feel a need to be a counterweight because if not, then undoubtedly BioWare would do nothing but make the game entirely about romance (or something).

[Allan Schumacher]

Anyone who says that a person's sexuality is not part of who they are has clearly never been in a situation where someone has tried to convince or coerce them into dating outside their sexual preference.

THIS is exactly what I was hoping to see. This is a problem with interactions on the planet Earth, set in our reality with the associated contexts that sexual orientation has.


This is why I said "What *does* define their personality is the consequences of having a particular orientation."

Being gay, bisexual, or heterosexual does not make a person more timid, more aggressive, more promiscuous, or anything like that. What DOES affect someone's personality is how they are treated because of a particular sexual orientation, and that is an immensely important distinction.

This is people taking their assumptions about our actual reality, and transcribing them onto how they feel a fictional universe, with fictional norms, mores, and so forth, should behave in order to be "believable." Someone pointing out that 2/3s of the party members being romanceable is not "believable" means that they are taking their real life experiences and imposing them on the game.


You're describing the ridiculous and foolish notions that some unreasonably people have that they can somehow change your sexuality through brute force or whatever. But this is NOT the same thing as a "playersexual" relationship. Each playthrough is completely and utterly independent of all other playthroughs. The only way you can make a distinction that a character's sexuality is different is by taking two disjointed realities and comparing them, while making the assumption that they must be consistent with regards to sexual preferences. Ask yourself why this consistency must be maintained.

This is NOT the same as, for example, Alistair starting out as a clearly defined heterosexual, but because the player character is a man and asking for a gay relationship, that suddenly Alistair decides that he's going to get involved in a homosexual relationship.


Ask yourself why is it that sexual orientation defines one's personality? Is it truly because of the sexual orientation of the character, or is it because of the socialization of what we consider to be acceptable sexual orientations, and the various sociological pressures that affect our personality. Do you think that a gay person hides their sexuality in our reality because that's just a trait of being gay? Or is it a consequence put forth based on how our reality treats gay people? If it's a consequence of our reality, is it possible that the reality of Thedas is different? If not, why not?

[Allan Schumacher]

EA zeroing in their golden poo awards being, essentially, "at the fault of homophobes who disliked ME3s gay romances" (which we all know is entirely false, but doesn't change the fact that they redirected their publicity to the current issue)

EA isn't doing this. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Peter Moore's statements. It was one of a list of things that Moore said we weren't going to change, because there were people that were literally voting for the company specifically because of that (I remember seeing the links on places like Free Republic where plain as day it was told to vote for EA because they had a recent talk about gay content in video games.

And yes, the constant (and borderline deliberate, at times) misunderstanding of Moore's statements actually pisses me off. I recommend dropping it, since anyone suggesting that we're scapegoating winning the award based on stuff like this is wrong.

[Allan Schumacher]

What kind of discussion would it be, if only one side of the argument was allowed to speak?

It has nothing to do with "being allowed to speak." You're free to speak about it. Just be honest with yourself that it's actually important to you to voice your opinion on the topic, lest you not bother wasting your time talking about it.

[Allan Schumacher]

I've never seen you around the forums, but man I hope you have some pull with the writing team, because THIS, THIS, THIS.

I don't think the writing team needs any influence from me on this matter. My perspective comes in large part in interacting and talking with a pretty diverse group of people on a subject matter that is frankly, pretty foreign/new to me and the plethora of me tripping all over it when trying to discuss it simply due to inexperience.

But on that last, bit, no, not really. It's been implied, in several ways, that Thedas is fairly different. Perhaps Orlais is a different country with different beliefs, but for the most part, it's been heavily implied that the same beliefs hold true in Thedas that apply in our world. Women are intended to be with men, but there are outliers, and for the large part, it isn't an issue. However, character reactions to those relationships and the way Leliana and Zevran both tread lightly on the topic suggest that it's not always a welcome thought for everyone that same-sex relationships happen, and I wish that the writing accounted more for this than a crude offhanded comment by your creepy uncle in DA2.

It's also important to note that the details of the lore are going to be somewhat more fluid based on our own comfort/familiarity with subject matter that we aren't as familiar exploring. While I'm sure this will agitate some who believe that the first attempt at creating the lore of a game setting (i.e. the first game) can never, in any way be undermined (and fair enough if that's the way they feel), there's going to be situations where we'll look at what we did and conclude that it's not exactly the way we would have liked it.

That some characters express reservation is one thing. But that doesn't mean it's nearly as big of an issue as it is in our reality.

As I said, I initially had issues with DA2's romances being uniformly available, for typically the same reasons that are listed in this thread: that it cheapens the character, its too fan servicey, and so forth. The issue was I couldn't really convince myself that my impressions were actually valid for the game setting. Once I recognized that each playthrough was distinct, I realized that the only way I can see this as a conflict of how a character is behaving is because of my own preconceived (and inapplicable) assumptions as to how it defines a character coupled with a crossover of meta information that is irrelevant across playthroughs. The only way it was inconsistent was if I compared alternative playthroughs. There's nothing inconsistent with how the characters behave based on their sexuality.


Now, that's not to say that undefined sexual orientations is immaculate and the perfect solution. It *does* cause issues with respect to representation (you don't have the Steve Cortez/Samantha Traynor types that represent a particular group, and that people will see and that in Thedas that's okay). It can also undermine bisexual representation because the situation becomes translucent. Are they bisexual? Is their sexuality not defined? How does that work!? But in terms of the internal consistency of a character and how they behave themselves, the only way I can say that "playersexual" is a genuine inconsistency with the character is if I make assumptions that the character should behave differently as a result of their sexual orientation. Those assumptions can come from my own personal experiences in reality, or based on how I believe Thedas is. I'm okay with the idea of sexual orientation not really being an issue in Thedas, and as such have no problems assuming that there's minimal consequences for being a particular sexual orientation aside from "I'm attracted to this type of person."

[Allan Schumacher]

Yeah, I was going to point this out too. I thought that a romanced Leliana would definitely have a character quest which would introduce Marjolaine who is clearly identified as a past lover of Leliana.


I'm glad that you brought this up because I was wondering if I was the only one who picked up on this from that post. Again, it's not completely obvious, but it's alluded to and adds even more support to my idea that they are not playersexual at all.

Here's the quote from his blog:

"Quite frequently on our forums someone will come along with a rant on how they hated how “all the followers in DA2 were bisexual”. Sometimes you’ll even get someone who counters that by saying, no, they weren’t bisexual… the same-gender romance options were gay and the opposite-gender romance options were straight, depending on your player character."

Bolded is my emphasis. Here's the link for the full article: http://dgaider.tumbl...tions-on-anders

Well my ramblings in this thread will serve to grant legitimacy (I am not privy to any writer thoughts when I post in this thread), for better or worse.

[Allan Schumacher]

Some of you seem to have this notion that the only thing people like me want is for the characters to clearly and bluntly proclaim their preferences up front and/or at the beginning. Yes, even I agree that that's not necessary, even over time. But, c'mon, unless actively avoiding it, people are gonna let slip at least a couple of hints on any aspect of themselves, including by any number of offhanded and/or unconscious ways (as I've suggested in previous posts). And in a years-long plot, there are plenty of opportunities for that to happen, especially within a romantic relationship where honesty might actually be expected.

I disagree. Especially given that the several years in between doesn't preclude it from coming up but just off camera.

People have gotten my sexuality wrong (often for inane reasons) and while I dont think I actively hide anything, I dont really advertise it.

There have literally been people that, with the amount of interaction wr had, I didnt realize that they were gay for over 10 years.

I think it definitely is dangerous to require this type of explicit declaration if the reason for said declaration is for "believability" because that typically comes across as "how i think people of that sexuality act" which is often problematic and, in my experience, often inaccurate.


Apologies for spelling i am on my phone in an airport.

[Allan Schumacher]

You know me. I just can't help it.

It's actually been one of the best discussions I've ever seen on this topic on BSN. There have been a few issues here and there where miscommunication and misunderstanding has made it a little tense, but cooler heads have always prevailed and the conversation has continued. There have been a lot of really interesting perspectives and the conversation has evolved over the course of a few days. It's been a great experience, to be honest. I wonder what was different this time that led it to not self-destruct? (genuine question, not snarky)

Functioning reporting/moderation tools? >_>

[Allan Schumacher]

9/10 times I hear that phrase it's being used in a sexual context.

When referring to large, muscular horned men who don't wear shirts: 99/100.

A statement like this can still be made by someone who is asexual (and I validate this by virtue of an anecdote of an asexual person that echoes, and empathizes, with Merril's statement).

This is an observer bias. How many asexual people have issues complimenting someone for fear of it being taken as an advance?

[Allan Schumacher]

I don't like the suggestions of making Dragon Age a sexual power fantasy, and suggestions like this do just that. "Make the characters love me no matter who I am". No. I'd rather see fleshed out characters. Characters with their own preferences, their wants, their desires, their sexual tastes, their romantic tastes, not just a bunch of pansexual "Sex EVERYTHING (as long as it's the player!)" people.

 
I don't think this is actually the case.  It's only "make the characters love me no matter who I am" if this, on top of a lot of other things, is what happens.
 
If the love interests have their own characteristics that they consider deal breakers to a romance, then we effectively avoid "Make the characters love me no matter who I am."  Dragon Age 2 DOES have this problem, but it's more about what actions the love interests are willing to tolerate as opposed to whether or no the love interests are available to a particular combination of sex/race/gender.
 
 
 
 

But while yeah, having them be bisexual is good from a technical standpoint since it means you won't be stuck with an unlikeable character (cough cough, Isabela, cough cough), it still feels weird in a story/plot/character sense.

 
Why does it feel weird, though?  Is it because of your own expectations on how frequently something like this should occur, drawing upon your own personal experiences in a game world that is different from our own reality?
 
From there, if we acknowledge that the realities are different, is it actually a problem if sexual orientations are much less of an issue in this reality compared to our own?  If so, why?

While I agree, I can't help but feel like it's just pandering. "Here, welcome to our world of lovey-dovey kindness where you'll be accepted for who you are! Everyone who comes with you will be bisexual and tolerant of you!"

It's a perfect world, but not a real one. It's not a major issue, but if I have all of my companions hitting on me at random intervals in the story, it's going to get irritating. Are we running an adventure party or a sex caravan? Why not have companions like Aveline, who are already romantically involved and turn down the PC? I know bisexual people are no more or less promiscuous than straights or gays, but still, having everyone pronounce themselves bisexual and go for the PC to make the actual player feel accepted just seems weird. Having all characters be gay or all characters be straight wouldn't be good either, but I think there should be a balance. Some characters should just not be into your chosen gender or race.

From a technical standpoint though I totally agree. Having multiple romanceable characters for both genders definitely fixes the issue of "I don't like this character, but he/she is the only one for my chosen gender and sexual preference".

As you point out, not even Dragon Age 2 satisfies the "all my companions hitting on me at random intervals in the story."

It's also important to note that a character is only romanceable if we make it so. It's fundamentally impossible to choose to pursue a romance with any character of your choosing.

[Allan Schumacher]

The Tali/Garrus thing was the most pathetic romance-related thing I've ever saw, it's so utterly out of nowhere between two characters you barely see interacting...but they're togheter cause they're both fan favorite (see ? "cheapening" NPCs is totally irrevelant to so called "playersexuality). That said, it was just an another step on the "bending the characters to appease the fanbase" nonsense Tali and Garrus suffered since ME2.
 
I'm all for romance between companions, if it makes sense; it made for Joker/EDI because they intereact all the time (and Joker was already shipsexual even before ME2), and it would make sense for say Varric and Cassandra, but if they suddently pull

Is it not possible that Tali and Garrus could interact when Shepard isn't around to see it?

You seem to be hoping for a game world of "If I don't see it happen, it didn't happen" which could also be construed as a cheapening of the NPCs.

(On the record as loving the whole encounter with Tali and Garrus, for what it's worth)

[Allan Schumacher]

It's all about immersion.

 

Immersion is, in my opinion, a pretty meaningless word that is overused.  In general people seem to apply it to "I don't like this."  In that, when something "ruins their immersion" it's simply a matter of "they don't like it."  I actually don't know what you're referring to when you say that "it's all about immersion."

 

 

Given that Tali and Garrus' romance was building throughout the game, finding them actually together by the end doesn't strike me as "immersion breaking" unless we're using different definitions of what "immersion" means (and most people do use different definitions).

[Allan Schumacher]

Technically speaking, I do know a few couples that also refer to themselves as friend (typically best friends), so it's possible we read a bit too much into the comment when a single person uses it, even if it's commonly used to indicate the absence of any sort of romantic relationship.

[Allan Schumacher]

No offense taken.  To be honest I'm not actually precisely sure which characters that you're speaking of, and cannot confirm nor deny whether or not the term used was friend.

 

My point was more looking at the term friend, and how it was used (if it was used).

[Allan Schumacher]

I`d have to disagreee that immersion is meaningless - especially when it comes to roleplaying games. Part of an rpg`s job is to fully immerse a player into a fictional world, after all. So when something suddenly pops up in game, that completely goes against the Lore, or common sense, people will dislike it (mostly). So, yes, people will use the immersion argument when they really dislike something related to that. I fully confess being very guilty of "that crime" myself, on many occations.

 

As for this topic. I would wish an equal amount of love interests for gay players, bi players, and straight players. What I wouldn`t like though, is love interests being interested in me n matter what gender I am, simply because I am the player. It feels very off. Still, a "player sexual" feature isn`t immersion breaking untill the second playthrough, so it is not that big a deal either.

 

It's meaningless because it's used for pretty much everything.  And it's so subjective that what ruins one person's immersion may actually enhance another person's immersion that most of the time when people are talking about their immersion being ruined it's not really very clear what they're referring to.

 

For instance, I find it more useful to say "I dislike this because I find <Narrative X> contradicts the lore and is inconsistent with the narrative."  Suggesting at this point, that it also ruins your immersion is mostly redundant.  Now if I'm stating "I feel that <Narrative X> ruins my immersion in the game" then there's a whole host of potential reasons why I may be saying that something is immersion ruining.  Is "Playersexuality" immersion breaking because you think it's unrealistic? You feel it gives too much control to the player?

 

I can understand if someone uses it (I used to use it all the time too) if they're maybe having a hard time quantifying what they're saying or why exactly it feels off, but if that's the case it's still a situation of requiring elaboration.

[Allan Schumacher]

Thanks for the reply, and you do make some fair points. Still, you could use the same argument about every opinon about every single thing in the games, I guess.

 

I disagree.  There's a lot of criticism that is genuinely fair and representative.  I also think people have an aversion to simply saying "I don't really like this" because it lacks some level of gravitas.  In any case, I'm starting to more thoroughly derail the thread, so I'll stop now.

 

 

 

 

I feel like it's exactly what an above user posted; it makes the character feel like a Mary Sue.

 

Read any bad piece of fiction with a male, or female, Mary Sue character. Almost always, a major element is that numerous other characters are romantically interested in that character, often inexplicably. I do still think making all LI- characters capable of being romanced, regardless of gender or race, is a good idea, but I think it should be done realistically, and maybe even have difficulty. Some people may not be open to the same gender, or the opposite gender, or a certain race. That's where you have to earn their affection. It harkens back to Origins, where earning affection was key. But hopefully this time around it'd be done in another way rather than just being a gift conveyor belt.

 

If the issue is simply "make it more challenging to complete the romance" then I'll admit I'm not sure what your concerns are with a post as to whether or not something like "playersexual" (or even all bisexual) romance partners exist.

 

I certainly have no problems with the idea of making the characters more varied as to whether or not they would romance you, or more specifically what it would take to make them interested.

 

That said, there's still a very finite number of people that are interested in romancing the player character, given the amount of people in the game world.  So is the issue more that we aren't given the option to flirt/proposition other characters?  Because this notion of "all the characters are into the player" is not correct.  Most (by far) characters don't express any interest in romancing the character.  Only the ones that have been explicitly written to do so.  So would it be satisfying to you if we simply added more options to flirt with other characters, because then the illusion of "all characters are interested in me" would be shattered?

[Allan Schumacher]

Ultimately this is the problem "playersexual" characters give me in practice -- having the same character(s) always be into "you" reduces variety of successive playthroughs, and makes the boredom settle in quicker. DA:O's gender-based approach was simple, but still allowed it to dodge that particular bullet as it shook things up somewhat, and made DA2 fall (relatively) short in that regard.

If the player only limits themselves to single playthrough then that approach isn't really a problem, though like others mentioned having a handful of characters fall for the player without any effort on her/his part can make the marysue sense tingle. But then I have a feeling that bulk of the players actually like to be put in such spot, and don't view it as a drawback.

 

How so?

 

For example, say there are only 2 characters that are interested in a male PC, and 2 characters that are interested in the female PC.  One is gay, and one is not.  Unless I decide to mix up my sexual orientation/gender, I have *zero* variety in how my (lets go with male) PC gets for romance options.

 

Now if all the romanceable characters are bisexual, my potential options and permutations open up.  Since you can only romance one character in a particular playthrough.

[Allan Schumacher]

I am saying it is quite the stretch that 100 percent of a persons possible romance options, during 10 years, are all of the same sexuality. The odds of that are sky high.

 

It's quite a stretch that there's predefined characters that will be willing to engage in a romance with you, and that that number is immutable and cannot be influenced in any capacity with no other options under any circumstances.  Independent of their sexuality.  I mean, if we *reduce* the number of romances, the issue becomes exacerbated.  There's only one, maybe two people in the whole world that will romance me?!  Forever alone!!!

 

You're describing an issue with creating a video game.

 

 

In a video game, you can only influence the narrative in the ways that you want.  If you're suggesting that having zero non-bisexuals is a stretch, you're making a problematic statement because you're stating that that is "weird" (whether or not you intend to) because it's not only unusual enough for you, but SO unusual that it's actually a talking point.

I am skeptical that you'd have the same reservations if it was 4 exclusively heterosexual characters.  And if you do, then it reinforces it's an issue with the realities of game writing.

[Allan Schumacher]

Closing the thread at this point because I think it's gone off topic enough and trying to reset it back to a particular value would require removing more than a page of threads.

 

 

Feel free to restart the topic if you want, though I'd prefer that people didn't bring the baggage stated in this thread over into that one.