Ce sujet est fermé
Hardly. That's just the writers being lazily heteronormative.
Ehhhh... I'm not sure. Between the homosexual couple in one of the books, Celene and her handmaiden in The Masked empire and Maevaris they seem to be really good at it when it comes to the side-content. I just don't see why they can't be as diverse when writing the characters in the actual games.
"That is on your interpretation of the character." -- exactly. I just cannot feel good about the freedom I've been given to erase, rewrite, headcanon, or alter a character's sexuality.
Then don't do it. If you don't headcanon the character's sexuality, then you simply don't know the character's sexuality. But then you haven't changed it. If that's better, play it that way?
If you don't want to have that level of control, then don't claim that level of control. Refuse it, and don't decide.
You're inventing this problem for yourself.
Well, it seems as if this thread is self-destructing. We had a good run, y'all. Anyone who wants to continue the conversation in PM, can feel free to do so with me, but now that people are being overly aggressive and insulting and condescending with each other, I'm bowing out for good.
(or at least that's what I'm saying to myself right now.....)
You know, they could even have non-romanceable party members who are gay. In the past they were always straight or old or literal monsters. But they could be gay. Or gay monsters.
There could even be a loyalty quest where you help them sort out their relationship, like we did with Aveline.
Ehhhh... I'm not sure. Between the homosexual couple in one of the books, Celene and her handmaiden in The Masked empire and Maevaris they seem to be really good at it when it comes to the side-content. I just don't see why they can't be as diverse when writing the characters in the actual games.
Which book was this?
As would I. If nothing else, it'd winnow out the people like you from the people against bisexuality who just don't want anything gay around.
Thank you, Xil. 
I'm surprised you were ever even in it, given how obviously disinterested you've always been in seeing minorities get decent representation.
This is unfair and silly, given that AK has always argued in favor of 2:2:2 for romances.
And is black in real life.
I'm just going to go out on a limb here and suggest that posters not do that thing to other forumites that we accuse others of doing to companions in game: assume that you know everything about them simply because they didn't offer up a lot of information.
Some of us may be straight and have very specific and personal reasons for caring about what happens to the gay community and whether everyone gets positive representation.
Some of us may even be gay and not agree that player-sexual is the best way to go.
Everyone just listen and explain your position as respectfully as you can. Maybe if we put our fingers down, we can all learn something here.
Which book was this?
Two male characters in The Calling I believe, though I've never read it myself.
Because I like walking into a lions' den (which is totally different from trolling - honest!)...
Why do you guys think established bisexuality (a la Isabela and Leliana) is preferable to 'playersexuality' (a la Fenris and Merrill) exactly?
Just curious...
For one thing it makes it easier to delve into the character's past. Such as Leliana's relationship with Marjolaine
I'm curious, would the people who want romances to be gated by gender also want characters to have other preferences? Like for example, if Anders could only be romanced by another mage. Or if Isabela could only be romanced by a Hawke with a sarcastic personality. Or maybe if Fenris could only be romanced by another elf. I mean I think having restrictions like that would also make the romances more realistic. I guess I'm just wondering why the line is drawn at gender.
I'm also confused as to why people feel like every characters sexuality needs to be clearly defined. You can have a romance without ever truly knowing how they identify, and you certainly don't have any RIGHT to know how they identify. All you need to know is that they like you. I mean hell we can romance Anders and we never even get to find out his real name. I'm all for having characters that do openly express their sexual orientation, but they don't necessarily have to just be the romanceable ones.
And I don't agree that it cheapens the character because it can change on playthrough. You can change Alistair's and Leliana's personalities in Origins. Most characters can be dead or alive. Hawke's family changes their appearance based on Hawke's appearance. These things don't contradict each other because they are basically alternate universes. There's definitely an argument to be made about exactly how much should be changeable, but in this case I don't see how sexuality is dramatically going to alter a character. I think it's important to remember that characters in a game are put there for us to interact with and if you're going to allow romances then you shouldn't put more restrictions on one group of people than another. So I'm not against playersexual, but I have no problem with all bisexual or an even split either. I just think the most important thing is to have equal options.
Then don't do it. If you don't headcanon the character's sexuality, then you simply don't know the character's sexuality. But then you haven't changed it. If that's better, play it that way?
If you don't want to have that level of control, then don't claim that level of control. Refuse it, and don't decide.
You're inventing this problem for yourself.
You're not wrong -- I could choose not to participate in the romances, which is ultimately what I found myself most comfortable doing.
But I'm still convinced there is a better way.
I'm curious, would the people who want romances to be gated by gender also want characters to have other preferences? Like for example, if Anders could only be romanced by another mage. Or if Isabela could only be romanced by a Hawke with a sarcastic personality. Or maybe if Fenris could only be romanced by another elf. I mean I think having restrictions like that would also make the romances more realistic. I guess I'm just wondering why the line is drawn at gender.
I would like to see that, pretty sure I won't though. Though the new Qunari class has potential.
^That'd probably require a lot of work though.
I'm curious, would the people who want romances to be gated by gender also want characters to have other preferences? Like for example, if Anders could only be romanced by another mage. Or if Isabela could only be romanced by a Hawke with a sarcastic personality. Or maybe if Fenris could only be romanced by another elf. I mean I think having restrictions like that would also make the romances more realistic. I guess I'm just wondering why the line is drawn at gender.
I'd absolutely love that.
I'm mixed on the idea of limiting romances by race or class. It's something that I would like to see, but only if we had more LI's. With only four it might just be too limiting.
^That'd probably require a lot of work though.
I'm mixed on the idea of limiting romances by race. It's something that I would like to see, but only if we had more LI's. With only four it might just be too limiting.
Alright, I have to tag back in after swearing off the thread (it's like caffeine in that way.....)
Do you not see how limiting romances by race (4 races, 4 LIs) is literally equally limiting as by sexuality/gender (4 combinations [excluding bisexual because they get access to all regardless], 4 LIs)? It's exactly as limiting, but you are in favor of one but not the other.
Could it be (and I genuinely am not being antagonist when asking this), that you feel more strongly about race because it would potentially limit you more than gender/sexuality? And, if so, do you see how I could feel as equally strongly about limitations based on gender/sexuality given the historic precedent of my "combination" (gay male) being on the short end of the stick?
You're not wrong -- I could choose not to participate in the romances, which is ultimately what I found myself most comfortable doing.
But I'm still convinced there is a better way.
You could still participate in the romances. Just don't headcanon their sexuality.
Alright, I have to tag back in after swearing off the thread (it's like caffeine in that way.....)
Do you not see how limiting romances by race (4 races, 4 LIs) is literally equally limiting as by sexuality/gender (4 combinations [excluding bisexual because they get access to all regardless], 4 LIs)? It's exactly as limiting, but you are in favor of one but not the other.
Could it be (and I genuinely am not be antagonist when asking this), that you feel more strongly about race because it would potentially limit you more than gender/sexuality? And, if so, do you see how I could feel as equally strongly about limitations based on gender/sexuality given the historic precedent of my "combination" (gay male) being on the short end of the stick?
I see where you are coming from. I do often feel a bit guilty that I argue a lot in threads about LI sexuality despite technically having access to double the LI options of most people.
That said, while I find faults with the all-bisexual and particularly the "playersexual" approaches, and have argued against them at length in this thread, I have always tried to make it clear that I believe choice always come first. All bisexual is better than 2 bisexual 2 straight or similar combinations in my eyes, but this does not mean that it isn't flawed in its own way or that the arguments against it should not be made, for debates sake if nothing else.
I also do not actually feel more strongly about race limitations. Race limitations would be more acceptable than gender limitations in my opinion, and if a Qunari is limited to one LI, for example I wouldn't be too upset.
I see where you are coming from. I do often feel a bit guilty that I argue a lot in threads about LI sexuality despite technically having access to double the LI options of most people.
That said, while I find faults with the all-bisexual and particularly the "playersexual" approaches, and have argued against them at length in this thread, I have always tried to make it clear that I believe choice always come first. All bisexual is better than 2 bisexual 2 straight or similar combinations in my eyes, but this does not mean that it isn't flawed in its own way or that the arguments against it should not be made, for debates sake if nothing else.
I also don't feel more strongly about race limitations. Race limitations would actually be more acceptable than gender limitations in my opinion, and if a Qunari is limited to one LI, for example I wouldn't be too upset.
Well, I might play a Vashoth, and I would be upset by that.
Well, I might play a Vashoth, and I would be upset by that.
I would be a bit miffed, but it would not bother me as much as if they went back to Origins system. I do really hope they use the 6 LI setup, however unlikely it is.
I see where you are coming from. I do often feel a bit guilty that I argue a lot in threads about LI sexuality despite technically having access to double the LI options of most people.
That said, while I find faults with the all-bisexual and particularly the "playersexual" approaches, and have argued against them at length in this thread, I have always tried to make it clear that I believe choice always come first. All bisexual is better than 2 bisexual 2 straight or similar combinations in my eyes, but this does not mean that it isn't flawed in its own way or that the arguments against it should not be made, for debates sake if nothing else.
I also do not actually feel more strongly about race limitations. Race limitations would be more acceptable than gender limitations in my opinion, and if a Qunari is limited to one LI, for example I wouldn't be too upset.
I'm going to take this to PM because I would love to discuss it further with you, but I don't want to fill up the thread with a conversation.
I don't really care about this as long as we get some better quality then dragon age 2. I'd like more situations like aveline or varric, where we can't romance them because they just aren't into us personally. And the romances we can enter should feel more unique and responsive, as in if you're a guy or a girl, the romance will play out way differently for either as it would in real life. Men, and women, have different goals and different things they look for when hooking up, and trying to say they work the same doesn't do that justice.
Of course the ultimate dream is to move away from the romance formula all together of "Talking, Talking, Sentence, Near End Game, Have Sex, No more content for you."
I...find that idea rather troubling really...Men and women have different goals? I mean...maybe? If a straight femhawke wants to romance Fenris or Anders I don't want a conversation forced on her that discusses the idea of them starting a family and how she will need to quit adventuring so she can baby proof the mansion and take knitting lessons or anything that goes along with stereotypical gender roles.
I was upset enough playing as femhawke when Leandra kept mentioning that she needed to find me a husband, ya know, right after Hawke nuzzled faces with Isabela. Having romances play out differently based on gender is ...pretty delicate territory, because unless it was some wildly branching option where the LI is like 'what do you want for the future' and you can choose from a zillion different responses, it seems like it would degrade into gender specific stereotyping very quickly and that would be highly upsetting. Now, how it sounds like they brought the idea of a family with MHawke/Merrill worked ok it sounds like, but it seems like that discussion was more contextualizing how torn she was over being Dalish and being in love with a human. But I could be wrong since I never played that pairing myself.
Retour en haut