1875 réponses à ce sujet

[spirosz]

Only reason I point out male is because I usually roleplay males.  I know it happens for both genders. 

[CybAnt1]

Most of the multiple threads on this topic got locked by around p. 13. Congrats to this one actually making it this long. 

 

You know, I have one observation to add. It's interesting that people frequently demand that the companions show some independence from the PC, because it makes them seem or feel more authentic. 

 

Yet, in threads that ask - for example - for companions to possibly leave or confront the PC, because they deeply disagree with his actions or have over time lost loyalty/friendship, there are rarely few supporters, and the threads rarely go on for 27 pages. 

 

Most of the time this argument focuses over the romance options, yet also, as I've noted several times in these threads, it's extremely rare for people to ask that PCs show preferences for certain races (dwarves for dwarves, etc.), classes (Isabela for rogues etc.), personalities, or backgrounds (perhaps some will avoid commoners but will consider nobles "eligible"). (BTW, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, it did happen in this thread, but it's rare.) 

 

The argument over so-called playersexuality always seems to hinge and focus on sexual orientation, gender, and worst of all, that some companions actually show initiative toward the PC, especially if it's male toward male. No one ever seems to complain if that happens female-to-female.

 

Our society has a lot of hangups. I do agree Thedas is both unlike our present-day society and really unlike medieval-Earth society, but when it comes to this, it strikes me as a good thing. 

[Battlebloodmage]

This really is beating a dead horse, and at this point I've resigned myself to just accepting whatever Bioware decides (which everything I've seen they say on the subject leads me to believe it will be play-sexual), but here's my 2 cents:

 

I prefer the have predetermined sexualities, a la DA:O. I see it like this: At character creation, you pick 3 things - class, race, and gender. And I personally feel like the game is better when all those choices have meaning.

 

Looking at DA:O, depending what class you chose, the beginning of the game was different. If you were human, you could become king/queen at the end. Is that unfair to players who choose to be elf or dwarf? I was rather bummed my elf couldn't marry Alistair and be queen, but I feel there was some more emotional value to the story that not being able to do that also gave me.

 

If you choose to be mage, you can go into the Fade to confront Conner's demon yourself. Warriors and Rogues have to play as a mage party member at that point. Rogues can talk themselves out of fights that it's a lot harder to mages to be able to do.

 

And lastly, in DA:O, if you're female, you can't romance Morrigan. You can't be a parent to an old god baby. And male characters can't romance Alistair, but can father and old god baby.

 

 

From everything I can tell, players want more and more things is the game to be affected by your choice of class and race - people were annoyed that meing a mage in DA2 was basically no different than a warrior or rogue when it came to the story. So, if it's ok for those 2 things to allow/prohibit you you do things, why shouldn't gender as well?

 

My guess is because players want options, and since most Bioware games only have 4 love interests, it's unfair to go the DA:O route and have 2 straight and 2 bi. And romance isn't supposed to be a big enough part of the game/its to expensive to have tack on an extra 2 strictly gay romances. But I would honestly be fine with just having 2 straight and 2 gay romances. But I guess not everyone wants to sacrifice options like I do.

I would be fine with any of these combinations:

2 gay, 2 straight

All bi

Preferably 2 gay, 2 straight, 2 bi.

[Battlebloodmage]

Only reason I point out male is because I usually roleplay males.  I know it happens for both genders. 

I know, like I said, I'm not talking about you, if you're not one of those people then you're not one of those people. I'm just talking about in general, a lot of people said they dislike playersexual, but what they actual dislike is being hit on by a male character. As I said before though, the issue of playersexual can happen in every game, those games get a pass usually because all the LIs are females. 

[spirosz]

Yeah, I prefer the 2-2-2 or 1-1-1, whatever works for the story at hand. 

[CybAnt1]

I know, like I said, I'm not talking about you, if you're not one of those people then you're not one of those people. I'm just talking about in general, a lot of people said they dislike playersexual, but what they actual dislike is being hit on by a male character. As I said before though, the issue of playersexual can happen in every game, those games get a pass usually because all the LIs are females. 

 

Ding ding ding ding, we have a winnah. Oh, and those people need to get over that hangup. 

 

It can be handled in the game the same way it is in real life: indicate lack of interest, they leave you alone. 

[General TSAR]

Do. Not. Want.

[razmatazz]

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?

 

You know what's really affected?  My perception of that character.  In a story (like DA) that presumably intends for me to take it's characters seriously, see them as real people, I expect the characters to be presented in a way that doesn't make them, even a part of them, feel contrived.  If this can't be done by presenting parts of their personality/character traits/whatevahyawannacallit as natural, then I'd be perfectly fine if those traits were simply glossed over.  At least then those traits aren't actively engaging my attention and shaping my perception of the character.

 

Unfortunately, DA2 fails to do that.  Realistically, whether someone has romantic feelings for you is in no small part influenced by that someone's sexuality (see Ianamus's response to your later post for elaboration), and by being presented as LIs, those characters' sexuality is brought to the fore.  And instead of that trait being presented as a natural part of those characters, I get a soulless gameplay mechanic.  It doesn't get any more contrived than that, and, as a result, my perception of the characters as real people takes a major hit.  I would also say that it's not really treating those characters with the respect I think they deserve.

[sandalisthemaker]

The only difference is Bioware has male LIs in it. Other games with romance often have female characters throwing themselves at you. I'm not talking about you per say, but a lot of people dislike Playersexual has to do with them not waiting to be hit on by a male character. I notice the pattern of when people talking about Playersexual, most of them times, they referred to the males, and threads with gay discussion in it constantly have people in there talking about playersexual while the same thing doesn't happen with female/female romance. 

 

Agreed.

 

Ha. Seriously. Anders flirts with the male PC once and people are up in arms. If I had to put up with Isabela flirting with, winking at, and propositioning my character multiple times, all of which were unbidden mind you, then I think people should be able to handle a male companion flirting with them once.  

[sandalisthemaker]

You know what's really affected?  My perception of that character.  In a story (like DA) that presumably intends for me to take it's characters seriously, see them as real people, I expect the characters to be presented in a way that doesn't make them, even a part of them, feel contrived.  If this can't be done by presenting parts of their personality/character traits/whatevahyawannacallit as natural, then I'd be perfectly fine if those traits were simply glossed over.  At least then those traits aren't actively engaging my attention and shaping my perception of the character.

 

Unfortunately, DA2 fails to do that.  Realistically, whether someone has romantic feelings for you is in no small part influenced by that someone's sexuality (see Ianamus's response to your later post for elaboration), and by being presented as LIs, those characters' sexuality is brought to the fore.  And instead of that trait being presented as a natural part of those characters, I get a soulless gameplay mechanic.  It doesn't get any more contrived than that, and my perception of the characters as real people takes a major hit.  I would also say that it's not really treating those characters with the respect I think they deserve.

 

Is it any more realistic/natural for a character with a fixed sexuality to want to romance your PC regardless of the way your character looks or behaves? Whether your PC is good or evil etc? The entirety of the romances are still a game mechanic regardless. You are just choosing to fixate on sexuality. People don't always fit into neat little boxes IRL, so if they don't in video games, it isn't really much of a stretch.

[razmatazz]

As an aside, while I can't speak for anyone outside of this thread, I don't recall any of us in this thread who are against playersexuality expressing, or even hinting, homophobia or similar sentiment.  I hope none of you are dismissing our arguments based on that.

[Ianamus]

True "Playersexuality" has nothing to do with male LI's flirting with the PC, which could also happen if the LI's were all bisexual. I don't even believe that DA2's LI's count as "playersexual" and are in fact all bisexual. The concept of "playersexuality" is that a companions sexual orientation changes depending on the gender of the player character, and it is that concept that I do not agree with. 

[razmatazz]

Is it any more realistic/natural for a character with a fixed sexuality to want to romance your PC regardless of the way your character looks or behaves? Whether your PC is good or evil etc? The entirety of the romances are still a game mechanic regardless. You are just choosing to fixate on sexuality. People don't always fit into neat little boxes IRL, so if they don't in video games, it isn't really much of a stretch.

 

Uh, the very title of the thread is "Playersexual Characters."  How does that not serve to focus the entire discussion on sexuality?  But fine, I don't entirely disagree with your point.  And, yes, I think characters should have consistent stances on as many of those matters as possible, as well.

 

True "Playersexuality" has nothing to do with male LI's flirting with the PC, which could also happen if the LI's were all bisexual. I don't even believe that DA2's LI's count as "playersexual" and are in fact all bisexual. The concept of "playersexuality" is that a companions sexual orientation changes depending on the gender of the player character, and it is that concept that I do not agree with. 

 

Not my perception, unfortunately.  Then again, somehow running into that many Bi characters (and that many Bi LIs, in particular) doesn't strike me as much more believable than playersexual from a story viewpoint, if'n ya ask me.

[Cainhurst Crow]

I think anders just should have been gay, much like cortez was in mass effect 3. I'd have liked it more if he was that when mainly because I played a guy the first time around, and having him do that was unexpected but funny, and helped me feel a little for the guy and why this affected him so much, while also having to let him down slowly that I wasn't into him, or guys, in general. It was a fun roleplaying experience.

Then I roleplayed a girl and had the same thing happened, and I lost most of my respect for him after that.

[oceanicsurvivor]

You know what's really affected?  My perception of that character.  In a story (like DA) that presumably intends for me to take it's characters seriously, see them as real people, I expect the characters to be presented in a way that doesn't make them, even a part of them, feel contrived.  If this can't be done by presenting parts of their personality/character traits/whatevahyawannacallit as natural, then I'd be perfectly fine if those traits were simply glossed over.  At least then those traits aren't actively engaging my attention and shaping my perception of the character.

 

I don't understand how this makes characters feel less authentic when you literally get to dictate how characters dress, what weapons they use, when and how they attack, and with what weapon they attack with.

 

If we really want to argue about this then how a character dresses is a HUGE part of character and personality. How they fight in combat also, huge, because of the background the character supposedly has and their combat training. Why can Leliana pick up daggers and be just as skilled as she is with a bow?  These are all game play mechanics in the end, but it doesn't cheapen the person. Using this logic, it seems like these limitations would also cheapen the characters. And maybe you are making that argument, but most people arguing in this vein aren't. (And are in fact very much against anyone limiting their ability to micromanage their companions.) So, why is removing characters autonomy perfectly fine when it comes to whether or not a character even wears clothes into combat etc but absolutely dreadful when it comes to about 10 minutes of content for romances?

[daveliam]

Yeah my elf magic user was just talking to his dwarf friend about how unrealistic it is to see four bisexual people together at the same time but they got interrupted by an undead dragon leading an army of darkspawn and demons.........

 

There is no evidence that Thedas has the same demographics on sexuality as Earth does.  In fact, the evidence suggests otherwise.  And I'm fine with that being as it's a fantasy game, after all.....

[Ianamus]

 

 

Not my perception, unfortunately.  Then again, somehow running into nothing but Bi LI's doesn't seem much more believable to me than playersexual from a story viewpoint, if'n ya ask me.

 

I think that equality in terms of number of choices is more important than anything when it comes to LI's so while I hate "playersexuality" all-bisexual is fine by me. My only real issue with the all-bisexual approach is that it seems to have somewhat stagnated the cast so far, resulting in a large number of bisexual characters in the Dragon Age games yet practically no homosexual ones, companion or NPC. 

[daveliam]

I think anders just should have been gay, much like cortez was in mass effect 3. I'd have liked it more if he was that when mainly because I played a guy the first time around, and having him do that was unexpected but funny, and helped me feel a little for the guy and why this affected him so much, while also having to let him down slowly that I wasn't into him, or guys, in general. It was a fun roleplaying experience.

Then I roleplayed a girl and had the same thing happened, and I lost most of my respect for him after that.

Two things:

 

1.)  He was a pre-existing character.  He didn't just show up in DA 2 for the first time, so it was already established that he was not gay.

 

and

 

2.)  Are you seriously arguing that you lost respect for him because he's bisexual? 

[CybAnt1]

How does that not serve to focus the entire discussion on sexuality?  

 

 

Sexual orientation (on the basis of gender preference) is only one component of sexuality. 

 

People may be sexually attracted to blondes, but not brunettes (as one possible example). 

 

They may be attracted to taller people, but not to shorter people. 

 

Then there's fetishes, but we won't go there. 

 

I guess my point would be what is usually thought of sexual orientation is only one component of sexuality and what does and does not "turn people on" or "off". 

 

Also, BTW, sometimes people are more sexually attracted to younger people, rather than older people. (See discussions of baldness, a condition that often results from age.)

 

Those kinds of preferences could show up too - if we're really going to be insistent on -- well, for lack of a better term, "sexual realism". 

[sandalisthemaker]

I don't understand how this makes characters feel less authentic when you literally get to dictate how characters dress, what weapons they use, when and how they attack, and with what weapon they attack with.

 

If we really want to argue about this then how a character dresses is a HUGE part of character and personality. How they fight in combat also, huge, because of the background the character supposedly has and their combat training. Why can one Leliana pic up daggers and be just as skilled as she is with a bow?  These are all game play mechanics in the end, but it doesn't cheapen the person. Using this logic it seems like these limitations would also cheapen the characters. And maybe you are making that argument, but most people arguing in this vein aren't. And are in fact very much against anyone limiting their ability to micromanage their companions. So, why is removing characters autonomy ok in some cases but absolutely dreadful when it comes to about 10 minutes of content for romances?

 

So true.

 

The way a person dresses is tied to their personality. Sexuality isn't.

[mopotter]

Oh man, if this happens, i can see many people screaming even more than before. Hell, some of them already think playersexuality is bisexuality.

I'd like the 2/2/2 ratio as well if playersexuality is out of question. As long as i get fair romances too. I've been traumatized enough by Mass Effect as it is.

 

 

 

*I only hope i can romance this fine warrior lady named Cassandra, with my ladyInquisitor.

 Personally, I just don't care for the playersexuality idea, but if they do it I'll just play it my way and ignore s/s options.  But the 2/2/2 ratio would work for me just fine, I'd play all 6 in one game or another.    I can't say they have ever done a LI character I hated, though there have been some I liked less than others.  

 

LI or not, I think/hope Cassandra will be  interesting to know. OK, hope all of the group will be interesting to know, and really hope thee is a friend option for the non LI. 

[daveliam]

I don't understand how this makes characters feel less authentic when you literally get to dictate how characters dress, what weapons they use, when and how they attack, and with what weapon they attack with.

 

If we really want to argue about this then how a character dresses is a HUGE part of character and personality. How they fight in combat also, huge, because of the background the character supposedly has and their combat training. Why can one Leliana pic up daggers and be just as skilled as she is with a bow?  These are all game play mechanics in the end, but it doesn't cheapen the person. Using this logic, it seems like these limitations would also cheapen the characters. And maybe you are making that argument, but most people arguing in this vein aren't. (And are in fact very much against anyone limiting their ability to micromanage their companions.) So, why is removing characters autonomy ok in some cases but absolutely dreadful when it comes to about 10 minutes of content for romances?

 

Yeah, most people are thrilled that they can spec their companions as they see fit and change their armor.  They are also fine with "hardening" a character like Alistair or Leliana through dialogue options.  But some of these same people just can't seem to get over the fact that a character can romance both a male and female character. 

 

Keep in mind that what we are really talking about is bisexuality, not playersexuality because Isabela and Anders are both confirmed as bisexual.  They are definitively not "playersexual".  Unless the entire argument is about Fenris and Merrill?

[Cainhurst Crow]

I wish companions had a gague, hidden from the player of course, that had companions fall for you based on your CC choices, and on the playstyle and dialogue options you pick. That way only characters who actually liked you for what you do would be open to romances and characters who weren't into you would reject your advances. Also your advances could be rejected or approved of by the companions as well. Neither game had a system I felt actually worked, origins because of tying their romance gague into the friendship gague(I would consider being romantically attracted to someone different from being attracted to them as a friend/buddy), thus baring you from some non-romance involving missions that didn't make sense(Really sten? We just got back from lake calenhad and you only decided to tell me about your sword after I gave you that painting? Seriously?) given the actually story playing out.

Dragon age 2 had it a bit better but also in ways messed up even more, by having you basically be able to romance people who had every insentive not only to not sleep with you, but absolutely hated you,which was a major WTF moment for me personally. Anyway, mass effect, ironically, had it almost down, when companion content and romance content are handled separately, and you can still do companion centric quests if they aren't attracted to you or freindly with you. But still fails in the romances being far too easy to pull off without any sort of hitches, especially considering how off the walll the romances could be.

I'm hoping DAI will fair better.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Two things:
 
1.)  He was a pre-existing character.  He didn't just show up in DA 2 for the first time, so it was already established that he was not gay.
 
and
 
2.)  Are you seriously arguing that you lost respect for him because he's bisexual?

More because he throws karl under the rug, in my eyes, by not bringing up the relationship he had with the guy when you romance him as a girl. I don't respect people who could throw away love so easily and pretend it never existed.

More to the point though, that raises a bigger question. Unless anders was bisexual in awakening, which I can't remember if he was or not, then him becoming bisexual in dragon age 2 is just as big a WTF moment as him becoming gay in DA2. Though bioware does have precedent for making this a trend with how they handled alenko in mass effect 3. I guess bisexuality is just that thing that suddenly happens cause reasons, rather then something you were and shouldn't have needed to hide.