1875 réponses à ce sujet

[daveliam]

How would that be disenfranchising people when the other route is giving everyone an equal number?

 

I think the misunderstanding here is that some people might think that people are choosing the all bisexual route over the 2 straight, 2 bisexual, and 2 gay route.  I don't know if I've seen anyone (well, maybe one or two out of the dozens who have commented today) say this.

 

I think almost everyone in the thread wants the 2/2/2 route.  The all bi option is only thrown out as an alternative to the 2 straight, 2 bi route that would most likely happen if they go back to set sexualities with only 4 LIs.

[Stelae]

The definition of disenfranchise is "to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially :  to deprive of the right to vote."

 

So yeah, someone did decide to make this a rights issue.

 

Yes; it's about the right of LGBTQI people to have as many choices, of the same quality, as straight people. 

 

Equality of romance is the privilege, if you like, or freedom from discrimination is the immunity, which is not being offered equally to them.  

 

It matters. Not to you, maybe, but to many of us it matters. 

[Cainhurst Crow]

I think I'm just going to back out now, before I give another honest opinion and have everyone in the thread trying to literately dog pile my posts and start calling out troll or bigot.

 

Thank god people haven't started calling people bigots here yet. That's the last thing this needs.

[razmatazz]

"quality" aka other companions matter too. We don't have the right to deny someone something just because minority want a trivial thing such as "omg immersion".

 

You are fighting over something insignificant that clearly makes majority of fans happy. I just can't wrap my head around that. Humans are indeed amazing and individualistic. I can NEVER understand people opposing playersexuality.

 

#1 Immersion isn't trivial.  It's one of the most important categories by which a story's quality is judged.

#2  Romances are only intended to be insignificant by BioWare.  This thread alone proves fans consider them otherwise, and maybe BioWare should address this one way or another.

 

If it serves to avoid playersexuality, I would also vote 2:2:2.  I'd be cool with that.

[AresKeith]

"quality" aka other companions matter too. We don't have the right to deny someone something just because minority want a trivial thing such as "omg immersion".

 

You are fighting over something insignificant that clearly makes majority of fans happy. I just can't wrap my head around that. Humans are indeed amazing and individualistic. I can NEVER understand people opposing playersexuality.

 

For the sake of causing an even bigger argument can we avoid using the minority/majority defense 

 

And as for the bolded part, it's people having an personal opinion on what they like best for romance content

[KaiserShep]

To quote Steve Jobs: "It's not a big deal."

[mopotter]

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.

 

Gender is the easiest thing to set.  Thought I'd be happy with other or different restrictions, having to do with character personality.  Looks won't affect their personality, so having Hawks looks change in each game isn't going to change their personality, unless maybe they have an extra hand which might cause emotional problems.

 

I'm not a fan of the rivalry romance options always working. Andres being a romance option for someone who supported mages, or who hates the chantrey would make sense to me.   Pretty much the same with Fenris he should not have fought with my mage at the end.  She represented everything he hated.  Or having a "do gooder" character refusing a character of less noble interest, or vice versa.  Having some who can change their minds is fine but when everyone changes their mind it's a bit boring after 6 or 7 plays.

 

This is my personal take on characters changing in each game I play.  I don't care for it.  I like stability in all my worlds. When I played JE Sky was playersexual.  I found it disconcerting and would have liked a character for my monk who was gay.  I like having some characters say - sorry, your not my type.  I'll play another game where my character is their type.  Bisexual is ok, but I'd rather have gay, lesbian, straight m, straight f and two bi-sexual or player sexual whatever you want. 

[CuriousArtemis]

I think the misunderstanding here is that some people might think that people are choosing the all bisexual route over the 2 straight, 2 bisexual, and 2 gay route.  I don't know if I've seen anyone (well, maybe one or two out of the dozens who have commented today) say this.

 

I think almost everyone in the thread wants the 2/2/2 route.  The all bi option is only thrown out as an alternative to the 2 straight, 2 bi route that would most likely happen if they go back to set sexualities with only 4 LIs.

 

*raises hand* Me I prefer bisexual/playersexual. Mostly because it is a game, so if I want to romance [insert companion] with my PC but the game tells me I have to play a different PC to do it, it's annoying, and I probably will never get around to doing it (see: Alistair romance).

[AresKeith]

But whats really wrong with playing the opposite gender or the opposite orientation? 

[daveliam]

When I played JE Sky was playersexual.  I found it disconcerting and would have liked a character for my monk who was gay.  I like having some characters say - sorry, your not my type.  I'll play another game where my character is their type.  Bisexual is ok, but I'd rather have gay, lesbian, straight m, straight f and two bi-sexual or player sexual whatever you want. 

 

Sky was not playersexual.  He was bisexual.  In fact, they even address that his relationship with the PC was allowing him to explore something that he never did before.  If the character was written that a relationship would the male character would allow him to explore his sexuality, then it would make no sense for him to bring that up to a female PC.  He was married and had a child before.  If he gets into a relationship with a woman, then the trigger for him to start to explore his other attractions wouldn't have ever happened.  It's a nuanced different, but I think it's clear that he was intended as "bicurious" at least.  That doesn't feel playersexual to me.

[WildOrchid]

Alright, let me rephrase that. The kind of playersexuality I am against is the type where other characters get into a relationship with the PC just because they're the PC. Sure, a way to alleviate this is to have every companion be bisexual. I would also like for companions to knock back your character because of their actions. I found the rival romances in DA2 really jarring because they hate your guts but are still together but this is another rant for another time.

 

I agree with you here, i'd like this kind of player sexuality: the companions romancing your PC based on your actions and if they don't like your actions or anything, they'd stop liking you.

[AresKeith]

Sky was not playersexual.  He was bisexual.  In fact, they even address that his relationship with the PC was allowing him to explore something that he never did before.  If the character was written that a relationship would the male character would allow him to explore his sexuality, then it would make no sense for him to bring that up to a female PC.  He was married and had a child before.  If he gets into a relationship with a woman, then the trigger for him to start to explore his other attractions wouldn't have ever happened.  It's a nuanced different, but I think it's clear that he was intended as "bicurious" at least.  That doesn't feel playersexual to me.

 

I agree Sky was bisexual

[daveliam]

But really wrong with playing the opposite gender or the opposite orientation? 

 

Nothing is wrong with it, but some people don't want to and there's no reason that they should have to.  I have almost zero interest in playing as a female character if there are m/m options for me.  I really liked Alistair and wanted to know what his romance was like.  I played it as a female and it just didn't do anything for me because I just can't connect with a straight relationship that way.  It was fine.  It just wasn't enjoyable.  Now, if that same option had existed for a male character, he would have been my favorite LI, I'm sure.  If you are interested in playing as a gay male (assuming you are a straight male), then more power to you.  I could play as a straight male, but just don't enjoy it as much.  I'd rather really enjo y the experience rather than just kind of ho hum and being able to play as a gay male allows me to do that.  Your mileage may vary though.

 

ETA: that all bisexual LI's allows both of us to win.  You can play the opposite sex and orientation if you chose and I don't have to and we can still both romance who we want on our terms.  Seems like a good deal to me.

[Stelae]

But really wrong with playing the opposite gender or the opposite orientation? 

 

On the face of it, nothing. 

 

But why should you have to play a character you don't identify with to romance a companion you are attracted to?

 

Especially when, a lot of the time, you don't have a choice in a game but to play a particular character (usually but not always male, usually but not always straight) it's lovely to be able to exploit the choice to play who you want, as you want. 

[XMissWooX]

I quite liked the 'playersexual' approach. I'd be a bit disappointed if I spent a lot of time and effort making a protagonist whom I really liked, then played through the game and fell in love with one of Bioware's fantastic companions only to be told "sorry, come back when you have a Y chromosome".
The result is 1) continuing that character but being unable to experience the romance or 2) scrapping that character and creating a new one which I may not have the same enthusiasm for.
Or take for example, if you had sunk hours of gameplay into DAO only to find that you had restart the whole thing because that coveted Morrigan romance was female-only.

I can understand the criticisms of 'playersexuality' but I'd argue that removing it insinuates that players have made a 'mistake' in choosing their chosen sex and then forces them to play as a sex they may not even want to, and not everyone has the time or patience for that.

[Mockingword]

I think the misunderstanding here is that some people might think that people are choosing the all bisexual route over the 2 straight, 2 bisexual, and 2 gay route.  I don't know if I've seen anyone (well, maybe one or two out of the dozens who have commented today) say this.

 

I think almost everyone in the thread wants the 2/2/2 route.  The all bi option is only thrown out as an alternative to the 2 straight, 2 bi route that would most likely happen if they go back to set sexualities with only 4 LIs.

Actually, I'm choosing the "all bisexual" route over any other alternative.

 

I think all potential sexual partners should be available to protagonists of either gender, whether there's four or forty.

 

If it's so important to see specifically 'gay' characters, they can be non-romanceable NPCs and party members who are already in happy relationships.

[Mockingword]

But whats really wrong with playing the opposite gender or the opposite orientation? 

Every other game on the freaking planet already requires me to play a character of the opposite orientation.

[Mockingword]

(No George Costanza this time, sorry.)

Hate to be THAT guy but I personally am against playersexuality because it seems like cheap pandering to please everybody.

Hahahahaha

 

As opposed to pandering cheaply to straight men only, like all the other games.

[AresKeith]

Hahahahaha

 

As opposed to pandering cheaply to straight men only, like all the other games.

 

He never said they should

[CuriousArtemis]

But whats really wrong with playing the opposite gender or the opposite orientation? 

 

Nothing empirically wrong with it; I just don't like doing it. Also I prefer to play gay romances (f/f as well as m/m); I don't enjoy playing straight romances and tbh I've yet to play a video game straight romance when given the chance to be gay. 

 

I won't go into why because it is personal, but, the point is, it is a video game, and that's how I like to play it! And I also don't feel that bisexuality cheapens or in-authenticates a character's personality. B/c I don't associate sexuality with personality. I know lots of gay, bi, as well as straight people IRL. All seem pretty "authentic" to me.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Nothing empirically wrong with it; I just don't like doing it. Also I prefer to play gay romances (f/f as well as m/m); I don't enjoy playing straight romances and tbh I've yet to play a video game straight romance when given the chance to be gay. 

 

I won't go into why because it is personal, but, the point is, it is a video game, and that's how I like to play it! And I also don't feel that bisexuality cheapens or in-authenticates a character's personality. B/c I don't associate sexuality with personality. I know lots of gay, bi, as well as straight people IRL. All seem pretty "authentic" to me.

 

For some of the characters it doesn't, what cheapens the experience, at least to me, is making everyone the same. Differences should be celebrated in my humble opinion, and to me that's best expressed by presenting a wider diversity.

[daveliam]

For some of the characters it doesn't, what cheapens the experience, at least to me, is making everyone the same. Differences should be celebrated in my humble opinion, and to me that's best expressed by presenting a wider diversity.

 

How were Anders, Fenris, Isabela, and Merrrill the same?  Seriously, how did them all being bisexual make them the same outside of the fact that they were all bisexual?  I'm not sure I'm following your line of reasoning.

[CuriousArtemis]

How were Anders, Fenris, Isabela, and Merrrill the same?  Seriously, how did them all being bisexual make them the same outside of the fact that they were all bisexual?  I'm not sure I'm following your line of reasoning.

 

Yeah that's what gets me. If I were hanging out with four bi friends I don't think I'd get confused about who's who. 

[Mockingword]

He never said they should

You just don't freaking get it, do you.

 

Dragon Age 2 gets **** for "pandering" because it has four characters out of the entire game that can be romanced by anyone.

 

Mass Effect 3 meanwhile has seven female characters that are sexually available to men, four of which are completely exclusive to men. Plus an entire species of mono-gendered, blue-skinned aliens who "just happen" to possess the sexual characteristics of human females. Oh, and by the way, this species encourages its youth to go out and work as strippers, which in this universe is apparently not dangerous or degrading work at all.

 

Who's giving Mass Effect 3 **** for "pandering" to men? Virtually nobody.

 

But any time Dragon Age 2 gets mentioned, Straighty McMasculine descends from on high to accuse it of "pandering" to the LGBT demographic, and acts like he's doing gay folks a ****** favour by telling us not to play it.

 

Well he's not.

[mopotter]

Fenris: MAGES MAGES MAGES MAGES MAGES, oh by the way I was a slave, MAGES MAGES MAGES.

Anders: TEMPLARS TEMPLARS TEMPLARS, by the way I don't like templars, TEMPLARS TEMPLARS TEMPLARS.

Oghren: Hey where all da white ale at!? I gotta make some rude jokes while being an irresponsible drunk! Heh Heh Fart.


I do admit, they all got their moments of awesomeness from time to time. But god damn can they get annoying fast.

Oghren - was not a character I liked.  I'm not sure if that means he wasn't well written, or if he was written so well I didn't like him.  Didn't take him with me but I have issues with drunks.  

 

Anders and Fenris I did like them, though having both of them do the extreme emotional outburst was a bit much, then again, I sometimes felt like everyone in DA2 was having extreme emotional problems.

 

I know there were people who didn't like Wynn but i related to her more than the others and enjoyed our conversations..