Ce sujet est fermé
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
As you continue to click on multi-quote, the number rises. When you have all the quotes ready to go, click reply to X posts(however many it is) in the thread you want to post them in.
Oh, oh. No, I mean a quote within a quote. So, like, to be able to quote you with my previous quote that YOU had, still inside it.
I don't mind, Cullen is a white dude, his sword shouldn't be that big.
Why does this make me want him even more.....?
Just to play the devil's advocate:
Merrill admired Qunari's physique while Fenris slept with Isabela.
Oh, oh. No, I mean a quote within a quote. So, like, to be able to quote you with my previous quote that YOU had, still inside it.
Not possible as far as I know. Basically kills quote pyramids(thank goodness).
Agreed, but most people on here don't seem to know the difference since many of them are calling Anders "playersexual" and not bisexual.
Here's the problem. I think people are right.
What makes the LIs in these games 'playersexual' is not that they are bisexual OR change their sexual orientation to suit the PC's gender (however you prefer to see it).
It's that they also do not seem to care about the player's race, background, class, age, appearance, etc. Whatever the player is, they are turned on by.
It is interesting, though, that people say the "playersexuality" issue bothers them, but when they then turn to arguing about what about it bothers them most, it is not the lack of having these other preferences, it's just their 'universal' sexual orientation.
Oh I understand! People will say "well, they shouldn't reject me for whatever is in the Character Creator, only for my actions!" Fine, but then that means, "be playersexual" (and not care about those things, even though they should) because "that to me seems fair" ... which oddly is the same argument people are making for the OTHER aspect of playersexuality.
Just to play the devil's advocate:
Merrill admired Qunari's physique while Fenris slept with Isabela.
Agreed, but that just means that they aren't gay. It doesn't mean that they aren't bisexual, though, right?
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Not possible as far as I know. Basically kills quote pyramids(thank goodness).
Yeah I had to do it manually a page ago.
Thanks anyway.
Well. On topic. *beats dead horse again*
Just to play the devil's advocate:
Merrill admired Qunari's physique while Fenris slept with Isabela.
Fenris never slept with her in my pt. 
Why does this make me want him even more.....?
Read the Goldilocks' story.
Fenris never slept with her in my pt.
So everyone but Fenris then? Sounds about right.
*That wasn't serious the only thing I don't like about Isabela is her scary mummy hands*
Well. On topic. *beats dead horse again*
Hah, I left my piece on page 20.
Here's the problem. I think people are right.
What makes the LIs in these games 'playersexual' is not that they are bisexual OR change their sexual orientation to suit the PC's gender (however you prefer to see it).
It's that they also do not seem to care about the player's race, background, class, age, appearance, etc. Whatever the player is, they are turned on by.
It is interesting, though, that people say the "playersexuality" issue bothers them, but when they then turn to arguing about what about it bothers them most, it is not the lack of having these other preferences, it's just their 'universal' sexual orientation.
Oh I understand! People will say "well, they shouldn't reject me for whatever is in the Character Creator, only for my actions!" Fine, but then that means, "be playersexual" (and not care about those things, even though they should) because "that to me seems fair" ... which oddly is the same argument people are making for the OTHER aspect of playersexuality.
Yeah, "playersexuality" really does mean what you mentioned, but the thread has really revolved around the sexual orientation aspect. In fact, the OP only framed it around that as well.
In the the true sense, every DA companion has been playersexual because they don't account for any of the other factors.
Well. On topic. *beats dead horse again*
Isn't that any topic at the moment
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Isn't that any topic at the moment
This one is particularly guilty.
I just want to add that the idea that Fenris, for example, is straight in a playthrough with a female Hawke, but gay in a playthrough with a male Hawke, is not the only way to interpret the approach to the sexualities of the romanceable characters in DA2. Another possible interpretation (and the way I tend to look at it) is that their sexual orientation doesn't change, but we simply see different sides of it depending on the playthrough.
By that I mean that, with the possible exception of Isabela, who is established as bisexual, one could argue that we don't really know how the romanceable characters would describe their sexual orientation – all we know is that they have the potential to be attracted to people of either gender (and in some cases we only know that with metagame knowledge). It's possible that they might think of themselves as bisexual, or pansexual, or gay with some straight tendencies (or the other way around). Or maybe they don't feel any need to label their sexual orientation beyond simply expressing attraction to the people they are attracted to.
In other words, the way I tend to interpret the approach to the sexuality of the potential love interests in DA2 is that they have a sexual identity that isn't determined by the gender of the PC – we simply don't know exactly how they would describe that sexuality. Personally, I'm okay with not knowing.
I just have this feeling that if they ever did what people really claim they wanted, even the people asking them to do this would be disappointed.
All of a sudden playersexuality is gone.
So you now have 4 LIs.
A male dwarf who only likes female dwarves - that are not casteless. And they have to be warriors.
A female elf who is exclusively lesbian AND only wants to be romanced by female elves - that are city elves. And are also rogues.
A female human who only likes male humans who are of noble birth. Oh, and they have to be mages. And, they've got to be bearded and blond (because yes, her scripts will check these CC variables.)
We could keep going. If they drop playersexuality ™ altogether, then this is what you'll get. And I bet people won't like it, even the ones asking for it.
As for the people asking them to get rid of romances altogether, well, whatever, I keep reminding you they're optional. Maybe they waste resources, but you could also make that same argument for dialogue. At the end of the day, I guess we won't really agree on what the central aspects of these games are.
For me, it isn't the combat, at least not solely, although I do think it's an important part, so it should be done right.
Just to play the devil's advocate:
Merrill admired Qunari's physique while Fenris slept with Isabela.
Being able to tell Qunari men are absurdly ripped doesn't mean a woman is interested in men.
In the the true sense, every DA companion has been playersexual because they don't account for any of the other factors.
Yes, D, you are once again a winnah.
The irony is this has been true ever since BG2 and maybe earlier. Playersexuality in most of its other senses has ALWAYS been part of Bioware LIs.
It is true Aerie wouldn't romance you if you were female (*without a mod), but other than that, she didn't care if you were Chaotic Evil, an assassin, an elf, a half-orc, or had a Charisma of 3. Oh, and you could also slaughter every other elf in the game, and she wouldn't bat an eye.
It's just that with recent titles - I would say for the usual mix of noble and base motives - they've tried to be inclusive as to gay/straight/bi now as well.
I just have this feeling that if they ever did what people really claim they wanted, even the people asking them to do this would be disappointed.
All of a sudden playersexuality is gone.
So you now have 4 LIs.
A male dwarf who only likes female dwarves - that are not casteless. And they have to be warriors.
A female elf who is exclusively lesbian AND only wants to be romanced by female elves - that are city elves. And are also rogues.
A female human who only likes male humans who are of noble birth. Oh, and they have to be mages. And, they've got to be bearded and blond (because yes, her scripts will check these CC variables.)
We could keep going. If they drop playersexuality ™ altogether, then this is what you'll get. And I bet people won't like it, even the ones asking for it.
As for the people asking them to get rid of romances altogether, well, whatever, I keep reminding you they're optional. Maybe they waste resources, but you could also make that same argument for dialogue. At the end of the day, I guess we won't really agree on what the central aspects of these games are.
For me, it isn't the combat, at least not solely, although I do think it's an important part, so it should be done right.
I've seen arguments for getting rid of the voiced protagonist, and even the female option so that the [voiced] protagonist only requires the devs to pay one VA. I have no doubt that if you took all of the things different people considered chaff that can be done away with, the game would be little more than a husk of its former self.
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
I just have this feeling that if they ever did what people really claim they wanted, even the people asking them to do this would be disappointed.
All of a sudden playersexuality is gone.
So you now have 4 LIs.
A male dwarf who only likes female dwarves - that are not casteless. And they have to be warriors.
A female elf who is exclusively lesbian AND only wants to be romanced by female elves - that are city elves. And are also rogues.
A female human who only likes male humans who are of noble birth. Oh, and they have to be mages. And, they've got to be bearded and blond (because yes, her scripts will check these CC variables.)
We could keep going. If they drop playersexuality ™ altogether, then this is what you'll get. And I bet people won't like it, even the ones asking for it.
As for the people asking them to get rid of romances altogether, well, whatever, I keep reminding you they're optional. Maybe they waste resources, but you could also make that same argument for dialogue. At the end of the day, I guess we won't really agree on what the central aspects of these games are.
For me, it isn't the combat, at least not solely, although I do think it's an important part, so it should be done right.
Companions selecting based on race would be fairly realistic. However, I'm not convinced that literally all of them would refuse to romance someone of a different race--RL isn't like that either (complete segregation).
So I'm not sure that point holds too much water. And I'd argue that there's something quite a bit more fundamental in what bits someone has, as opposed to what size they are.
Don't get me wrong--I'm not someone who is interested in romancing others not of my race (human, elf, dwarf, otherwise), but I don't think they're equivalent like you say. A male and a female are fundamentally different things, while beings of different sizes who can interbreed aren't so much.
Well, then Kaiser, I'm glad when you get serious, we can also agree on some things, and this is one.
Well that a productive day. I found this thread late last night and had zero hope that it would still be open in the morning, but it was, so I'm hoping to see it survive this night as well.
Maybe, I'll come back tomorrow and discuss some more. Night, y'all.
Guest_Rubios_*
Am I the only one that doesn't really care that much?
I'll gladly role-play a lady inquisitor if the Qun Martin McBeardy demands so.
So you now have 4 LIs.
A male dwarf who only likes female dwarves - that are not casteless. And they have to be warriors.
A female elf who is exclusively lesbian AND only wants to be romanced by female elves - that are city elves. And are also rogues.
A female human who only likes male humans who are of noble birth. Oh, and they have to be mages. And, they've got to be bearded and blond (because yes, her scripts will check these CC variables.)
We could keep going. If they drop playersexuality ™ altogether, then this is what you'll get. And I bet people won't like it, even the ones asking for it.
Yes plz! I don't know how others would react to this, but this would be well within my range of believability. I actually expect some people to be that particular about their potential LI. Well, to a certain extant, anyway; your examples are reaching hyperbolic levels.
And I'd argue that there's something quite a bit more fundamental in what bits someone has, as opposed to what size they are.
People are more than just the bits they have.
Retour en haut