1875 réponses à ce sujet

[syllogi]

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 for certain 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.

 

This is how I see it.  I wouldn't question someone who has never been in a romantic relationship if they tell me that they're straight or gay, so if someone doesn't tell me their sexual orientation, I don't want to make assumptions.  In game terms, if I don't know exactly how Fenris or Merrill identify in terms of their sexuality, it doesn't mean that I control their characters, I'm just seeing a facet of their orientation that is relevant to my current character...*if* it is indeed relevant.  Sometimes people just don't tell people that sort of thing unless they're interested in a relationship, or they feel close enough to talk about past relationships.  In Fenris and Merrill's cases, I don't think there are any past relationships to talk about, so it's not crazy to suppose that they just don't talk about whom they find attractive.

[Cainhurst Crow]

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. 

 

Can I kickstart this? Maybe crowd source it?

 

All joking aside, something like that where the companions express a viewpoint and hold to it when it concerns their own person would be welcome. Maybe the romances could be more difficult to pull off, require more work and such, but to be honest something like this where the companions fully become their own characters without opinions directly tied to the main character are what I would consider an ideal system, albeit an unrealistic and unlikely one.

 

Also someone give dave a medal. 43 pages is a new record for this kind of thread, I believe.

[CybAnt1]

Who said any different? I said, "there's something more fundamental in the bits you have as opposed to what size you are."

 

OK, but to repeat something that comes up in these threads a dozen times, we don't know the etiology of sexual orientation, so the bottom line is there are X number of people in the real world who are bisexual, which means they like both sets of bits. We may not know why; but they exist - yes? 

 

I'm not saying it's not fundamental for many - you might want to read Kinsey's studies on sexuality - it's just that for some it's not. 

 

Not off topic: our closest biological relatives are bonobo chimps, and they show a high level of bisexuality. 

http://news.national..._gayanimal.html

 

Homosexuality and bisexuality are found throughout the animal world, therefore (IMHO) there's nothing unnatural about their existence in humans. 

 

And so what many appear not to be getting is this could not only be true in an alternative world/universe, perhaps things are also different because, socially speaking, that alternative world/universe doesn't react to these inclinations in people as negatively as our own. 

[CybAnt1]

All joking aside, something like that where the companions express a viewpoint and hold to it when it concerns their own person would be welcome. Maybe the romances could be more difficult to pull off, require more work and such, but to be honest something like this where the companions fully become their own characters without opinions directly tied to the main character are what I would consider an ideal system, albeit an unrealistic and unlikely one.

 

 

I'd like it, too, if Bioware games had 25 companions, of which 20 were romance able. 

 

We all know they aren't writing that much dialogue, esp. when they have to pay VAs to read it aloud. 

 

I think it would be great if of the 9 companions, 6 were potential LIs; it's just that I suspect due to budgets, it will just be 4.

 

I'll be as happy as anybody if 2/3 are romance able (6 of the 9) and they go with the 2/2/2 formula some are asking for. 

[CybAnt1]

I don't see how that's relevant. We're not talking about bi-sexuality, characters who like both bits. We're talking about characters who like whatever bits the player has.

 

You're making the point that it's equivalent to characters liking whatever race the player is. However, I'm countering that the comparison isn't quite valid because what size one is (since they can interbreed, calling them different species is at best dubious) is less significant than whether one is male or female (it's binary).

 

Well, let me make two points. 

 

1) while it's obvious elves and dwarves will romance humans (they did in DAO and DA2), they do seem to prefer their own kind. Could be because they spend most of the time among their own kind. As do the humans, of course. 

 

2) as far as this gameverse goes, there are fertility issues for both dwarves and elves. If they want their race to continue, they both have a stake in not selecting humans to reproduce with. Elves and humans produce humans, dwarves and humans produce half-dwarves, the other problem with the dwarves is they seem to have low fertility when mating with each other, and worse fertility with humans. 

[Bootsykk]

Why is it that it's a problem that you, the player, get to determine the sexuality of the romanceable characters, when those same characters would already romance you in DA:O regardless of what race you were?

 

While I kind of have a split opinion on the OP topic, this is a poor argument in a way. The characters that you could romance were all very open to the idea of a relationship outside of their race, and this is heavily implied through story elements--Morrigan because she needed a god-baby, and through that relationship fosters feelings toward the MC. Zevran because he likes sex. Leliana because she doesn't exactly care, and finds other cultures interesting. Alistair because he's a curious little cherry boy.

 

On the matter of sexuality, I disagree with playersexual because, despite what people say, to fail mentioning gender at all during courtship is an implication of pansexualism, which is so incredibly rare that it's a little odd that you'd happen to travel with a group that has not one, but four people under this trait. It makes characters more believable, at least, if they're willing to discuss this, or if it is mentioned, since Thedas seems to hold the same beliefs towards same-sex relationships as most of the western world. There are characters who disagree with it or at least show some manner of distaste (Gamlen, for example) and other characters (Leliana and Zevran) express concern over MC's feelings about their past relations.

I think including, say, one strictly gay love interest, one strictly straight love interest, and 2 bi love interests would be a heck of a lot more interesting and believable than 4 player-sexual characters. Or some other combination of the above. Based on in-game evidence, there is a traditional idea of what is appropriate for sexual relations, and characters should act accordingly--whether they are brusque about changing such traditional thought, or stick to the belief that it remains the "right" sexuality.

[Mockingword]

Alistair because he's a curious little cherry boy.

Not curious enough.

[CybAnt1]

Then, EA, I hope they have the budget to write 6 LIs. I really do. Otherwise, this same shitstorm will come back after the game's release. 

[Star fury]

 

In the the true sense, every DA companion has been playersexual because they don't account for any of the other factors.

Bullshit. "Playersexual" **** was introduced by Gaider only in DA2. DAO companions have set sexuality, as it should be. 

[Bootsykk]

Not curious enough.

I partly mentioned that as a joke, since he's not open to gay relations--I don't recall ever being able to hit on him as a male character, but it would be quite amusing to see his reaction. But if I do recall, he expresses a lot of curiosity about the MC if they are elvish or dwarvish, with the same kind of mannerism that he had when he gets flustered over the idea that the MC might think he's a pervert for his flirtation if they're a mage.

 

Then, EA, I hope they have the budget to write 6 LIs. I really do. Otherwise, this same shitstorm will come back after the game's release. 

What shitstorm are you referring to, exactly? I don't recall there being a lot of shitflinging over "everybody wants to screw PC" from 2, just criticism and disappointment.

[razmatazz]

Then, EA, I hope they have the budget to write 6 LIs. I really do. Otherwise, this same shitstorm will come back after the game's release. 

 

Well, if they don't want to deal with this potential fallout, then they should reconsider their current stance of treating romances as trivial fanservice, cuz obviously, their fans aren't treating the feature that way.

[TurretSyndrome]

If we had that many DA games, I could probably see what you're saying.  But at this point we're just talking about two games.

 

Why would the romances be generic?  Would you say this if all the romances were straight, as the vast majority before DA2 were?

 

I chuckled at the "vast majority" part. We had 4 romances in DA:O, two out of which were straight male and straight female, with the other two being bisexual. If you are including all the romances ever written by Bioware in all their games, please don't, I'm not much familiar with them, I'm sure some others here aren't as well.

 

What I meant by that post is that if the romances were more "focused"(i.e. characters being a mixture of various sexualities than just one), they would retain a certain level of quality, a certain "uniqueness" to each of them. That may not happen much, as with all characters made bisexual.

[TurretSyndrome]

Then, EA, I hope they have the budget to write 6 LIs. I really do. Otherwise, this same shitstorm will come back after the game's release. 

 

Or they can just keep to 4 LI and alternate on the number sexual orientations in each game. It was 2 straight, 2 bi in DA: O, let it be 2 gay and 2 bi in DA: I. 

[Cainhurst Crow]

That'd be interesting to see. Wouldn't mind it since it could lead to some rather humorous party banter and such.

[Divine Justinia V]

Is there one solution to make everyone happy at this point? Or na?

[Bootsykk]

Or they can just keep to 4 LI and alternate on the number sexual orientations in each game. It was 2 straight, 2 bi in DA: O, let it be 2 gay and 2 bi in DA: I. 

While I'd fully support this, you have to know that LGBTQ romances are never going to outnumber straight romances if there's an option. Heck, I'd be satisfied with cutting romances out entirely save for a single gay relationship, or a single straight one thats more tied in to the plot. I think the main issue is that romances are being used as a fanservice device, when they really shouldn't. It loses quality and integrity. 
 

 

Is there one solution to make everyone happy at this point? Or na?

Probably not. I think Bioware's already gone down the route of bending to their fandoms will, and also weirdly standing hard on certain ideas, such as writers integrity. Nobody is going to be pleased, because they're saying one thing but treating the whole issue a different way entirely. A perfect example is Kaiden becoming gay in ME3. 

[CybAnt1]

BTW, at the moment we're all discussing hypotheticals. Of course, this is true of many things.

 

I'm assuming there will be 9 companions (total, 6 beyond the 3 known). That has been a trend. Maybe suddenly they'll shock us and this game will have 12. I doubt it, though. 

 

I'm also assuming there will be 4 LIs. That's how they did both DAs, 1 & 2. If DA:I has 6, it will set a new trend. 

 

Maybe the frustration Gaider expressed recently about how fans react to romances will lead them to scrap them in THIS game and not the next one, although that would seem to contradict statements they've made up until this point. 

[Divine Justinia V]

Probably not. I think Bioware's already gone down the route of bending to their fandoms will, and also weirdly standing hard on certain ideas, such as writers integrity. Nobody is going to be pleased, because they're saying one thing but treating the whole issue a different way entirely. A perfect example is Kaiden becoming gay in ME3. 

 

May I ask what you'd prefer?

I have my own ideas and I'd like to get others  but, 44 pages is a whole lot lol.

[CybAnt1]

What shitstorm are you referring to, exactly? 

 

I may have lost count, but seems to me this has been the 6th thread on this exact topic I've seen so far, and I really haven't (recently) been here that long.

 

Also, that all the other threads on this exact same topic led to, quote "**** flinging" and were usually locked afterwards.

 

Granted, I think at least 1 if not more were started by Aizen, who mostly seems to prefer to troll, so they were doomed to implosion from day 1. 

[AresKeith]

May I ask what you'd prefer?

I have my own ideas and I'd like to get others  but, 44 pages is a whole lot lol.

 

I wouldn't count all 44 pages lol, it spiraled out of control around page 25