1875 réponses à ce sujet

[syllogi]

And thats where we differ(you and I, at least). I don't think the word "recognized" is the word to use. I think the word "decided" is the word to use.

 

Because I decided a long time ago that any content I see a character go through, regardless of whether I experienced it or not, is part of their character. Hypothetically speaking, if I see Zevran being a pretty sweet dude to everyone in my playthrough, but then find out he's slaughtering people willy nilly in another one, I'm not gonna go into my playthrough and be like, "At least you're not like that Zevran". I'm gonna think Zevran is Zevran and he'd do that in my playthrough too if circumstances were different.

 

In real life, I cannot know what other possibilities there are to my actions if things transpired differently. I imagine if I could see that, and realized that in other circumstances I was different, whether it was better or worse in regards to some things(killing people vs not, hurting people vs not) or not being better or worse but just being different in some fashion(sexuality being an example of this), I wouldn't think of it as a different me. I'd think of it as me, just a side of me I hadn't been exposed to yet. I can't do that in reality, but I can do that in a game, by design.

 

Its perception. Some folks choose to perceive each playthrough as its own alternate universe, making everything that happens outside of it not matter. Others choose to perceive each playthrough as only seeing a piece of everything that is/could be there, making everything that happens outside of it still matter. Its seeing different pictures to seeing a part of one.

 

We're all just seeing things a little differently down to even a fundamental level.

 

This is totally understandable, and I tend to form opinions on characters based on outside information I get about them, even when I try not to, so I see where you're coming from.  What I don't understand, however, is how knowing this particular information about characters (whom they might romance in another playthrough) makes them less interesting, dumbed down, bland, generic, or any of the other things people claim about "playersexual" characters.

 

Like, knowing that Anders can kill Ella during Dissent definitely colors the way I feel about him, even when he has never done that in any of my games.  But that knowledge makes him more interesting to me (if not endearing), not less.  

 

I've never romanced Merrill in any of my games.  Knowing that she can romance a male or female Hawke tells me that she's not asexual, but not much more than that.  And that knowledge doesn't harm my understanding of Merrill's personality or character arc.

 

I keep asking, but nobody is explaining how potential romance options hurt these characters.

[GreyLycanTrope]

This is the thing I find hard to accept in the argument against PS. Isabela is bi but Merrill's sexuality is never stated unless you choose to romance her. I don't see how making her straight (or gay) actually defines her in any way other than which Hawke can romance her. Morrigan telling my lady warden that she's not interested doesn't make the experience more immersive it just locks me out of content because I didn't want to play a warden with a willy. 

It certainly depends how you look at it because to me that shows that a character has their own preferences and opinions outside of what my character might want. Makes them feel a bit more developed from my view point at least.

[LPPrince]

This is totally understandable, and I tend to form opinions on characters based on outside information I get about them, even when I try not to, so I see where you're coming from.  What I don't understand, however, is how knowing this particular information about characters (whom they might romance in another playthrough) makes them less interesting, dumbed down, bland, generic, or any of the other things people claim about "playersexual" characters.

 

Well, it depends who you're asking and why they have a problem with it. There are people against playersexual romances because they feel the player shouldn't have a field day being able to choose whomever they want out of a bag of companions who'll lay with the playable character without some hurdles to jump. Those hurdles adding depth and another thing of note to the character being pursued. From a different perspective, I believe it can cause a player to feel like the romances between genders are simple copies of each other, and aren't unique. I think playersexuality would actually be much more accepted if romances were drastically different based on which gender you're going into the relationships with- not any better or worse sort of different, just different. That'd be interesting, actually.

[WildOrchid]

Being able to tell Qunari men are absurdly ripped doesn't mean a woman is interested in men.

 

Exactly, thank you.

I can find some men handsome but that doesn't mean I want to frickle frackle them.

Instead, society tells you that if you're a man and you find some men handsome, you're gay, and if you're a woman and you find women handsome then you're lesbian.

I can't even explain how wrong this is.

 

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

 

Na.

 

Down with playersexuality.

 

If my Inquisitor spends the game slaughtering mages, Vivianne should show no interest in the PC. If the PC flirts with her, that would be an optimal time for her to express her disgust or even hatred for someone who views her kind as less-than-human.

 

But I'm fine with her being interested in both men and women. Having characters and the world react to what I do is superior to them to reacting to my selections during character creation.

 

I wish I could like this post to infinity and beyond. This right here, would be the best thing. Companions liking you for your actions and not what's between your legs.

 

Being able to kick ass with my lady warrior inquisitor, while Cassandra, after approving of my Inquisitor's actions in general of course, would watch me dumbfounded and wet her pants in the progress is all I would ask for.

 

Skyrim does actually have examples of homosexual relationships in some places, I think mostly in journal entries in quests, though I can't remember the specifics. The game as a whole really takes "playersexuality" to an extreme, though the characters aren't really defined in the first place. 

 

I pretty much exclusively play Skyrim with the "Interesting NPC's" mod anyway, which adds many, many NPC's including marriage candidates who have static preferences. Most are bisexual, but there are some lesbian, gay and straight ones as well. Because of this Skyrim kind of gets a free pass from me, though it's more to do with that fantastic mod than the game itself.

 

Oh my, this mod sounds good.

I was getting so tired of the game's ridiculous heteronormativity, even if it allows you to marry same sex people. Not once i've heard from NPC's (or stories in books etc) that hints bisexuality or homosexuality. Sighs.

 

 

I'm glad this thread is still going, i was worried back then with the, kind of, rude posts and gifs.

[jncicesp]

Well, it depends who you're asking and why they have a problem with it. There are people against playersexual romances because they feel the player shouldn't have a field day being able to choose whomever they want out of a bag of companions who'll lay with the playable character without some hurdles to jump. Those hurdles adding depth and another thing of note to the character being pursued. From a different perspective, I believe it can cause a player to feel like the romances between genders are simple copies of each other, and aren't unique. I think playersexuality would actually be much more accepted if romances were drastically different based on which gender you're going into the relationships with- not any better or worse sort of different, just different. That'd be interesting, actually.

 

Being locked out of something isn't a hurdle, its an unbreakable window you cant even tell is there whether you run into it or not.

How difficult the romances should be has nothing to do with them being available to either gender you can choose from. 

 

I think its more that people can see the mechanic of how the romances work more. Just like how I can see it More if they have gender restrictions.

It doesn't help that DA2 had the most obvious romance mechanics/paths so they're easy to connect. and people dont like them so its simple thought that makes them connect.

 

anyway.. You would only like it if they made them different because of gender?

[mars_central]

It certainly depends how you look at it because to me that shows that a character has their own preferences and opinions outside of what my character might want. Makes them feel a bit more developed from my view point at least.

 

There are lots of ways a character can show preferences and opinions on a wide variety of subjects without ever expressing an interest, or lack thereof, in what's under my mage robes. The fact that a character is definitely straight and always going to reject you isn't really developing the character, it's a line of dialogue that rejects you. I can get that at any time I want down the pub, possibly with a slap to "add to the immersion".

[LPPrince]

Being locked out of something isn't a hurdle, its an unbreakable window you cant even tell is there whether you run into it or not.

How difficult the romances should be has nothing to do with them being available to either gender you can choose from. 

 

I think its more that people can see the mechanic of how the romances work more. Just like how I can see it More if they have gender restrictions.

It doesn't help that DA2 had the most obvious romance mechanics/paths so they're easy to connect. and people dont like them so its simple thought that makes them connect.

 

anyway.. You would only like it if they made them different because of gender?

 

Playing as the opposite gender is always available. I do it quite often, by choice actually. Its harder for some folks, that much is certain, but the option is there. Harder for some probably because they didn't have a choice most of the time. Understandable.

 

As for the gender differences comment I made, I was just curious how it would be perceived if care was taken to make them different in that fashion. I have no idea if it'd be more palatable to me that way.

[GreyLycanTrope]

There are lots of ways a character can show preferences and opinions on a wide variety of subjects without ever expressing an interest, or lack thereof, in what's under my mage robes. The fact that a character is definitely straight and always going to reject you isn't really developing the character, it's a line of dialogue that rejects you. I can get that at any time I want down the pub, possibly with a slap to "add to the immersion".

I disagree, characters show their personality through rejection quite often that's not a concept restricted to romance either. And please no one's saying they should slap you in the face, Varric doesn't hate humans he's just not into them.

[syllogi]

Playing as the opposite gender is always available. I do it quite often, by choice actually. Its harder for some folks, that much is certain, but the option is there.

 

I've tried to play male characters in rpgs.  I've made characters, tried to give it a chance, but I rarely get through starting areas.  I don't understand the logic of people who telling me I'm missing out, or I'm not open minded because I won't play a male character when the option of playing as female is available.  I have way more fun, I'm able to actually finish the game, and I feel more engaged by the story when I play female characters.  If a game has a set male protagonist *and* a great story, I will give it a chance (although I couldn't get very far at all in Witcher 1, meh), but if there's the option of playing as female, I don't ever feel the need to play as male.  

 

And when I'm playing rpgs as female, I don't expect much as far as romance content, from most games.  I understand that these are games that, mostly, see the male version of the character as default.  Sometimes it's a little frustrating, and sometimes it's liberating, but it's something I have come to accept as part of the price of being a female gamer who wants to play female heroes.  I'm only posting these kinds of suggestions on the Bioware forums, because this is the only game developer I would actually expect to even acknowledge, much less implement, anything close to what I would consider an engaging same sex romance.

[jncicesp]

Playing as the opposite gender is always available. I do it quite often, by choice actually. Its harder for some folks, that much is certain, but the option is there.

 

As for not knowing its there before it happens, yep. Thats how it goes.

Thats still not a hurdle. you'd have to make a new character completely to even be able to get any hurdles. Isabela maybe not ever coming back to you at the end of act 2 is a hurdle. 

 

If i didn't have internet I wouldn't know that Morrigan was a romance option at all without playing as a guy. which I never do without reason. I would have had no idea there was a reason  to make a guy without making a guy or having internet. playing as a girl doesn't tell you that there is a romance with her or any hurdles. it only tells you that she doesn't want you. if she doesn't want you my go to thought is "Okay, that sucks im stuck with whatsherface" not "Oh neat shes straight I should play as a guy cause I know shes straight now"

 

I played as a guy to romance Fenris, and I playe... well I got the Morrigan achievement before playing as a guy bothered me enough to stop(because of the differences).

 

 

.(If you can read this and make sense of it you deserve a ribbon).

I remember liked that they clearly had "female" content in Origins, with guys flirting and coming on to you. it was annoying and felt more pushed on to me but I liked that it was there for anyone playing who would want it. I didn't care that there was nothing like that from females just because I assumed they wernt there.

Then I played as a guy because I knew I could romance Morrigan, I figured out that the only difference playing as male and female is Who and who doesnt come on to you. I didnt mind the "female" content until I noticed it didn't matter at all, its more forced story telling. and not using story components(characters) how they should(obviously) have been used

Modifié par jncicesp, 19 mars 2014 - 03:09 .

[CybAnt1]

At the end of the day, while yes, I do think it's good the game tries to give the companions the illusions of independent beliefs, tastes, and agency -- and DA2 even dared to point out they might interact with each other, even without the PC/Hawke being present -- well, it's not complete, is it? Because combat, because gameplay.

 

Because combat and because gameplay, they don't really act independently in battle. You're either directly controlling them like an invisible puppet master, or if not, still pretty indirectly controlling them because you are setting their AI tactics. Most people choose a preset ("take the role of defender/tank", "take the role of controller", "take the role of healer/support", etc.), and that's control, but may even exert further control by tweaking the preset. Either way, they really don't have "free will" (per se) in battle. 

 

Now, the two DA games took different attitudes over what you could tell them to wear, but ... even in DA2, while all you could do was upgrade "block" armors/custom outfits that never changed their "iconic appearance," you also essentially could still dictate to them what other objects to wear, like rings, amulets, and belts. And depending on the companion, what to wield (only Varric insisted on never switching from Bianca, you could tell Fenris what weapon to wield, make Isabela wield any set of daggers you came across, Sebastian any bow) ... 

 

And, most importantly, unlike some other CRPGs, you could control their leveling process. They don't auto-level. You get to allocate how their skills and attributes improve. And not just from the level at which you found them, either. The 99 bottles of Maker's Sigh in the Black Emporium let you redo them almost entirely, starting from level 1, as you saw fit. 99 times ... 

 

So let's be real ... the game makes them your puppet in many senses for convenience. That said, I am not disagreeing that the game should throw in little touches that show independent thought and agency (like seeing them interact with each other when you're not there), but then I've noticed, like I said earlier, a lot of people don't seem to be willing to deal with the fact that there should be a mechanic where they leave or turn on you if you really start pissing them off ... which would be IMHO full independence of thought and agency ... at least outside of combat. 

 

At the end of the day, let's remember that. 

[LPPrince]

I've tried to play male characters in rpgs.  I've made characters, tried to give it a chance, but I rarely get through starting areas.  I don't understand the logic of people who telling me I'm missing out, or I'm not open minded because I won't play a male character when the option of playing as female is available.  I have way more fun, I'm able to actually finish the game, and I feel more engaged by the story when I play female characters.  If a game has a set male protagonist *and* a great story, I will give it a chance (although I couldn't get very far at all in Witcher 1, meh), but if there's the option of playing as female, I don't ever feel the need to play as male.  

 

And when I'm playing rpgs as female, I don't expect much as far as romance content, from most games.  I understand that these are games that, mostly, see the male version of the character as default.  Sometimes it's a little frustrating, and sometimes it's liberating, but it's something I have come to accept as part of the price of being a female gamer who wants to play female heroes.  I'm only posting these kinds of suggestions on the Bioware forums, because this is the only game developer I would actually expect to even acknowledge, much less implement, anything close to what I would consider an engaging same sex romance.

 

I'm with you on the more female protags bit. I'm a dude but I play as female protagonists quite often if the choice is available, just to promote their continued inclusion in games. Bout time ladies got to play as ladies.

 

I just don't want everything available to me at once. I want the choice between playing a male or female character to matter. Again, not for one to be better or worse, but to be different. One way to do that and a way I support is gating certain romances for men and some others for women. But thats just one option and opinion in a sea of many.

[Xilizhra]

I'm with you on the more female protags bit. I'm a dude but I play as female protagonists quite often if the choice is available, just to promote their continued inclusion in games. Bout time ladies got to play as ladies.

 

I just don't want everything available to me at once. I want the choice between playing a male or female character to matter. Again, not for one to be better or worse, but to be different. One way to do that and a way I support is gating certain romances for men and some others for women. But thats just one option and opinion in a sea of many.

Forgive me, but I suspect this may be easier for male players who have plenty of other options for PCs who match their gender.

 

And I'm willing to have everything available at once if it means I have some gorram options.

[CybAnt1]

#Nah

 

It's a Kobyashi Maru scenario. By that, I mean, a "no win scenario". And by that, I mean, yeah, it doesn't seem possible to please everybody, unless some clear constraints cease to exist. (And at this point I don't see how.)

 

It's why these threads will keep going and going. 

[LPPrince]

It's a Kobyashi Maru scenario. By that, I mean, a "no win scenario". And by that, I mean, yeah, it doesn't seem possible to please everybody, unless some clear constraints cease to exist. (And at this point I don't see how.)

 

It's why these threads will keep going and going. 

 

Pretty much. Some folks want limits, some folks want no limits. As long as thats happening, I don't think a single scenario will ever make everyone happy. Actually, its probably a little crazy to ever imagine everyone could be happy, as wonderful as that would be.

[CybAnt1]

Pretty much. Some folks want limits, some folks want no limits. 

 

I would call that a false dichotomy, as there also appear to be debate parameters relating to how many limits there should be, or what kinds of limits there should be; is there anybody in the thread arguing your romancee shouldn't dump you if you do things totally against their worldview? Is there anybody who's said it doesn't make sense for some companions not to be romance-able (like Varric & Aveline)? BTW, you may note, if you go back to things I've said about DA2, my big problem is with its ridiculously simplified romance mechanics , which I don't like because they do indeed - "make romances too easy". 

 

Also, I would note, some peoples' positions are that they might like more limits, but the problem is imposing those limits within the presence of other existing constraints (like budgets that limit the number of available LIs) will cause negative, if unintended, consequences to the player experience. At the end of the day, this debate, like many others, exists in the world that is, not the world we ideally want (and "by world it is" I mean the financial, temporal, and other limits on game development.) 

[WildOrchid]

Playing as the opposite gender is always available. I do it quite often, by choice actually. Its harder for some folks, that much is certain, but the option is there. Harder for some probably because they didn't have a choice most of the time. Understandable.

 

Well, i'm already forced to play males in other games anyway. Bioware is one of the few companies that allows me to play as female. And even though i've done a playthough with a malehawke, I still couldn't enjoy it as I do with ladies.

 

So yeah, I'll admit, i don't like people suggesting me ''to play the opposite gender for a different experience'' because frankly i've done that for years and i'm quite tired of this.

Speaking generally, this post is not directed at you. I've seen posters here and in other sites telling others 'to go and play male if you want to romance x person and vice versa'.

 

 

Edit: ninja'd.

[LPPrince]

Well, i'm already forced to play males in other games anyway. Bioware is one of the few companies that allows me to play as female. And even though i've done a playthough with a malehawke, I still couldn't enjoy it as I do with ladies.

 

So yeah, I'll admit, i don't like people suggesting me ''to play the opposite gender for a different experience'' because frankly i've done that for years and i'm quite tired of this.

Speaking generally, this post is not directed at you. I've seen posters here and in other sites telling others 'to go and play male if you want to romance x person and vice versa'.

 

S'all good, I completely understand.

 

/side note, damn I love reading different opinions on subjects when its not vitriolic

[LPPrince]

I would call that a false dichotomy, as there also appear to be debate parameters relating to how many limits there should be, or what kinds of limits there should be; is there anybody in the thread arguing your romancee shouldn't dump you if you do things totally against their worldview? Is there anybody who's said it doesn't make sense for some companions not to be romance-able (like Varric & Aveline)? BTW, you may note, if you go back to things I've said about DA2, my big problem is with its ridiculously simplified romance mechanics , which I don't like because they do indeed - "make romances too easy". 

 

Also, I would note, some peoples' positions are that they might like more limits, but the problem is imposing those limits within the presence of other existing constraints (like budgets that limit the number of available LIs) will cause negative, if unintended, consequences to the player experience. At the end of the day, this debate, like many others, exists in the world that is, not the world we ideally want (and "by world it is" I mean the financial, temporal, and other limits on game development.) 

 

Oh I was just being broad there. Basically keeping the long story short that yeah, there's very likely never going to be a scenario where every single person goes, "Yup, that works"

[CybAnt1]

Well, I thought coming to agreement over how the game does combat and the dialogue system would be far harder (or at least people are agreeing to disagree at earlier jump-off points in the argument  ) but it is interesting that this is one of the few ("game feature") debates that can really run on for so long. Even some of our earlier fights over my favorite relatively trivial matter, "use of the K-word," petered out after 12 or so pages. 

 

Including the people who say they are disinterested in the debate or discussion, yet also feel the need to indicate vocally their disinterest, as well. 

[razmatazz]

Some people here are coming at this argument with a gameplay viewpoint; they don't think it's reasonable to be cut out of game content because of what they see as trivial or arbitrary prerequisites.  And that's fine; it's a valid viewpoint and I can't argue with that.

 

My arguments, as well as (presumably) from a couple others, have always come more from a story viewpoint.  And in a good story (like DA), contrivances should be minimized or hidden as much as possible.  A good character has well-defined stances and preferences, and the rest of the character and story will make those particular traits fit.  If you can't treat parts of a whole in an organic way, then like I said before, gloss over it or don't bring it up all, so I can shift my focus elsewhere. 

 

I actually happen to like the romance concept, and have happily engaged in them in other games like BG2 and the MEs.  Could they have been more inclusive?  Uh, yeah, I certainly can't disagree with that.   But BW has chosen to address this by pussyfooting around sexuality (and other stated relevant stance and preference issues) and treating the romance concept as unimportant fanservice, separate from the rest of the story.  Some of you appreciate the inclusiveness of this and that's great, but I simply can't ignore the shamelessly artificial parts that I think should be treated more organically.  Sorry.

 

So yeah, if BW wishes to continue this path cuz the developers feel it's more inclusive, fine; these are games.  But, between an immersive story and romances as they're being treated now, my priority is going to be with the story.  Everytime. 

[Vapaa]

One female lesbian relationship
One male gay relationship
One female straight relationship
One male straight relationship
One male Bi relationship
One female Bi relationship

 

Again, why ONLY sexuality ? if a straight character is say, Cassandra, why would a male bloodmage have more chances that a pro-chantry female ?

 

Sexuality restriction doesn't make sense if it's the single restriction.

[LPPrince]

Including the people who say they are disinterested in the debate or discussion, yet also feel the need to indicate vocally their disinterest, as well. 

 

I think those folks probably just wish they didn't have to see the same subject they have no interest in come up every couple of weeks, so they feel the need to join in instead of continuing to fight it.

 

Just a guess, tho. I have no clue. I'd remain disinterested and just ignore the threads as they come.