Ce sujet est fermé
@KaiserShep: I do love it. It's so Mordin. Perfect quirky little bonding moment. Mordin was just win all around XD
He's the best, even before he sings. I had to turn off the game and go have a little cry part way though ME3. That usually only happens to me when I read a book; to get so involved in a game character -- he had a real transformative arc.
I like to think there's at least one alternate universe where he gets to perform experiments on the seashells ...
I find that player-sexuality for characters makes the PC too important.
When I play a game like DA or ME I'm not playing it to go on a power fantasy and have have the whole world bow to my every whim, that's what TES and shooters are for. I play these games to experience a world and the characters in them. In this spirit I think that characters should be immutable in most circumstances, they should have their own personal backstories and beliefs that contribute to their development.
I think you need to draw a distinction between bowing to the player's whim and bowing to the PC's whim. Those are very different things.
Yes, the player has some limited control over the sexual preference of the companions. But the PC does not, and that's what I think matters. Within any given playthrough, the standards you prefer are met. The characters are immutable, within that playthrough. Their backstories and beliefs are their own.
But on the next playthrough, any or all of those things can change. That doesn't harm the characters, however, as this is a new instance of the universe with different details in it. Just as the PCmay now be a different person with a different background, so too can the companions be.
I think you need to draw a distinction between bowing to the player's whim and bowing to the PC's whim. Those are very different things.
I do not like your example Sylvius the Mad.
When i play a role playing game i want control of my character in the game so if you separate me from my character that means i have lost control so cannot agree with you.
You, yourself, are not in the game world. You're merely playing as a character, whose personality might not even reflect your own, in the game world. The distinction lies there. And, for the record, all of my arguments against playersexuality have always been made with regard to how I, the player, perceived the story and it's parts.
Edit: And, for those whom it may actually concern, in playersexuality, you, the player, don't change the LI's preference, you decide/set it; there is a difference. His/her preference just appears to change between different playthroughs.
I'll admit, I was pleasantly surprised when Traynor turned down my Shepard, I didn't demand that she be made romanceable. I found her refusal refreshing actually. (Not sure if there is a similar scene for FemShep and Cortez)
I think that this quote is really telling. Of course you found it "pleasantly surprising" and "refreshing" to have a female LI turn you down, because it's the first time ever that a straight male PC doesn't get to romance a female LI in a Bioware game (unless you count the pseudo-romance with Juhani in KOTOR).
Someone earlier in the thread brought up this exact idea. Straight male gamers often bring up Traynor as the example and talk about how much they appreciate her because she turns them down and how they "just deal with" so why can't other players do the same when it happens to them.
The problem is, that I don't think that it's so novel that Traynor rejects you because I've dealt with that in every single Bioware game ever with the exception of DA 2. That is, literally, the only Bioware game where there isn't a male LI who rejects me. In fact, with the exception of 6 characters over the course of 11 Bioware games that have romances in them, every single male rejects me. That's right, there are more romances for a straight male Shepard in ME 3 then there have been for gay males in ANY BIOWARE GAME EVER. So I don't find it "refreshing" or "pleasantly surprising" any more. I find it tedious and frustrating that I am getting access to much less of the romance content based solely on sexuality.
Don't get me wrong, I don't prefer playersexuality. I prefer a 2/2/2 ratio so everyone gets two options OR all bisexual companions. What I hope to never see again is the ME 1 or ME 1 approach (where I am completely disregarded and cut out of the story) or the DA: O approach (where straight guys get options, but I don't).
So Traynor isn't a great example to use with female or gay male players because she's not novel to us. That's our reality and, more often than not, what we have to deal with in every game.
I think that this quote is really telling. Of course you found it "pleasantly surprising" and "refreshing" to have a female LI turn you down, because it's the first time ever that a straight male PC doesn't get to romance a female LI in a Bioware game (unless you count the pseudo-romance with Juhani in KOTOR).
Someone earlier in the thread brought up this exact idea. Straight male gamers often bring up Traynor as the example and talk about how much they appreciate her because she turns them down and how they "just deal with" so why can't other players do the same when it happens to them.
The problem is, that I don't think that it's so novel that Traynor rejects you because I've dealt with that in every single Bioware game ever with the exception of DA 2. That is, literally, the only Bioware game where there isn't a male LI who rejects me. In fact, with the exception of 6 characters over the course of 11 Bioware games that have romances in them, every single male rejects me. That's right, there are more romances for a straight male Shepard in ME 3 then there have been for gay males in ANY BIOWARE GAME EVER. So I don't find it "refreshing" or "pleasantly surprising" any more. I find it tedious and frustrating that I am getting access to much less of the romance content based solely on sexuality.
Don't get me wrong, I don't prefer playersexuality. I prefer a 2/2/2 ratio so everyone gets two options OR all bisexual companions. What I hope to never see again is the ME 1 or ME 1 approach (where I am completely disregarded and cut out of the story) or the DA: O approach (where straight guys get options, but I don't).
So Traynor isn't a great example to use with female or gay male players because she's not novel to us. That's our reality and, more often than not, what we have to deal with in every game.
Most male LI's in other games never outright turn down a male protagonist though, the option to flirt just never even comes up. Traynor is, in fact, one of the only LI's in Bioware games whom it is possible to specifically request a romance with and be turned down due to gender, at least that I'm aware of.
Yeah, it's the same outcome though. There is a LI in the game who, because of my gender/sexuality, I am barred from romancing. The only difference is that Traynor explicitly addresses it in dialogue and all of the males don't even get dialogue options to begin with. However, the outcome is the same and, I stand, it's not unique or refreshing in any way anymore.
I think that there is a large difference between characters that you never have the option to flirt with at all- and therefore the only way you would even know they were LI's is meta-gaming, and companions who can be flirted with but specifically turn you down.
If anything Traynor has more in common with Aveline, who could also be flirted with but would ultimately turn the player down. And I did believe that she was unique and refreshing the same way Traynor is.
It is the difference between never stating a companions sexuality, just blocking out dialogue or options pertaining to the romance to one gender, and actually acknowledging it directly. So I do believe that Traynor was unique and refreshing, at least in that way.
If you refresh the page, the edit option appearsNo edit function if I'm on an iPhone, huh? What I meant to say in the last post was that there is a LI of the gender that I am interested in romancing and because of my sexuality, I don't have access to that romance. Hope that's clearer.
Here's my question, for those who want to think about this from a design perspective. I'm going to assume things at this point that are not known about DAI to do this.
You are on the "romance design team". There's only enough budget to VA 4 romances out of 9 characters.
You want everybody to have 2 options for LI, and you want this regardless of any choices in the CC, including gender, and you don't want players who decide their characters are gay (or bi) (since you don't actually, per se, "set" their orientation in the CC) to be treated anymore unfairly than anyone else ... how do you do this? Why, you wind up exactly with DA2's system.
Now the devs are saying they are all bisexual, players are saying they are all 'playersexual', some other fans saying a bit of both, but whatever: in the end, if you have the above criteria and constraints in mind, how do you achieve fairness? (Also, if fairness means you give one player a choice, you give all players a choice.)
I'll repeat my position on this: from someone who likes characters, indeed, to show that they have a kind of independence of agency from the player/PC, sure, yes I'd love them to be more selective about who they romance. Of course that has more verisimilitude to real life. But selective in lots of ways! Like I said earlier: maybe even selective about your background, your appearance, or your race. Not just your gender.
If I suddenly had a magical budget to have 20 voiced romance able characters, damn straight, this is how I would do it. That way even with lots of selectivity by the "romancees," everybody still gets a shot at 1, and maybe even a choice of 2, regardless of what they pick in the CC.
I repeat that the DA2 solution everybody hates (and it's odd to see me standing up for a game, I normally complain about in other areas) ... is the optimal one, if you have player-fairness as a criterion. Given the constraints they were working with.
I really hope it's 6 LIs this time around and the 2/2/2 formula that seems to be the Golden Middle for (almost) everybody here wants, I'm worried it won't be.
Exactly. I actually believe that all DA2 characters were inherently bisexual. They may have changed their mannerisms (slightly) when the PCs gender changes, but I think that applies to real life too. Bisexual men and women can still (and most likely will) approach other men and women differently. So when Anders was talking about his past with Karl, for example, he might have thought that hinting his relationship with Karl might intrigue the male PC (particularly if he found our PC attractive, which is a yes by default). He wouldn't assume that female Hawke would care, since he has nothing to gain but revealing random info. The way he acted and emoted in both cases clearly indicated something was going on between the two.-snip-
Wait, it makes perfect sense that he's willing to put the moves on someone who literally just helped him put down his ex-lover?
Because as I've noted before, you get as much for handing Ketojen over to be killed.
Anders has some pretty frakked up priorities
In hindsight, maybe in this context, Anders' reaction is rationalize-able, if still revolting.
Once upon a time, when a group of friends brainstormed ways to get busy with the fairer of the fairer sex with little effort and implication, someone suggested crashing Hugh Hefner's funeral because the bereaved seek consolation.
If this mechanism works both ways, Anders' advances actually seem quite natural...except the reaction towards rejection part, which can also be somewhat explained through expounding background information.
Isabela doesn't mind rejections, she swings from mast to mast with more aptitude than all AC protagonists combined.
Anders, on the other hand, was raised in a relatively confined environment, likely restrained by Justice (who finds the idea of having a pet reprehensible) and constantly living on the edge of demise. Given these circumstances, his advances would be much more heart-felt and earnest, and a rejection under these conditions are more scathing.
You, yourself, are not in the game world. You're merely playing as a character, whose personality might not even reflect your own, in the game world.
Edit: And, for those whom it may actually concern, in playersexuality, you, the player, don't change the LI's preference, you decide/set it; there is a difference. His/her preference just appears to change between different playthroughs.
Here's my question, for those who want to think about this from a design perspective. I'm going to assume things at this point that are not known about DAI to do this.
You are on the "romance design team". There's only enough budget to VA 4 romances out of 9 characters.
You want everybody to have 2 options for LI, and you want this regardless of any choices in the CC, including gender, and you don't want players who decide their characters are gay (or bi) (since you don't actually, per se, "set" their orientation in the CC) to be treated anymore unfairly than anyone else ... how do you do this? Why, you wind up exactly with DA2's system.
Now the devs are saying they are all bisexual, players are saying they are all 'playersexual', some other fans saying a bit of both, but whatever: in the end, if you have the above criteria and constraints in mind, how do you achieve fairness? (Also, if fairness means you give one player a choice, you give all players a choice.)
I'll repeat my position on this: from someone who likes characters, indeed, to show that they have a kind of independence of agency from the player/PC, sure, yes I'd love them to be more selective about who they romance. Of course that has more verisimilitude to real life. But selective in lots of ways! Like I said earlier: maybe even selective about your background, your appearance, or your race. Not just your gender.
If I suddenly had a magical budget to have 20 voiced romance able characters, damn straight, this is how I would do it. That way even with lots of selectivity by the "romancees," everybody still gets a shot at 1, and maybe even a choice of 2, regardless of what they pick in the CC.
I repeat that the DA2 solution everybody hates (and it's odd to see me standing up for a game, I normally complain about in other areas) ... is the optimal one, if you have player-fairness as a criterion. Given the constraints they were working with.
I really hope it's 6 LIs this time around and the 2/2/2 formula that seems to be the Golden Middle for (almost) everybody here wants, I'm worried it won't be.
I personally am bracing myself for the worst (meaning small selection of romances I won't enjoy/will not be able to access because of only playing female characters, which would mean no romance at all for any of my playthroughs, which isn't actually the worst thing ever in the grand scheme of things, but for the purposes of the thread roll with me here...), but the 2/2/2 solution *seems* like the best way to please the most people, IF:
Otherwise, I'd prefer (and yeah, I'm aware that my opinion counts for nothing) that they were all bisexual/playersexual.
But on the next playthrough, any or all of those things can change. That doesn't harm the characters, however, as this is a new instance of the universe with different details in it. Just as the PCmay now be a different person with a different background, so too can the companions be.
I understand your preference, but I strongly disagree with you. By the very definition within storytelling, it harms the character.
Playersexuality offers more control of the game world by sacrificing some elements of character and storytelling to do so.
For myself, I prefer storytelling and character to have more importance, because it's why I play BioWare games. I do not want to sacrifice character and story for more control. It's entirely fair that others do, but I would be prefer that the position be an honest one - telling me that redefining a character according to a different character's arbitrary attributes doesn't harm them in any way is a pretty big stretch.
Guest_Imanol de Tafalla_*
Rejection by Traynor is one of my favourite scenes in ME3.
Bioware needs more of that in their games.
If Traynor is the only LI to actually turn the player down based on gender, then how has the perception of the "defined" sexual orientation of ANY LI in any Bioware game actually added to their completeness as a character? Traynor rejecting you adds dialogue and potentially depth to your interactions with her. To discover that Alistair and Morrigan will romance one sex and not the other, you have to use the knowledge you gain from multiple playthroughs or the internet. I only knew Morrigan could be romanced because I watched my husband play. To me, she just seemed like a Sten or Wynne. I really don't see how that makes them more believable characters if you have to use info from multiple games to infer that they have a gender preference. It seems strange to declare that a character is more or less believable only after essentially metagaming.
Edit: If Morrigan had been available to my femWarden, that wouldn't have made her less believable to me. I guess if I went online and told everyone my lady romanced her then people who played maleWarden might go "Awww, and here I thought she only wanted me. Now she's less believable because there was that one line of banter where she was weirded out by Leliana." Their sexual interaction is, in fact, only determined by a gender check written into the code and not their sexual orientation, character development, or even anything within the realm of storytelling.
Every LI would have to have express their sexual preference or actively reject your PC for these arguments regarding immersion and sexual preference to make sense. Morrigan and Alistair's (since we're talking about DA here) characters "defined" sexuality adds nothing to their characters because it's only defined if you play through multiple times. There's no added depth to story or their character development if you base your perceptions off your actual interactions within the game, and isn't that what immersion is all about?
Modifié par Ispan, 21 mars 2014 - 03:54 .
............................
- the same sex and bisexual romances are just as likely to be integral to the main plot as the heterosexual romances
Thisthisthisthisthisthis.
I agree with the rest but THIS.
Even though the 2/2/2 sounds nice too, i get scared Cassandra might be a straight romance instead, as it happens with main ladies (ie Ashley,Miranda,Morrigan) and i'd hate that. D:
Btw, from what i see here, many people seem to prefer the all-bi route.
Rejection by Traynor is one of my favourite scenes in ME3.
Bioware needs more of that in their games.
This.
Traynor isn't the only character to flat out reject you.
If you play femshep in ME2 and dare try and get close to Jack she shuts you down with a fair amount of animonsity.Not saying it wasn't well within character, but the hostility was a little to um, hmm...modern or real worldy for it not to be vaguely unpleasent imo. And then I'm pretty sure she just stops talking to you.
Also, male Wardens can flirt with Oghren. In camp, he asks to talk and he also, reacts quite badly, with a lot of 'oh, icky a dude likes me, don't do that. grrr.'
And Mordin rejects you too, but that one is fair and hilarious. 
But, point being, if you aren't meta gaming, and you just have your PC expressing a same sex interest in whoever that Warden/Shep/Hawke actually finds interesting then these are rejections too.
- the same sex and bisexual romances are just as likely to be integral to the main plot as the heterosexual romances
- bisexual and homosexual characters (of which, in this scenario, there are at least four) are not pigeonholed into stereotyped roles or adhere to extremely familiar tropes only LGBT characters get saddled with
- male and female homosexual or bisexual characters are treated with equal respect (see: the differences between how Traynor and Cortez were treated in ME3 [hint: only one of them was overtly flirty to the point of inappropriateness, had a tawdry, Straight Male Gaze focused romance scene, and was obsessed with a phallic object])
Otherwise, I'd prefer (and yeah, I'm aware that my opinion counts for nothing) that they were all bisexual/playersexual.
Honestly, this is why I prefer all bisexual. Because even when Bioware has put forth a lot of effort to include LGBT romance options, they still tend to make the heterosexual options important and the LGBT ones less so.
I find it interesting how everyone keeps bringing up Traynor/Cortez when they aren't even party members. You can't take them out on missions, and you don't get to experience certain scenes with them because of that--like in the Citadel DLC, they can't "rescue" you after the sushi restaurant, and you don't get to take them to the casino or strut down the red carpet in formal wear with them. They are clearly a tacked on option, not one of the "main" options.
Same for Leliana and Zevran. Romancing either of them does not alter the plot the way that romancing Alistair or Morrigan does. Not to mention that Zevran talks about being with men as something he had to do as part of being an assassin, not necessarily because he liked it.
Retour en haut
