Ce sujet est fermé
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.'
Oghren's not a LI. I flirted with him and he turned me down because I just killed his wife, then he went and tried to bang Felsi. Talk about awkward!
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.
Thats one of my favorite things about Isabela. She is the poster companign/romance from the trailers and in game is also openly bisexual.
It is especially weird that Cortez can't rescue you in Citadel since he joins Hammer/Mako in the assult later on in the Citadel DLC.
Oghren's not a LI. I flirted with him and he turned me down because I just killed his wife, then he went and tried to bang Felsi. Talk about awkward!
Oh, yeah. Sorry if I was unclear, I just meant there were other rejections there if you are just playing and not metagaming/your character doesn't know which of the companions are available for romance right away and is instead basing their interest only on character/not on game mechanics. But it is good to know the flirting happens with both genders with him...I tend to avoid him like the plague.
You cannot have it both ways, either we can create our own character or we play a set character.
We create our own. But that character is not us.
Both kinds of characters do what they want. The difference between a set character and one we create is that we get to decide what it is the character wants. That may not be the same thing we want, however.
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.
It changes the character. Change is not necessarily harm.
The Alistair you meet in your first playthrough is not the same Alistair you meet in your second playthrough. This is a parallel Alistair. Every playthrough occurs in a new copy of the same universe, but there's no telling how different those copies are.
We create our own. But that character is not us.
Both kinds of characters do what they want. The difference between a set character and one we create is that we get to decide what it is the character wants. That may not be the same thing we want, however.
The thing is, whether you're talking about a 2/2/2 split or all LIs being bisexual that's no less contrived than a character whose sexuality is determined by the PC's gender. Knowing that any of these is the case also requires either multiple playthroughs or looking at spoilers/guides. That's why I prefer the player sexual route, it means that we all get the same options. If there's a LI you prefer over the others then you can go for them. Merrill is a great example of that, she can really be imagined as straight, lesbian or bi depending on your character. She doesn't become "less Merrill" if you play a male Hawke or a female one and she has a clearly defined character.
That is fine as long as we don’t control the NPC's beliefs or sexuality.
If I control what the NPC character becomes then I also want to control what they say and do.
If we control the creation of our character then why can they not be us?
They can be us, but they don't need to be.
And I would argue that you do control the NPC's beliefs. You have to, since you're choosing their abilities and tactics. Those are informed by their beliefs.
I also don't think sexuality is a particularly important or defining trait.
It changes the character. Change is not necessarily harm.
The Alistair you meet in your first playthrough is not the same Alistair you meet in your second playthrough. This is a parallel Alistair. Every playthrough occurs in a new copy of the same universe, but there's no telling how different those copies are.
This is not a parallel Alistair he is the same Alistair with the same experiences apart for option to harden him if we choose.
Why do you assume that?
WIth the herosexual characters, these differences are obvious. In one playthrough, a character's preferences are one thing, and in a subsequent playthrough they are different.
There's no reason for us to assume that the characters are exactly the same every time, and not assuming this solves a great many problems.
Why do you assume that?
WIth the herosexual characters, these differences are obvious. In one playthrough, a character's preferences are one thing, and in a subsequent playthrough they are different.
There's no reason for us to assume that the characters are exactly the same every time, and not assuming this solves a great many problems.
It's fairly accurate anyhow. Because each game is its own parallel universe. Changes don't have to be huge. It could be as simple as turning left. If you think of the many universes theory that suggests that every possibility gets played out, this makes perfect sense.
Why do you assume that?
WIth the herosexual characters, these differences are obvious. In one playthrough, a character's preferences are one thing, and in a subsequent playthrough they are different.
There's no reason for us to assume that the characters are exactly the same every time, and not assuming this solves a great many problems.
I assume this because this is how it is.
If I play a different character in a new game then Alistair will say and do different things because of my gender or text selection but he is still the same person.
He acts differently in different playthrough's because the circumstances are different but he is still the same Alistair with the same personality and beliefs.
"I assume this because this is how it is" is circular reasoning.
The thing is, whether you're talking about a 2/2/2 split or all LIs being bisexual that's no less contrived than a character whose sexuality is determined by the PC's gender. Knowing that any of these is the case also requires either multiple playthroughs or looking at spoilers/guides.
I knew that both Samantha and Steve were s/s only without either multiple playthrough's or guides. Liara being available to both was also fairly obvious in both ME1 and ME2 without multiple playthroughs.
I knew that both Samantha and Steve were s/s only without either multiple playthrough's or guides. Liara being available to both was also fairly obvious in both ME1 and ME2 without multiple playthroughs.
Exactly.
You don't necessarily need a guide or previous playthroughs to know which companions are potential LIs for your character. All it requires is talking to the companions.
How did you know that Morrigan, Ashley, or Miranda were LIs when you played as a female character?
Or Jacob, Alistair, or Garrus as a male?
Answer, you don't. You only learn that through multiple playthroughs or meta gaming.
Why do you need to know that Morrigan or Miranda are potential LIs on a playthrough where your character is female? Knowing that would have absolutely no impact on that playthrough because they aren't romanceable by a female player character.
Sure, it would take an additional playthrough as a male character to discover that fact if you go into it unspoiled. But it would also take that additional playthrough if you wanted to romance either one. So I'm not sure what exactly the point is there.
Because we are in the playersexuality thread and the main argument against it is the fact that they would be able to romance players of the opposite gender as your character in other play through and that this somehow weakens the character. It's the same thing. If you can go through a game as a female Warden and never know that Morrigan is able to be romanced by a male without meta gaming and that's okay, then it should also be okay to play as a male and never know that she's romanceable as a female as well without meta gaming.
I knew that both Samantha and Steve were s/s only without either multiple playthrough's or guides. Liara being available to both was also fairly obvious in both ME1 and ME2 without multiple playthroughs.
Assuming only one playthrough and not looking it up, how would you know both of them are possible LIs? I only played as FemShep, but I don't recall Steve ever saying, "if only you were a dude Shepard" nor Samantha saying, "it's a good thing you're a woman because I'm not into guys." I only know they're gender specific LIs from the internets. I'm starting to feel like a broken record bringing up Merrill, but nothing she said on my femHawke playthrough suggests she's into guys. In fact, the last playthrough of DA2 I was specifically going for Isabela so the only companion whose preferences I got a sense of were her and Aveline.
Because we are in the playersexuality thread and the main argument against it is the fact that they would be able to romance players of the opposite gender as your character in other playthroughs. It's the same thing. If you can go through a game as a female Shepard and never know that Morrigan is able to be romanced by a male without meta gaming and that's okay. Then it should also be okay to play as a male and never know that she's romanceable as a female as well without meta gaming.
I'm against the playersexual approach because then the companions seem less real. Instead of having predefined interests that the player character can't alter, the character instead shifts their romantic preferences based on the gender of the player character. Or worse, characters are gay or straight *until* meeting the player character at which point they surrender to the player character's epically awesome awesomeness and decide to switch teams.
I prefer a more realistic approach where characters are either straight, homosexual, or bisexual, and the player character is unable to impose his or her will upon them. That is what I meant by stating a few pages back that I thought ME3 did it better than DA2. Male Shep isn't going to charm Traynor into his rack, Cortez isn't going to forget about his husband while sleeping with FemShep, and Garrus isn't go to experiment with male humans. I thought that in a small way added to their characters, in that it made them seem more like real people rather than video game characters with a straight/bi/gay toggle.
I wouldn't just tie a companions interest (or lack of it) to the player character's gender either. Personality and how you treat them should also play a role. A rabidly pro-mage LI probably shouldn't be too interested in a romance with a rabidly pro-Templar protagonist who is burning mages at the stake, for example.
Obviously that might require more than one playthrough to romance certain characters, but I don't see that as a bad thing.
Are you seriously saying Fenris, Isabela, Anders and Merrill all had the same preferences and predefined interests?
Hahahahahahahahaha
*rolls*
Also male Shep could charm everyone else on his D but clearly that's far more believable. Nevermind that Hawke actually gets rejected by more people.
Oh boy. Those ME comparisons are just hilarious. I just...I don't get people playing that and then saying DA2 was the one with fanservice for Lis. The damn ME devs flat out admitted Tali and Garrus romances were fanservice and the Asari are a walking fanservice race. But no. DA2 is the issue.
It's so transparent and sad.
Edit: And how are you saying their sexuality changed. How are you so sure they were straight (or gay) to begin with? Did you write them? Did Anders have a conversation in DAA I missed where he went he's straight?
Assuming only one playthrough and not looking it up, how would you know both of them are possible LIs? I only played as FemShep, but I don't recall Steve ever saying, "if only you were a dude Shepard" nor Samantha saying, "it's a good thing you're a woman because I'm not into guys." I only know they're gender specific LIs from the internets. I'm starting to feel like a broken record bringing up Merrill, but nothing she said on my femHawke playthrough suggests she's into guys. In fact, the last playthrough of DA2 I was specifically going for Isabela so the only companion whose preferences I got a sense of were her and Aveline.
Well, my response was to someone who was essentially claiming that it is impossible to know the orientation of an LI without metagaming. Although it may not necessarily be possible to determine if a character is an LI or not it can be very easy to determine the potential LI's orientation if it is written into the character.
As for Steve and Samantha, I may be wrong but I do think there is dialogue confirming that they are only attracted to the same gender even if you are playing that particular gender. I'd need to rummage a bit to find them though.
I am for playersexuality.
On one hand, I understand the point of wanting characters to have a defined sexuality. I don't think that viewpoint is wrong, but I believe that in this particular argument it is highly selective and that a lot of people who share it have enjoyed the privilege of options that LGBT players haven't. No one seems to mind that characters never have a racial preference, or that romance always ignores actual physical attraction and is strictly based on gender. The line is drawn in the sand specifically at gender. It's telling. And sad. As a gay male I can tell you that my interest in someone does not boil down to "has a penis".
If we're shooting for hyper-realism then we have -never- had that in any game for the reasons mentioned above, but we have often had blatant inequality. That's what makes playersexuality ideal. It allows all of us to enjoy the romances for the entertainment purpose they present. Then, for those of us that have the ability to truly roleplay, the others that we don't romance remain unattainable, or unwanted, or unknown. At least for that playthrough. And I would not argue the idea of having a character be different in separate playthroughs, because it's already happened many times for multiple characters.
So ultimately, it just comes down to either shooting for realism that will never hit the mark, or being inclusive to all walks of life. Sharing is not a bad thing.
I am for playersexuality.
On one hand, I understand the point of wanting characters to have a defined sexuality. I don't think that viewpoint is wrong, but I believe that in this particular argument it is highly selective and that a lot of people who share it have enjoyed the privilege of options that LGBT players haven't. No one seems to mind that characters never have a racial preference, or that romance always ignores actual physical attraction and is strictly based on gender. The line is drawn in the sand specifically at gender. It's telling. And sad. As a gay male I can tell you that my interest in someone does not boil down to "has a penis".
If we're shooting for hyper-realism then we have -never- had that in any game for the reasons mentioned above, but we have often had blatant inequality. That's what makes playersexuality ideal. It allows all of us to enjoy the romances for the entertainment purpose they present. Then, for those of us that have the ability to truly roleplay, the others that we don't romance remain unattainable, or unwanted, or unknown. At least for that playthrough. And I would not argue the idea of having a character be different in separate playthroughs, because it's already happened many times for multiple characters.
So ultimately, it just comes down to either shooting for realism that will never hit the mark, or being inclusive to all walks of life. Sharing is not a bad thing.
Couldn't have said it better myself 
Because we are in the playersexuality thread and the main argument against it is the fact that they would be able to romance players of the opposite gender as your character in other play through and that this somehow weakens the character. It's the same thing. If you can go through a game as a female Warden and never know that Morrigan is able to be romanced by a male without meta gaming and that's okay, then it should also be okay to play as a male and never know that she's romanceable as a female as well without meta gaming.
It can feel as though it weakens the characters. Let's say I am a Dragon Age fan who doesn't follow the Developer tweets and plays DA2. On my first playthrough Anders never mentions that he was in a relationship with Karl because I playing a female Hawke, so I assume he is straight and never had a relationship with Karl, but on my second playthrough I play a male Hawke and Anders now mentions a past relationship with Karl.
I want to write a Dragon age fanfiction about Anders set before the events of dragon Age 2, but do I write him as in a relationship with Karl or not? I have no idea because Hawke is not defined yet, and therefore neither is Anders. That entire part of his history, from my perspective having only played the games, relies entirely on Hawkes existence to define it, and therefore technically does not exist without them.
And aside from that there's just something about changing aspects of the characters that should be defined at birth as soon as the player character pops into existence that bothers me. If Bioware wanted wanted to they could let us could play in parallel universes where Isabela or Vivienne happen to be white, Varric is an elf or Anders isn't a mage, based on what we choose in character select. But I don't particularly want to play in a setting where the characters's persons change like that behind the scenes before the game even begins.
I understand that unlike those examples "playersexuality" serves a purpose, but do the ends justify the means when they could simply write four bisexual LI's and have the characters histories and orientations consistent across all playthroughs? What do we actually gain from having their orientations change that couldn't be gained otherwise?
Retour en haut