1875 réponses à ce sujet

[Khaeix]

Basically it comes down to unlimited wants and limited resources.

 

Resources (money, time, etc.) for the game are limited, whilst the fans wants (playsexual romances, beautiful landscapes, etc.) are very much unlimited.

 

With the resources they have, Bioware has to make a game that appeals to a broad target market, from people who play the game for the story to the people who play the game for the customization. It’s a very fine line to walk and having four playersexual characters is cheaper than having two bisexual, two homosexual and two heterosexual. Therefore, Bioware can direct more of its resources towards other important aspects of the game.

 

Also, the amount of people that are upset over playersexual characters are most likely a smaller portion of potential buyers than the people that would get upset over no homosexual characters, or a limited number (in the case of 2 heterosexual, 2 bisexual).

 

Alienating a portion of their fanbase is not in Bioware’s best interest.

 

I apologise if this has already been mentioned – I’m too lazy to go through the 78 pages of comments 

[Billy-the-Squid]

I don't have an issue with homosexual, bi sexual or transgendered characters or the like.

 

But if BioWare wishes to be taken seriously as a storyteller, they need to detach themselves from elements that encourages the audience to demand childish power fantasy wish fulfilment such as player-sexuality and this notion of romance as a buffet where you pick your very own Bond Girl/Guy without any relevance to the game's main narrative or overarching themes.

 

I'm sorry, but if you want that, you'd be better off playing a dating sim. It's not all high school harems anymore, there are dating sims out there that are roughly equivalent to BioWare in terms of story and gameplay. 

 

www.winterwolves.com

 

 

That's just your privilege talking, check it, or I'll set the SJWs on you. Don't you know buying a game and expecting it to focus on your juvenile pixel fantasy is a moral right? You're such a bigot Crusty... and I love you for it. Haha 

[Ianamus]

Basically it comes down to unlimited wants and limited resources.

 

Resources (money, time, etc.) for the game are limited, whilst the fans wants (playsexual romances, beautiful landscapes, etc.) are very much unlimited.

 

With the resources they have, Bioware has to make a game that appeals to a broad target market, from people who play the game for the story to the people who play the game for the customization. It’s a very fine line to walk and having four playersexual characters is cheaper than having two bisexual, two homosexual and two heterosexual. Therefore, Bioware can direct more of its resources towards other important aspects of the game.

 

Also, the amount of people that are upset over playersexual characters are most likely a smaller portion of potential buyers than the people that would get upset over no homosexual characters, or a limited number (in the case of 2 heterosexual, 2 bisexual).

 

Alienating a portion of their fanbase is not in Bioware’s best interest.

 

I apologise if this has already been mentioned – I’m too lazy to go through the 78 pages of comments 

 

I think it's less of an argument over whether or not the games should do "playersexual" or 2 heterosexual / 2 bisexual and more over whether the games should continue to have 4 bisexual LI's or move to full "playersexuality" (with most people agreeing that 2 heterosexual/ 2 bisexual/ 2 homosexual would be the ideal, but 4 bisexual is the next best option). 

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

 

 

tl;dr version--

 

If you want restrictions, lets focus on restrictions that actually DO effect the character and story integrity, like choices relating to their beliefs and alignments. Sexuality is irrelevant to the actual character develop, or the integrity of the narrative. The entire process of a Bioware game is taking an active role in shaping an imaginary reality, constrained only by elements that keep the story on track. Sexuality has none of the earmarks of being one of these elements. 

 

 

Where I'm uncomfortable is the idea that in story, and an intimate relationship, someone's beliefs and alignment are somehow important to who they are, and their development, but that their sexuality is not.

 

I don't think saying that a character's sexuality is unimportant is an overly convincing argument. It has nothing to do with me overstressing the importance of one aspect of a character, since I've never said that a character's sexuality has any elevated or specific importance to me, only the integrity with which that character is written.

 

I think it's entirely reasonable to pay $60 for a roleplaying game that tells a story with characters, and expect the writers to be consistent in their presentation of story and character. When story and character are changed to suit the player's tastes, it creates a more customizable game. There are many games that allow you to build the entire party yourself, and I enjoy those, but that's not why I play BioWare games.

 

I don't play them for the romances, either, and if the romances were removed entirely, that would bother me less than redefining the characters on each playthrough according to the arbitrary traits of an unrelated character.

 

I would rather sacrifice the ability to customize the NPC's sexuality than sacrifice the writing of the characters, themselves. I would rather that the writers spend their effort creating new ways for a consistent personality to face different situations, rather than rewriting the character for each situation.

 

If this was  Dungeons and Dragons game, and it was up to me to design the party myself, I would be fine with having the option to define the personalities and traits of the NPCs. But that's not why I play BioWare games. I believe that in the case of most people, the stories and characters are the draw for them, as well. BioWare may see it differently, and they have in the past, but it is my hope that they focus on telling a good story. My belief is that a great story, and great characters will make their game a success, and people will be much less concerned with the sexuality of the individual characters if they are presented with a consistent and successfully-immersive storytelling experience.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Where I'm uncomfortable is the idea that in story, and an intimate relationship, someone's beliefs and alignment are somehow important to who they are, and their development, but that their sexuality is not.

 

I don't think saying that a character's sexuality is unimportant is an overly convincing argument. It has nothing to do with me overstressing the importance of one aspect of a character, since I've never said that a character's sexuality has any elevated or specific importance to me, only the integrity with which that character is written.

 

I think it's entirely reasonable to pay $60 for a roleplaying game that tells a story with characters, and expect the writers to be consistent in their presentation of story and character. When story and character are changed to suite the player's tastes, it creates a more customizable game. There are many games that allow you to build the entire party yourself, and I enjoy those, but that's not why I play BioWare games.

 

I don't play them for the romances, either, and if the romances were removed entirely, that would bother me less than redefining the characters on each playthrough according to the arbitrary traits of an unrelated character.

 

I would rather sacrifice the ability to customize the NPC's sexuality than sacrifice the writing of the characters, themselves. I would rather that the writers spend their effort creating new ways for a consistent personality to face different situations, rather than rewriting the character for each situation.

 

If this was  Dungeons and Dragons game, and it was up to me to design the party myself, I would be fine with having the option to define the personalities and traits of the NPCs. But that's not why I play BioWare games. I believe that in the case of most people, the stories and characters are the draw for them, as well. BioWare may see it differently, and they have in the past, but it is my hope that they focus on telling a good story. My belief is that a great story, and great characters will make their game a success, and people will be much less concerned with the sexuality of the individual characters if they are presented with a consistent and successfully-immersive storytelling experience.

Then I have a really simple question for you. How does the change in the characters sexuality change their personality? How does their role in the main story change?

 

It's easy to see how their beliefs and alignments effect these two things. It's not clear at all to me how their sexuality effects either of these thing.

[Vapaa]

It's easy to see how their beliefs and alignments effect these two things. It's not clear at all to me how their sexuality effects either of these thing.

 

This

Sexuality is a non-issue in Thedas, it's not a polarizing subject, people doesn't care, unlike the whole mage/templar conflict, or the condition of the elves, or slavery, etc...

 

If a society doesn't consider something to be a big deal, then the people in this society won't consider it a big deal either.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

Then I have a really simple question for you. How does the change in the characters sexuality change their personality? How does their role in the main story change?

 

It's easy to see how their beliefs and alignments effect these two things. It's not clear at all to me how their sexuality effects either of these thing.

 

Before I answer you, I'll turn it around on you.

 

If sexuality is unimportant, why does it matter so much to you?

 

Why is it okay for sexuality to be important enough to you, for you to want to be able to control the element of the game's NPC companions, but it shouldn't be important enough to me, to matter to the integrity of the character's writing?

 

You have created an impossible double standard. Sexuality is only important if it limits your ability to romance a character. It's not important if it negatively impacts immersion by redefining a character arbitrarily. You have essentially stated, "Sexuality is only allowed to matter to people who agree with me." It's not an effective argument. You're not likely to convince many people to agree with you by using that tactic. 

 

As to why it matters, I will demonstrate by changing it to something innocuous for comparison.

 

I create a Jazz-loving MC. All companions are now Jazz-lovers. Every companion that I develop an intimate relationship with now loves Jazz.

 

I play a new game. I make a Rock and Roll loving MC. All companions are now Rock and Roll lovers. Every companion that I develop an intimate relationship with loves Rock and Roll, instead.

 

I find this change in the characters with whom I'm intimate removes immersion for me. That doesn't mean that I suddenly think that one's musical taste is overly important in its own right: it means that the integrity of the character's dialogue, and the storytelling, and the way they are presented is what's important to me. You say that the musical tastes aren't important, and I shouldn't care that they get changed arbitrarily, and yet you also say that musical tastes are important enough to you that you want to be able to control what kind of music the NPCs like.

 

It's fair that you prefer prioritizing customization over story and character. With many game types, I do, too. But not storytelling RPGs. With those, I want the writing to get priority over my ability to change or define NPCs to suit my tastes. I want the writers to take me on a journey.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Before I answer you, I'll turn it around on you.

 

If sexuality is unimportant, why does it matter so much to you?

 

Why is okay for sexuality to be important enough to you, for you to want to be able to control the element of the game's NPC companions, but it shouldn't be important enough to me, to matter to the integrity of the character's writing?

 

You have created an impossible double standard. Sexuality is only important if it limits your ability to romance a character. It's not important if it negatively impacts immersion by redefining a character arbitrarily. You have essentially stated, "Sexuality is only allowed to matter to people who agree with me." It's not an effective argument. You're not likely to convince many people to agree with you by using that tactic. 

 

As to why it matters, I will demonstrate by changing it to something innocuous for comparison.

 

I create a Jazz-loving MC. All companions are now Jazz-lovers. Every companion that I develop an intimate relationship with now loves Jazz.

 

I play a new game. I make a Rock and Roll loving MC. All companions are now Rock and Roll lovers. Every companion that I develop an intimate relationship with loves Rock and Roll, instead.

 

I find this change in the characters with whom I'm intimate removes immersion for me. That doesn't mean that I suddenly think that one's musical taste is overly important in its own right: it means that the integrity of the character's dialogue, and the storytelling, and the way they are presented is what's important to me. You say that the musical tastes aren't important, and I shouldn't care that they get changed arbitrarily, and yet you also say that musical tastes are important enough to you that you want to be able to control what kind of music the NPCs like.

 

It's fair that you prefer prioritizing customization over story and character. With many game types, I do, too. But not storytelling RPGs. With those, I want the writing to get priority over my ability to change or define NPCs to suit my tastes. I want the writers to take me on a journey.

The content is important to me. The romances are a big part of why I like the games. Having access to the content vastly changes my experience. Saying the content doesn't substantially change the main story or the character's role in it isn't commenting on how important having the content is to my personal enjoyment. These are two totally separate ideas.

 

The thing is, nothing changes unless you explore those options. If you want a character to be a specific sexuality, there will be characters that remain ambiguous and there's no reason for you to not see them as whatever you want. It wasn't clear in DA2 if all the characters were bisexual unless you specifically chose options leading to their romances. You only have to blow the image by specifically making an effort to do so. Because you have to make an effort to take yourself out of the world as you imagine it, I think you're being petty in trying to deny others the chance to access content that has to change basically nothing for you.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

The content is important to me. The romances are a big part of why I like the games. Having access to the content vastly changes my experience. Saying the content doesn't substantially change the main story or the character's role in it isn't commenting on how important having the content is to my personal enjoyment. These are two totally separate ideas.

 

The thing is, nothing changes unless you explore those options. If you want a character to be a specific sexuality, there will be characters that remain ambiguous and there's no reason for you to not see them as whatever you want. It wasn't clear in DA2 if all the characters were bisexual unless you specifically chose options leading to their romances. You only have to blow the image by specifically making an effort to do so. Because you have to make an effort to take yourself out of the world as you imagine it, I think you're being petty in trying to deny others the chance to access content that has to change basically nothing for you.

 

Again, that's not really fair. You say that having access to customizing NPC sexuality is important to your experience of the game, so it should matter, but that integrity of the characters' presentation isn't as important to you, so it shouldn't matter.

 

You're calling me petty, even though I have repeatedly acknowledged there's nothing wrong with your desire to customize NPCs.

 

Insults are really not convincing arguments, either.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Again, that's not really fair. You say that having access to customizing NPC sexuality is important to your experience of the game, so it should matter, but that integrity of the characters' presentation isn't as important to you, so it shouldn't matter.

 

You're calling me petty, even though I have repeatedly acknowledged there's nothing wrong with your desire to customize NPCs.

 

Insults are really not convincing arguments, either.

I'm not saying immersion isn't important. I'm definitely not saying character presentation isn't important. I'm saying there are still no convincing arguments as to how changing character sexuality greatly effects those things. The reality each player experiences in a Bioware game is always different, as I explained in the original post. The skeletal concepts that remain unchanging are the ones that keep the main story on track. Character sexuality doesn't represent one of these aspects. I don't see any convincing argument as to why it can't change, as there are already many things that change already.

[Zazzerka]

I'm saying there are still no convincing arguments as to how changing character sexuality greatly effects those things.

 

And you won't find one, because your mind is made up, as is Jeremiah's. It's like convincing you that you don't enjoy the taste of your favourite food, or the beat to your favourite song. There is no single objective reason that will convince either of you. "Why does it matter to you? Why does it matter to YOU?"

 

Sir Ian McKellan will turn straight before the fans agree to disagree.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

And you won't, because your mind is made up, as is Jeremiah's. It's like convincing you that you don't enjoy the taste of your favourite food, or the beat to your favourite song. There is no single objective reason that will convince either of you. "Why does it matter to you? Why does it matter to YOU?"

 

Sir Ian McKellan will turn straight before the fans agree to disagree.

Well, we can't really "agree to disagree". There's no way for everyone to get what they want. That's why the argument is who stands to lose the most based on a given system.

[Zazzerka]

Playersexuality is going to happen. Everybody knows it. You can relax.

[oceanicsurvivor]

Before I answer you, I'll turn it around on you.

 

If sexuality is unimportant, why does it matter so much to you?

 

Why is it okay for sexuality to be important enough to you, for you to want to be able to control the element of the game's NPC companions, but it shouldn't be important enough to me, to matter to the integrity of the character's writing?

 

You have created an impossible double standard. Sexuality is only important if it limits your ability to romance a character. It's not important if it negatively impacts immersion by redefining a character arbitrarily. You have essentially stated, "Sexuality is only allowed to matter to people who agree with me." It's not an effective argument. You're not likely to convince many people to agree with you by using that tactic. 

 

As to why it matters, I will demonstrate by changing it to something innocuous for comparison.

 

I create a Jazz-loving MC. All companions are now Jazz-lovers. Every companion that I develop an intimate relationship with now loves Jazz.

 

I play a new game. I make a Rock and Roll loving MC. All companions are now Rock and Roll lovers. Every companion that I develop an intimate relationship with loves Rock and Roll, instead.

 

I find this change in the characters with whom I'm intimate removes immersion for me. That doesn't mean that I suddenly think that one's musical taste is overly important in its own right: it means that the integrity of the character's dialogue, and the storytelling, and the way they are presented is what's important to me. You say that the musical tastes aren't important, and I shouldn't care that they get changed arbitrarily, and yet you also say that musical tastes are important enough to you that you want to be able to control what kind of music the NPCs like.

 

It's fair that you prefer prioritizing customization over story and character. With many game types, I do, too. But not storytelling RPGs. With those, I want the writing to get priority over my ability to change or define NPCs to suit my tastes. I want the writers to take me on a journey.

 

But they don't really change depending on the gender of who they romance. They act and love the same. That seems like integrity of character to me actually. If they love Hawke they love Hawke, simple as that.

 

Even if loving Jazz/Rock and Roll were remotely similar in scope to one's sexuality the fact remains that you can like more than one type of music just like you can like more than one gender. Just b/c all you want to do is talk about Jazz in one playthrough and Rock and Roll in another doesn't mean the characters interest have changed.
 

[Eveangaline]

Playersexuality is going to happen. Everybody knows it. You can relax.

Honestly I don't really get why it's called playersexuality instead of just assuming they're bi. I mean hell, if I recruit someone and then never talk to them about anything romance related I don't assume they're asexual in that playthrough.

[Former_Fiend]

I've always thought of it as the characters being bisexual rather than simply being attracted to the PC no matter what. And I think that's the way to go about it. You can have four to six bisexual people in a group of ten individuals and they're all still be distinctly different people. 

 

I also feel that limiting it is going to end up with some issues; you want to play a gay character in Origins; your choices are Leliana or Zevran, respectively; if you don't like either of them(and there are plenty of reasons not to like either of them), then you're going celibate or spending a lot of time at the Pearl.

 

That kind of situation just doesn't seem fair to me. Bioware characters are always divisive. Cut options in half like that, you'll essentially be taking all the options away from at least some of your fans.

[rocsage]

meanwhile, few freely-romanced-companion advocate even acknowledge Sebastian's existence.

if any inference is to be made regarding the future, the basis can only come from a complete prelude, not a fragment.

While I do not mind the titular suggestion, recognition of the facts, at least, would make arguments much more convincing--when reasoning is already motivated, not thinking straight results in an unsound argument.

 

Chuckled at people shouting "breeder" as an insult of some sort...as a straight, not-so-happily single man of 24 1/2, I envy the couples as well, but using these terms while arguing really paints a picture.

[daveliam]

It's funny that we don't really mention Sebastian when talking about DA 2 romances actually.  He is clearly not playersexual.  So that makes 3 out of 5 LIs in DA2 that are definitely not playersexual and only two that are up for debate.  This is why I think it's odd that people even think that the DA 2 romances were playersexual. Why would they have some playersexual LIs and others that have set sexualities.  The more likely scenario, in my mind, is that there are 4 bisexual and 1 straight romance in the game.  I genuinely don't think we've ever seen a playersexual romance in DA.

[Mockingword]

Before I answer you, I'll turn it around on you.

 

If sexuality is unimportant, why does it matter so much to you?

 

Why is it okay for sexuality to be important enough to you, for you to want to be able to control the element of the game's NPC companions, but it shouldn't be important enough to me, to matter to the integrity of the character's writing?

 

You have created an impossible double standard. Sexuality is only important if it limits your ability to romance a character. It's not important if it negatively impacts immersion by redefining a character arbitrarily. You have essentially stated, "Sexuality is only allowed to matter to people who agree with me." It's not an effective argument. You're not likely to convince many people to agree with you by using that tactic. 

 

As to why it matters, I will demonstrate by changing it to something innocuous for comparison.

 

I create a Jazz-loving MC. All companions are now Jazz-lovers. Every companion that I develop an intimate relationship with now loves Jazz.

 

I play a new game. I make a Rock and Roll loving MC. All companions are now Rock and Roll lovers. Every companion that I develop an intimate relationship with loves Rock and Roll, instead.

 

I find this change in the characters with whom I'm intimate removes immersion for me. That doesn't mean that I suddenly think that one's musical taste is overly important in its own right: it means that the integrity of the character's dialogue, and the storytelling, and the way they are presented is what's important to me. You say that the musical tastes aren't important, and I shouldn't care that they get changed arbitrarily, and yet you also say that musical tastes are important enough to you that you want to be able to control what kind of music the NPCs like.

 

It's fair that you prefer prioritizing customization over story and character. With many game types, I do, too. But not storytelling RPGs. With those, I want the writing to get priority over my ability to change or define NPCs to suit my tastes. I want the writers to take me on a journey.

 

The 'customisation' of sexuality matters because of what it does for players, specifically gay ones, not because of the way it impacts on the development of fictional characters. Trivializing the issue with your 'musical taste' analogy just demonstrates that you've completely missed the point. People who love rock and roll or jazz are not discriminated against in real life, nor are such characters mysteriously absent from 90% of media. You clearly have no understanding of what Bioware has done for many gay, lesbian and bisexual gamers, myself included, by creating a story where people like them can be heroes for once.

 

Bioware doesn't want to take you on a journey, they want you to tell your own story within the scenarios they've created. That's why they allow you to design your character's look and determine his or her personality for yourself, and make choices that alter the plot of the game. All of Bioware's games, since the first Baldur's Gate at least, have prioritised customisation.

 

With some characters, you have the ability to choose if they should live or die. That seems pretty freaking significant to me. But no, apparently it's their sexuality that's ruining the 'integrity' of the storytelling.

[mars_central]

It's funny that we don't really mention Sebastian when talking about DA 2 romances actually.  He is clearly not playersexual.  So that makes 3 out of 5 LIs in DA2 that are definitely not playersexual and only two that are up for debate.  This is why I think it's odd that people even think that the DA 2 romances were playersexual. Why would they have some playersexual LIs and others that have set sexualities.  The more likely scenario, in my mind, is that there are 4 bisexual and 1 straight romance in the game.  I genuinely don't think we've ever seen a playersexual romance in DA.

 

This is where good writing matters. Are Merrill and Fenris bisexual or playersexual? I can't really comment on Fenris as I never romanced him, but I know with Merrill I never actually questioned her sexuality. She's deep enough to stand on her own as a character without that really mattering. All that mattered on the playthrough where I did romance her was that she was interested in Hawke when she flirted. That's why I'm happy for Bioware to leave a LI's sexuality purposefully vague unless you go the more openly bi route of Isabela and Anders.

[Hazegurl]

Honestly I don't really get why it's called playersexuality instead of just assuming they're bi. I mean hell, if I recruit someone and then never talk to them about anything romance related I don't assume they're asexual in that playthrough.

Of course they have to call it "playsexuality". It makes it sound more important than it actually is.

[Blackrising]

I think most people know my stance on things by now, but, in honour of having a new forum: Yes, I am in favour of being able to romance any of the LIs, regardless what gender I decide to play. I'm not going to argue on behalf of representation or equal right or anything else that has a tendency of getting political, as we've seen time and time again where that will lead here (plus, with 79 pages, I am pretty sure everything has been said, and probably better).

 

What I will say is that the term 'playersexual' is, as far as I'm concerned, not really accurate. 'Vague' or simply 'private' seems more like it, at least for those characters that aren't openly bisexual. And I am completely and utterly in love with the concept, because it spares me a ton of frustration and will ensure that my hero's journey will be a satisfying one.

Even if the rest of the game turns out to be horribly bad (and that would be a first), I'd still be unbelievably happy at not being restricted due to my choice of sexuality. Conversely, restricting my choice of LI will most likely cause the game to never be truly satisfying for me, even if the rest of it is really good.

 

Generally, I think making players feel happy about their game is the most important thing. Above all, video games are still supposed to be entertainment, after all. And I beg you all to not underestimate how goshdarn ECSTATIC it makes many non-straight people feel to be able to fully enjoy the game like that. Looking at the bigger picture here, as a non-straight person who may not be able to identify with most cases of straight romance, media nowadays still sucks. And I simply cannot explain the joy I felt when I played DA2 and realised that the LIs wouldn't reject me for my gender (or, more accurately, never even give me the chance to signal my interest).

Believe me, I was close to tears. (Which probably seems pathetic and embarrassing, since it's still just a video game, but if you've been longing for more love stories you can actually identify with and enjoy without doubt nagging at you and suddenly there's this piece of media that you really enjoy anyway and then it gives you what you want just like that...you simply don't give a damn about looking pathetic.)

 

And now I've actually said a lot more than I wanted to. Don't mind me, I seem to be in a bit of an emotional mood today.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

People mostly just use the term "playersexuality" because it's easier than saying "you can romance all characters regardless of gender" in some way every time you try to get the idea across. I don't really favor leaving every character vague, because it leaves situations like Anders and Karl. I would favor some characters openly identifying as bisexual and some being left vague. That leaves room for people to roleplay certain characters as a specific mono-sexuality, if that's something that's important to them. It seems like a fair compromise to me, because a lot of people seem to have issues accepting the idea that all love interests are bisexuals. This way they could choose to believe certain characters in their play-through are heterosexual or homosexual. If other people are more comfortable with the "everyone is bisexual" theory, they can choose to believe that instead. 

 

I didn't mention Sebastian, because I don't want to see more romances that off-balance the distribution, like he did. I don't think DA2 was the ideal way to handle things. It wasn't an even balance, because of Sebastian, and I do think the handling of Anders with female characters was off. I see DA2's system as a step up from the Mass Effect handling (ie, huge fanservice for straight guys) but it still could be improved. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

What you are describing is called "retcon."

 

Telling me that repeatedly doing that to a character doesn't harm them isn't going to convince me of anything.

It's not a retcon, because it isn't changing any previously established facts.  In each new playthrough, those facts are not yet established.  The concept of "previously" or "retroactive" doesn't apply across playthroughs, since they aren't the same timeline.

 

You need to think less linearly about time.

[Battlebloodmage]

It's not a retcon, because it isn't changing any previously established facts.  In each new playthrough, those facts are not yet established.  The concept of "previously" or "retroactive" doesn't apply across playthroughs, since they aren't the same timeline.

 

You need to think less linearly about time.

Furthermore, Bioware stated long ago that they make the game mainly for one playthrough, considering many people who play Dragon Age or other RPG don't even finish the game or just play it once. The establishment of sexual orientation will only matter for those who replay the games the second time.