Ce sujet est fermé
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.
Of course, among those who may actually be highly critical of this, even if they only play the game once, or don't finish, some would no doubt object strictly on principle.
I do regret my last several posts, and while I did say I'd bow it, screw it. I just realized I have one last point to make, and I can't help but come back and share it.
I'd really rather the romances be a more serious and integrated means of better understanding the characters. However, even the devs admit to just seeing them, and seemingly just threw them in, as little more than separate pieces of fanservice. You ever seen a popular anime character portrayed in a sexy bathing suit solely for the fans? No matter how well they might be written, if even the creators don't see the romances in a greater, more substantial light, how can I? Something like that's just not very engaging.
Your meta-point is appreciated. For those of us who view the romances as storytelling (not pixel pursuit) (and like everything else in the game), yes, we do wish they'd be better written side-stories. Also, BTW, as I've said earlier, without a button that essentially makes sure you get the romantic happy ending. As a narrative device, (interactive) romance stories are most interesting when like anything else they require you to overcome adversity. DA2 romances felt too ... 'easy' ... to bring to completion. (Completion not being having sex, that usually comes early, I'm talking about the "living happily ever after part" in Act 3.)
At the end of the day, they face a problem. Of course they'd be better if they put more time and resources into them. But then people will get upset that these optional elements are taking away from what really matters. Incredible, bone-shattering, screen-shaking kill animations. So they don't put that much into them, and people complain they're too little of the overall plot/game time/screen time, etc. This is one case where the devs literally face a Kobyashi Maru. They cannot win for losing. May be why Gaider has mused maybe they'll stop doing the romances.
I hate romance novels. Totally not my thing. I don't even like most romantic comedies. Like everybody else, I want fantasy stories to ultimately be about triumphing against the Great Evil Fiery Eye in the Sky ™. Along the way the knight can also get the girl, (or the guy). It can be interesting side story, even if it's not the main one. Exactly like Arwen & Aragorn in LOTR. And there are ways it can be integral to the plot. Having to rescue the girl (or the guy) after they've been kidnapped is one that Bio's tried several times, but that's cliche, and they could come up with others.
Having to redeem Bastila from the Dark Side in KOTOR ... now that was different.
Your meta-point is appreciated. For those of us who view the romances as storytelling (not pixel pursuit) (and like everything else in the game), yes, we do wish they'd be better written side-stories. Also, BTW, as I've said earlier, without a button that essentially makes sure you get the romantic happy ending. As a narrative device, (interactive) romance stories are most interesting when like anything else they require you to overcome adversity. DA2 romances felt too ... 'easy' ... to bring to completion. (Completion not being having sex, that usually comes early, I'm talking about the "living happily ever after part" in Act 3.)
At the end of the day, they face a problem. Of course they'd be better if they put more time and resources into them. But then people will get upset that these optional elements are taking away from what really matters. Incredible, bone-shattering, screen-shaking kill animations. So they don't put that much into them, and people complain they're too little of the overall plot/game time/screen time, etc. This is one case where the devs literally face a Kobyashi Maru. They cannot win for losing. May be why Gaider has mused maybe they'll stop doing the romances.
I hate romance novels. Totally not my thing. I don't even like most romantic comedies. Like everybody else, I want fantasy stories to ultimately be about triumphing against the Great Evil Fiery Eye in the Sky ™. Along the way the knight can also get the girl, (or the guy). It can be interesting side story, even if it's not the main one. Exactly like Arwen & Aragorn in LOTR. And there are ways it can be integral to the plot. Having to rescue the girl (or the guy) after they've been kidnapped is one that Bio's tried several times, but that's cliche, and they could come up with others.
Having to redeem Bastila from the Dark Side in KOTOR ... now that was different.
Agreed. Part of what's drawn me in to Bioware games is that story, including the romance elements, have always been well done. They're not perfect and there are things I'd like to see in the future such as the romance having a deeper impact on conversations between you and your companions. While, as you say, they aren't the main event in the game, they are an enjoyable part of the show for so many of us. Which is why I want everyone to have the opportunity to try. I don't think anyone wants it to be too easy, there should be some challenge. No one should be locked out of that by simply clicking the wrong button at the start.
I'd really rather the romances be a more serious and integrated means of better understanding the characters. However, even the devs admit to just seeing them, and seemingly just threw them in, as little more than separate pieces of fanservice. You ever seen a popular anime character portrayed in a sexy bathing suit solely for the fans? No matter how well they might be written, if even the creators don't see the romances in a greater, more substantial light, how can I? Something like that's just not very engaging.
Maybe this discussion should be moved to a different thread. It seems to be more about the nature of romances themselves and less about the sexuality of the LIs.
I'm curious where this idea that the devs see the romance as tacked on fanservice came from? Gaider's blog indicates that he views romances as an extension of character writing and a unique part of Bioware's games:
To me, the thing that BioWare does best is not story but characters—I think our characters are done to a level that few other games even attempt, with an element of agency that strikes a chord in our players…and romances have been a natural outgrowth of that. Sure we could stop, but that would be turning our backs on something we do which almost no-one else does.
But I guess there is also a caveat with that. How do you approach a side-story (as the romances are) that you know only a fraction of players will ever see? There are players who never romance anybody. There are those who only ever romance one LI. Only a portion of players will ever romance most or all LIs. Do you reserve a lot of special content for each LI that can only be accessed via romance, as a sort of "reward" for romancing them? Or is that unfair to players who really like and want to get to know a character, but not romantically? I remember, though I cannot find it at the moment, Gaider mentioning that he liked the idea of people learning just as much about a character's backstory through friendship.
This is actually another reason why I lean towards a smaller number of bisexual romance options more than a larger number of romance options with a range of sexual preferences. If they have limited resources, I'd rather they give each individual romance more content than spread less content over more options.
1) Maybe this discussion should be moved to a different thread. It seems to be more about the nature of romances themselves and less about the sexuality of the LIs.
2) I'm curious where this idea that the devs see the romance as tacked on fanservice came from?
1) The title of the thread is "Playersexual Characters"; I doubt the op meant to focus the discussion that narrowly. As such, I think there's plenty of room to approach the topic on multiple levels when arguing whether the feature was, and will be, effective or not.
2) Hmm, you might be right; I don't think there's a direct quote or anything refering to it a such. Mr. Gaider does acknowledge them as optional side content, though, that fans enjoy. And there's no doubt that, in DA2 at least, the romances have little, if any, effect on the rest of the characters' presentation or the larger narrative. Maybe that's where the "fanservice" impression comes from.
All I know is that, in my last DA2 playthrough, for all the reasons I stated against the feature, I didn't even bother with any of the romances. And that playthrough was all the better for it. But since I can (sort of) ignore them, I guess I really can't argue, within reason, for their omission.
Yeah, I was going to point this out too. I thought that a romanced Leliana would definitely have a character quest which would introduce Marjolaine who is clearly identified as a past lover of Leliana.
I'm glad that you brought this up because I was wondering if I was the only one who picked up on this from that post. Again, it's not completely obvious, but it's alluded to and adds even more support to my idea that they are not playersexual at all.
Here's the quote from his blog:
"Quite frequently on our forums someone will come along with a rant on how they hated how “all the followers in DA2 were bisexual”. Sometimes you’ll even get someone who counters that by saying, no, they weren’t bisexual… the same-gender romance options were gay and the opposite-gender romance options were straight, depending on your player character."
Bolded is my emphasis. Here's the link for the full article: http://dgaider.tumbl...tions-on-anders
Some of you seem to have this notion that the only thing people like me want is for the characters to clearly and bluntly proclaim their preferences up front and/or at the beginning. Yes, even I agree that that's not necessary, even over time. But, c'mon, unless actively avoiding it, people are gonna let slip at least a couple of hints on any aspect of themselves, including by any number of offhanded and/or unconscious ways (as I've suggested in previous posts). And in a years-long plot, there are plenty of opportunities for that to happen, especially within a romantic relationship where honesty might actually be expected.
You know me. I just can't help it.
It's actually been one of the best discussions I've ever seen on this topic on BSN. There have been a few issues here and there where miscommunication and misunderstanding has made it a little tense, but cooler heads have always prevailed and the conversation has continued. There have been a lot of really interesting perspectives and the conversation has evolved over the course of a few days. It's been a great experience, to be honest. I wonder what was different this time that led it to not self-destruct? (genuine question, not snarky)
@ Allen Schumacher Dunno if this makes a difference:
Well, let me add just one more thing before I potentially bow out or the thread officially ends: a character's sexual preference (or any other aspect) needn't actually be revealed to anyone else within the game world. Just to me, the player on the outside looking in.
I realize some people won't be that open, even with their lovers. Others definitely would be, though, especially with their lovers. At any rate, I was just making suggestions. Someone else made the same point you made right after I made the post you quoted. I can't (and won't try to) argue against it.
9/10 times I hear that phrase it's being used in a sexual context.
When referring to large, muscular horned men who don't wear shirts: 99/100.
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.
[ ... ]
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.
Have all of my likes. No, seriously, all of them.
Quoted for g-dd-m emphasis.
A statement like this can still be made by someone who is asexual (and I validate this by virtue of an anecdote of an asexual person that echoes, and empathizes, with Merril's statement).
This is an observer bias. How many asexual people have issues complimenting someone for fear of it being taken as an advance?
A statement like this can still be made by someone who is asexual (and I validate this by virtue of an anecdote of an asexual person that echoes, and empathizes, with Merril's statement).
This is an observer bias. How many asexual people have issues complimenting someone for fear of it being taken as an advance?
This asexual does. I've also been told I'm a flirt, which sucks (I'm also demiromantic). So I've taken to using highly technical words to describe people, like, I don't say, "He's hot", I say, "She's aesthetically pleasing", or, "He's decent".
Man this thread grew absurdly fast.
Man this thread grew absurdly fast.
And that...still surprises you?
I'm actually astonished this thread hasn't gone beyond a hundred pages yet. (And that there is still an actual discussion going instead of a bunch of people throwing verbal poop at one another.)
And that...still surprises you?
I'm actually astonished this thread hasn't gone beyond a hundred pages yet. (And that there is still an actual discussion going instead of a bunch of people throwing verbal poop at one another.)
I guess I am easily surprised.
Guest_Act of Velour_*
I don't like the suggestions of making Dragon Age a sexual power fantasy, and suggestions like this do just that. "Make the characters love me no matter who I am". No. I'd rather see fleshed out characters. Characters with their own preferences, their wants, their desires, their sexual tastes, their romantic tastes, not just a bunch of pansexual "Sex EVERYTHING (as long as it's the player!)" people.
I don't like the suggestions of making Dragon Age a sexual power fantasy, and suggestions like this do just that. "Make the characters love me no matter who I am". No. I'd rather see fleshed out characters. Characters with their own preferences, their wants, their desires, their sexual tastes, their romantic tastes, not just a bunch of pansexual "Sex EVERYTHING (as long as it's the player!)" people.
I don't see how making them available for both genders makes them less fleshed out as characters, or makes them a bunch of pansexual 'sex everything as long as it's the PC!' characters.
You could still make them not romance you based on what you do in the game.
If you kick too many puppies for example, Ms. PuppyLover McLoveInterest doesn't love you anymore or whatever. Then Ms. PL McLI gets together with Mr./Ms. PuppyHugger so it doesn't seem that they're there just for the PC to love up on.
Or make them all bisexual, as some on this thread have suggested. They'd still have a concrete sexuality, but be available for both genders so there's no more situations where a certain sexuality only has one option.
I don't want this game to be a 'sexual power fantasy' either. I just don't want my gay/lesbian characters to be stuck with one option again. Especially when I may not like that option...
Leliana. 
Guest_Act of Velour_*
I don't see how making them available for both genders makes them less fleshed out as characters, or makes them a bunch of pansexual 'sex everything as long as it's the PC!' characters.
You could still make them not romance you based on what you do in the game.
If you kick too many puppies for example, Ms. PuppyLover McLoveInterest doesn't love you anymore or whatever. Then Ms. PL McLI gets together with Mr./Ms. PuppyHugger so it doesn't seem that they're there just for the PC to love up on.
Or make them all bisexual, as some on this thread have suggested. They'd still have a concrete sexuality, but be available for both genders so there's no more situations where a certain sexuality only has one option.
I don't want this game to be a 'sexual power fantasy' either. I just don't want my gay/lesbian characters to be stuck with one option again. Especially when I may not like that option...
Leliana.
I liked Leliana, for starters.
But while yeah, having them be bisexual is good from a technical standpoint since it means you won't be stuck with an unlikeable character (cough cough, Isabela, cough cough), it still feels weird in a story/plot/character sense.
Why does everyone the Inquisitor meets happen to be bisexual and ready to do the nasty with him/her? I guess that's where you could include the whole "Some people don't like certain actions" aspect.
I liked Leliana, for starters.
But while yeah, having them be bisexual is good from a technical standpoint since it means you won't be stuck with an unlikeable character (cough cough, Isabela, cough cough), it still feels weird in a story/plot/character sense.
Why does everyone the Inquisitor meets happen to be bisexual and ready to do the nasty with him/her? I guess that's where you could include the whole "Some people don't like certain actions" aspect.
I love how 4 people (given that's the standard for DA and we have no evidence to suggest there will be more) has suddenly become "everyone". The Inquisitor will meet, literally, hundreds of characters in the game, but 4 bisexual people is too much to be believable.......
Ya know, I bowed out a while back because I was annoyed and kind of sad that people are CONSTANTLY claiming that a character who changes their sexual orientation, or who is capable of being sexually and romantically attracted to others of any gender, is unrealistic, personality free, wantonly promiscuous, and all around terrible.
Because there are actually people who are bisexual/pansexual/change their orientations later in life, in real life. And you're telling us that we either don't exist, or we're sexy robots.
Could you make your case without doing that? It would be pretty sweet.
Why does everyone the Inquisitor meets happen to be bisexual and ready to do the nasty with him/her? I guess that's where you could include the whole "Some people don't like certain actions" aspect.
I see no reason to assume an automatic equivalence between being bisexual and being "ready to do the nasty" with the PC. In DAO, it was possible to sleep with Morrigan (a straight-only LI) right after Lothering if you chose the 'correct' dialogue options. Leliana's romance, by contrast, took a while longer to develop IIRC.
I also don't see any problem with having four bisexual party members, if that's how it's going to be. Sure it might be a bit unlikely statistically, but I see it as equivalent to the convention of having a roughly equal balance of warriors, mages and rogues among the companions. That arrangement is unlikely as well, but in gameplay terms it's necessary to ensure that choosing a certain class for the PC doesn't leave you with any gaping holes in terms of what your party can do. Sometimes, tradeoffs between gameplay and realism are acceptable, and four bisexual companions seems well within that category to me.
You know, I'm bisexual, and when I initially started thinking on what I think the DA2 companions' sexualities are, I also didn't find the idea of all four of them being bisexual very believable. Because yeah, four people within the same group of friends who just happen, all of them, to have the potential to be attracted to the same person, as well as the likelihood of their feelings being returned, and all of these potential relationships turning out successfully, and all of them just happening to be attracted to that same person regardless of gender? Let's be honest: that's possible, but not really all that likely.
And then, I realized something incredible and mind-blowing! it doesn't matter! Because that goes for everything else in the game too. Hell, the fact that they're all potentially attracted/romantically interested in Hawke regardless of Hawke's personality or appearance is pretty unlikely too. So is the fact that they just happened to even know or meet Hawke the way they did. Or half the events of Dragon Age 2 aren't, realistically, super likely and are basically coincidences. And not nearly as much as Dragon Age: Origins. I mean, its plot basically only occurred the way it did and is based on a bunch of contrived coincidences. I mean, isn't the whole basis of fiction contrived coincidences? Events just happening to occur and unfold in the exact way the author dictates? Why cross the line at bisexuality? Why is that where we suddenly start caring?
Personally, I care much more about being given more than one option on who I chose to have my character enter a relationship with, not being forced into an opposite-sex option just because I want to romance a certain character, being able to play as a character who is like me without any fear of being judged or feeling uncomfortable about it, and having my existence acknowledged to one degree or another than any vague concept of 'realism'. And about not having bisexuality treated as some kind of quirk of character but as a perfectly normal, valid sexual orientation that all sorts of people have, because bisexuals are-- who would have thought!- people, who are just as varied as other groups of people!
And see, this is why I see all the four LIs in DA2 as bisexual. I like to think of them that way because it's nice, for once, to have in fiction four totally different people, all of them with different personalities, characters, who are equally complicated and deep characters, that also happen to all be bisexual.
Retour en haut