1875 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

I`d have to disagreee that immersion is meaningless - especially when it comes to roleplaying games. Part of an rpg`s job is to fully immerse a player into a fictional world, after all. So when something suddenly pops up in game, that completely goes against the Lore, or common sense, people will dislike it (mostly). So, yes, people will use the immersion argument when they really dislike something related to that. I fully confess being very guilty of "that crime" myself, on many occations.

 

As for this topic. I would wish an equal amount of love interests for gay players, bi players, and straight players. What I wouldn`t like though, is love interests being interested in me n matter what gender I am, simply because I am the player. It feels very off. Still, a "player sexual" feature isn`t immersion breaking untill the second playthrough, so it is not that big a deal either.

 

It's meaningless because it's used for pretty much everything.  And it's so subjective that what ruins one person's immersion may actually enhance another person's immersion that most of the time when people are talking about their immersion being ruined it's not really very clear what they're referring to.

 

For instance, I find it more useful to say "I dislike this because I find <Narrative X> contradicts the lore and is inconsistent with the narrative."  Suggesting at this point, that it also ruins your immersion is mostly redundant.  Now if I'm stating "I feel that <Narrative X> ruins my immersion in the game" then there's a whole host of potential reasons why I may be saying that something is immersion ruining.  Is "Playersexuality" immersion breaking because you think it's unrealistic? You feel it gives too much control to the player?

 

I can understand if someone uses it (I used to use it all the time too) if they're maybe having a hard time quantifying what they're saying or why exactly it feels off, but if that's the case it's still a situation of requiring elaboration.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Characters in these stories travel the world as literally the most important and most powerful person in every given situation, regardless of their background or any extenuating circumstances that should face them as mages, elves, or other races or groups in the "wrong" place. It's absurd to me to say the "playersexual" characters are what makes you too super special, in context. It's hardly the largest concern as far as "power fantasies" go. 

[Rawgrim]

 

It's meaningless because it's used for pretty much everything.  And it's so subjective that what ruins one person's immersion may actually enhance another person's immersion that most of the time when people are talking about their immersion being ruined it's not really very clear what they're referring to.

 

For instance, I find it more useful to say "I dislike this because I find <Narrative X> contradicts the lore and is inconsistent with the narrative."  Suggesting at this point, that it also ruins your immersion is mostly redundant.  Now if I'm stating "I feel that <Narrative X> ruins my immersion in the game" then there's a whole host of potential reasons why I may be saying that something is immersion ruining.  Is "Playersexuality" immersion breaking because you think it's unrealistic? You feel it gives too much control to the player?

 

I can understand if someone uses it (I used to use it all the time too) if they're maybe having a hard time quantifying what they're saying or why exactly it feels off, but if that's the case it's still a situation of requiring elaboration.

 

Thanks for the reply, and you do make some fair points. Still, you could use the same argument about every opinon about every single thing in the games, I guess.

 

Speaking for myself: I don`t find the playersexuality too immersion breaking, but maybe more immersion damaging. I wouldn`t say that haing gays, bis or straight people being interested in the character unrealistic. It is just the...odds, I guess. That 100 percent of the people romantically interested in the player, just happens to swing both ways. Or if it is player sexual, as some call it...I guess it feels like I am being catered too, simply because I am the player. They fall at my feet no matter if I am an elf, dwarf, human, male or female. It feels like I am deciding an NPC`s sexuality, and yeah... Feel more like some Sim, I guess. Makes sense?

 

Still. This doesn`t break a game for me, by any means. But it does feel like the developers are holding my hand, and making sure I don`t get any kind of negative thing happen to me during the playthrough.

[Rawgrim]

Characters in these stories travel the world as literally the most important and most powerful person in every given situation, regardless of their background or any extenuating circumstances that should face them as mages, elves, or other races or groups in the "wrong" place. It's absurd to me to say the "playersexual" characters are what makes you too super special, in context. It's hardly the largest concern as far as "power fantasies" go. 

 

True that. But it IS the topic of this particular discussion.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

True that. But it IS the topic of this particular discussion.

The point is that these issues are almost never asked to be changed. People want the power to shape the world in every other way. They want to pick it's rulers, decide who lives and who dies, choose which factions ultimately come to power and which crumble. This is what makes the claim that this, specifically, has some objective "immersion breaking" quality a bit puzzling. The entire game is a power fantasy, by the exact same logic. 

[Hazegurl]

The fuss is pretty much that it gives he player the "power" to pick sexualities for non player characters. Or that the player is some sexual Mary Sue.

 

That is it, really. Hardly the biggest issue with Dragon Age. Still, people think it could be handled differently, and still include everyone equally. If everyone is Player Sexual in DA:O, it certainly won`t keep me from buying the game.

Which IMO is a silly thing for them to fuss over.  If we want to be realistic here. Miranda shouldn't have been romancing no one but default Shepard since 95% of custom Shepards are all fugly as hell. But if the game gives the player the "power" to be as ugly as sin and still bang nine hot chicks then players should have the "power" to change the NPC's sexuality.

[KaiserShep]

In Mass Effect, everyone will sleep with the terminator.

[Ryzaki]

Read any bad piece of fiction with a male, or female, Mary Sue character. Almost always, a major element is that numerous other characters are romantically interested in that character, often inexplicably.

But that happens even with just the straight options! Hell Cerberus proud Shep romancing ANY alien. Renedouche in ME1 romancing Liara (heck you can make that dancers comment in ME2 and get not even a "you weren't serious right"), Morrigan romancing my white knight save the puppies, Alistair romancing my muwahahaha bloodmage. Tali's crush from out of nowhere (Still crushes on you if renedouche and gave Veetor over to Cerberus! In fact only way not to romance her is to expose her father (or side with Legion) otherwise? She's fair game.) and Garrus going "oh sure." to Shep bringing up sleeping together.

(Not to mention if the fact that all the LIs are Bi finally tipped you off to BW's protags being sues....)

[Allan Schumacher]

Thanks for the reply, and you do make some fair points. Still, you could use the same argument about every opinon about every single thing in the games, I guess.

 

I disagree.  There's a lot of criticism that is genuinely fair and representative.  I also think people have an aversion to simply saying "I don't really like this" because it lacks some level of gravitas.  In any case, I'm starting to more thoroughly derail the thread, so I'll stop now.

 

 

 

 

I feel like it's exactly what an above user posted; it makes the character feel like a Mary Sue.

 

Read any bad piece of fiction with a male, or female, Mary Sue character. Almost always, a major element is that numerous other characters are romantically interested in that character, often inexplicably. I do still think making all LI- characters capable of being romanced, regardless of gender or race, is a good idea, but I think it should be done realistically, and maybe even have difficulty. Some people may not be open to the same gender, or the opposite gender, or a certain race. That's where you have to earn their affection. It harkens back to Origins, where earning affection was key. But hopefully this time around it'd be done in another way rather than just being a gift conveyor belt.

 

If the issue is simply "make it more challenging to complete the romance" then I'll admit I'm not sure what your concerns are with a post as to whether or not something like "playersexual" (or even all bisexual) romance partners exist.

 

I certainly have no problems with the idea of making the characters more varied as to whether or not they would romance you, or more specifically what it would take to make them interested.

 

That said, there's still a very finite number of people that are interested in romancing the player character, given the amount of people in the game world.  So is the issue more that we aren't given the option to flirt/proposition other characters?  Because this notion of "all the characters are into the player" is not correct.  Most (by far) characters don't express any interest in romancing the character.  Only the ones that have been explicitly written to do so.  So would it be satisfying to you if we simply added more options to flirt with other characters, because then the illusion of "all characters are interested in me" would be shattered?

[Hazegurl]

In Mass Effect, everyone will sleep with the terminator.

 

Who wouldn't feel safe waking up next to this?

Spoiler

[Ryzaki]

I do like Liara's crack "it's a face that can scare a Reaper Shepard. That has it's own charms." actually most of the quips about full renegade's scars in Citadel were funny.

[KaiserShep]

I never knew that they actually comment on the scars in the Citadel DLC. That's interesting to know. I'd never have them, of course, because they're too ridiculous (and fugly) to keep.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

(Not to mention if the fact that all the LIs are Bi finally tipped you off to BW's protags being sues....)

Really? I thought they did that with Oghren's description of the Warden he was looking for before you enter the Deep Roads.

[Iakus]

That said, there's still a very finite number of people that are interested in romancing the player character, given the amount of people in the game world.  So is the issue more that we aren't given the option to flirt/proposition other characters?  Because this notion of "all the characters are into the player" is not correct.  Most (by far) characters don't express any interest in romancing the character.  Only the ones that have been explicitly written to do so.  So would it be satisfying to you if we simply added more options to flirt with other characters, because then the illusion of "all characters are interested in me" would be shattered?

 

It may be a finite number of overall characters in the game, but it is still a significant fraction of the character's followers.

 

I mean, even in ME2, where Shepard has up to a dozen squadmates and "only" 3 LIs among them, it still felt like I was fending potential romances off with a stick (and please keep in mind I like romances in games).  When half the companions start trying to crawl into the player's lap, regardless of how many potenial LIs there are, it certainly looks like a lot.  The problem of "ninjamances" have existed almost as long as there have been romances in games.  All potential LIs being accessible to everyone only magnifies the issue.

 

This is why I believe in a couple of ideas 1) Romances with important NPCs (like Samantha and Steve in ME3) is a potential untapped resource.  2) If playersexuality or all-bi romances are going to be standard from now on, the player should, as a necessary evil, be the one to make the first move in all cases.  Again, much like the what was done in ME3.

[Ryzaki]

Really? I thought they did that with Oghren's description of the Warden he was looking for before you enter the Deep Roads.

 

Oh yeah that magnificent bosom cracked my elf mage up. And now I wanna play DAO D: I'll play it after I finish my DA2 playthrough.

 

This is why I believe in a couple of ideas 1) Romances with important NPCs (like Samantha and Steve in ME3) is a potential untapped resource.  2) If playersexuality or all-bi romances are going to be standard from now on, the player should, as a necessary evil, be the one to make the first move in all cases.  Again, much like the what was done in ME3.

 

I agree with you on 2. Yeah it's not as characterization friendly but for me as a player it's just less annoying and more convenient. And if you get hit on by someone you didn't want to.. well you hit on them first what did you expect to happen? With blatant dialogue choices. (The paraphrase even if what's actually said is something far more subtle).

[karushna5]

I feel like it's exactly what an above user posted; it makes the character feel like a Mary Sue.
 
Read any bad piece of fiction with a male, or female, Mary Sue character. Almost always, a major element is that numerous other characters are romantically interested in that character, often inexplicably. I do still think making all LI- characters capable of being romanced, regardless of gender or race, is a good idea, but I think it should be done realistically, and maybe even have difficulty. Some people may not be open to the same gender, or the opposite gender, or a certain race. That's where you have to earn their affection. It harkens back to Origins, where earning affection was key. But hopefully this time around it'd be done in another way rather than just being a gift conveyor belt.
 
I just don't want to feel like every LI wants to so easily have sex with my Inquisitor. I want to feel like the character relationships matter, and not feel like I'm just going to some kind of market and "picking out" a certain LI for a guaranteed romance. The interaction means nothing if everyone is interacted with the same, and easily.
 
I didn't really like the romance in DA2 for that exact reason. When it came down to it, nothing felt too different between the romanceable characters. Maybe Isabela, but I never liked her. Most of it was just "Pick the dialogue options with hearts on them until you get the sex scene." It felt worse than Origins' gift-giving. I hope relationships, and the concept of playersexuality, are handled better than in Dragon Ages and Mass Effects past in Inquisition.

I really get annoyed at Sue comments, because I could list 5 or 6 iconic characters that if they were female or was someones OC they would be a huge Sue/Stu. I dont like Twilight because of other reasons, but Bella will never be more of a Sue than Batman who fits almost every description of a sue I have ever read. That doesnt make him a bad character, we just need to realize that characters in fiction are empowerment fantasies and to not be too snobbish about those empowerment fantasies.

That said, sometimes I believe the reason so many people dislike playersexuality is because that is the reason they want to describe the characters being lacking.

Isabela comes up a lot, and I dont find that a coincidence. Fenris and Anders are practically Twins when it comes to character types, and Merrill I love her so, but all three of these characters are practically monomaniacal and fairly one dimensional. I adore them, but they are rather flat. Isabela didnt have a cause, neither did Varric, or Aveline(not really).

Sure every character had to call Isabela a **** at least once it seemed, but she was also a pirate, she had issues with the Qunari, and romancing her wasnt about her ship. It was about her. Even in the romance scenes, Anders and Fenris talk about Mages, and I understand why, but we know so little about them outside that. Its frustrating. Merrill is similiar, she is naive and monomaniacal about her heritage.

What I mean is, give them another shot, with more time to flesh the characters out, and you may find that their sexuality had little to do with the issues that were part of dragon age II.

[CuriousArtemis]

  2) If playersexuality or all-bi romances are going to be standard from now on, the player should, as a necessary evil, be the one to make the first move in all cases.  Again, much like the what was done in ME3.

 

Why only for playersexual romances? In ME2 I was pretty annoyed with how Miranda, Tali, and Jack all threw themselves at my Shepard without me EVER propositioning them. Pretty sure I have a right to be just as annoyed as the straight guy who freaked out when Anders flirted with him.

[Darth Krytie]

You know, my Ex, babydaddy, and bestie for life is hella straight and when Zevran propositioned him (which surprised him), he just shrugged and did the do with him. It's not a big deal. (Hell, he's been propositioned in real life by dudes, but he's always smiled, strutted a bit because who wouldn't want up in that jelly? but turned them down politely)

 

I wouldn't mind, however, if you have to select a specific response to trigger them to come on to you. I don't care so much about being hit on by any of my companions, I don't like get ninjamanced to the point that you have to turn em down cold to get out of the romance-line with someone.

[Iakus]

Why only for playersexual romances? In ME2 I was pretty annoyed with how Miranda, Tali, and Jack all threw themselves at my Shepard without me EVER propositioning them. Pretty sure I have a right to be just as annoyed as the straight guy who freaked out when Anders flirted with him.

 

As I stated in my earlier post, I was annoyed by it too, fending off the advances of a third of Shepard's squad.

 

But, see, that was only half of the potenial LIs.  If what we had before was annoying, can you imagine what it would have been like if you had all six flirting with Shep?

 

In a playersexual romance, that's exactly what could happen, and that's precisely what I'd like to avoid.

 

It may be that "let the PC make the first move all the time" is the best answer.  But for the purposes of my post, it was simply in light of numbers.  Where a single unwanted advance, or maybe two could be tolerated.  But three, four, or yes six, just gets annoying.

[Ryzaki]

? All five six wouldn't have been hitting on Shep first. FemShep is the one who hits on Jacob and Garrus. So even in a playersexual situation that wouldn't have happened. Becoming playersexual wouldn't have suddenly made Garrus and Jacob the pursuers.

 

Edit: Whoops completely forgot about Thane. It is six my bad. Does Thane hit on FemShep first though? I'm not sure. If so that's one more in addition to the already annoying (potentially) 5 (Jack, Tali, Miranda, Parsini, Green asari chick).

 

But yes being able to hit on people first is ideal no matter what the number of LIs.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

It could be "most of the time" and not "all the time", but honestly, I don't mind making the first move, either. It's pretty awkward shooting down your companions. I'd just as soon avoid it. Especially if they're going to disapprove.

[Zarathiel]

As I stated in my earlier post, I was annoyed by it too, fending off the advances of a third of Shepard's squad.

 

But, see, that was only half of the potenial LIs.  If what we had before was annoying, can you imagine what it would have been like if you had all six flirting with Shep?

 

In a playersexual romance, that's exactly what could happen, and that's precisely what I'd like to avoid.

 

It may be that "let the PC make the first move all the time" is the best answer.  But for the purposes of my post, it was simply in light of numbers.  Where a single unwanted advance, or maybe two could be tolerated.  But three, four, or yes six, just gets annoying.

 

Except Jack and Tali are the only ones in Mass Effect 2 who ever expressed sexual/romantic interest in Shepard first. The others all wait for you to hit on them.

[Iakus]

Except Jack and Tali are the only ones in Mass Effect 2 who ever expressed sexual/romantic interest in Shepard first. The others all wait for you to hit on them.

 

can't really comment on the FemShep romances (aside from what I hear she sounds like she's hitting on Jacob regardless of the conversation) But my experience has been all three of the male Shepard romances come on to him once their loyalty missions are done.

 

maybe it was a problem with the paraphrasing.  But like I said, ninjamancing has always been a problem.

[Zarathiel]

 

 

Edit: Whoops completely forgot about Thane. It is six my bad. Does Thane hit on FemShep first though? I'm not sure. If so that's one more in addition to the already annoying (potentially) 5 (Jack, Tali, Miranda, Parsini, Green asari chick).

 

 

Thane will call you Siha without you pursuing him, but doesn't say anything else unless you choose to flirt with him. And Miranda does not flirt with Shepard first. Not sure where you got that from.