2138 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

There's really no need for a toggle because you can go through the game completely avoiding gay romance content. Just don't pick the flirts. That's it. You might have to reject a character (honestly though I really really rather the PC have to be the one to initiating flirts on all points) but really it's not that hard to hit a broken heart icon and move it along.

[WildOrchid]

Just don't pick the flirts. That's it.

 

Exactly. It's that simple.

I have no idea why people make it so complicated. There's a heart, it's the flirt option. You don't like this person? Don't.click.on.the.flirt.option

[jlb524]

To keep it on topic though... which companion do you folks think/hope is will be the gay/ lesbian options?

 

Me, I think probably DHMG or Solas will be gay, and I HOPE Vivienne will be gay, but that's mostly wishful thinking.

 

 

I think the gay option will be that DHMG guy.  I always want to call him DAHMAGE b/c of that acronym.  That can be pronounced like 'damage' or 'dah mage'.

 

The lesbian option will be Scribbles.

 

I have no personal hopes for the gay option.  For the lesbian option, Vivienne or Sera would be nice to have.

 

Preferably Vivienne

 

cuz Vivienne

[daveliam]

But this is not at all what I suggested.

The toggle proposed would strictly affect how the NPCs interact with the character, not their very existence. The toggle proposed would just prevent any same sex (or, conversely, opposite sex if the player is so inclined ) romances from being initiated. It does not delete any such characters from the game entirely, like your race toggle implies. So the two ideas are apples and oranges in comparison.

 

Just don't flirt with them.  And if they flirt with you first, just turn them down.  That's life.  Sometimes people flirt with you that you aren't interested in.  A toggle is a terrible and, frankly, offensive idea. 

 

To me it would appear to act just like the gender toggle. You select male, you get one version of the NPC, Select female you get another. 

 

The "realism" crowd will (should?) lose their minds on this one.  If playersexuality (which I maintain wasn't even what we had in DA 2) got them so worked up over the integrity of a character, could you imagine what they would say about changing the gender and sexuality of a character for romance/flirt purposes?

[WildOrchid]

I think the gay option will be that DHMG guy.  I always want to call him DAHMAGE b/c of that acronym.  That can be pronounced like 'damage' or 'dah mage'.

 

The lesbian option will be Scribbles.

 

I have no personal hopes for the gay option.  For the lesbian option, Vivienne or Sera would be nice to have.

 

Preferably Vivienne

 

cuz Vivienne

 

I vote for Viv as the gay one too. And Cass as the bi.

[Fast Jimmy]

Just don't flirt with them.  And if they flirt with you first, just turn them down.  That's life.  Sometimes people flirt with you that you aren't interested in.  A toggle is a terrible and, frankly, offensive idea. 

I'm not advocating for the feature inherently, but I don't see how people so easily demonize it. What aspect of it do you find offensive?

[DaySeeker]

The option is offensive because it erases identity. It is like putting a character in a closet. I don't see how anyone can miss the heart dialogue tag and not understand what it means. I also don't see anyone being hurt because someone they didn't want flirting with them flirts with them in a game. You can turn them down. I much prefer it to just talking to a character meaning you want to have sex with them.

On another topic, I look forward to getting to know Viv, but she scares me a bit. She seems cold and driven. I have trouble seeing her form a relationship outside of sex with anyone. What makes you think she'd be a lesbian?

[syllogi]

 

The lesbian option will be Scribbles.

 

But will she have a vibrating phallic object that she loves more than anything???

 

I ask the important questions.

[Fast Jimmy]

The option is offensive because it erases identity. It is like putting a character in a closet. I don't see how anyone can miss the heart dialogue tag and not understand what it means. I also don't see anyone being hurt because someone they didn't want flirting with them flirts with them in a game. You can turn them down. I much prefer it to just talking to a character meaning you want to have sex with them.

Does it erase anyone's identity ? I highly doubt it. Again - Anders would still have the dialogue where it was implied he and Karl had a homosexual relationship. Anders just wouldn't put the player on the spot with a direct come on if the toggle was turned off.

I wear a wedding ring. Does that mean everyone I come across has their identity erased because they don't hit on me? Of course not. Men and women who would have otherwise possibly made a pass at me do not do so upon seeing the ring and knowing I'm "spoken for," so to speak. It does obfuscate or destroy anyone's identity, it merely influences how others deal with me.

I don't really see a difference between the two, other than the wedding ring being an actual object while a toggle is a game feature.

[TrueMyst]

I really don't like the idea of having everyone being Bisexual again as some people are advocating. I struggle to go through male conversations because they always end up being interested in the PC which is weird. I don't mind turning down a gay guy in my story but I don't want to have to turn down everyone that I just want to be friends with. It's unrealistic that all everyone is interested in is you. Make some characters gay, some straight and perhaps some bi. Hell, make some characters be completely uninterested in us like Aveline! That was a hilarious romantic persuit.

[jlb524]

But will she have a vibrating phallic object that she loves more than anything???

 

I ask the important questions.

 

Bahahaha

 

probably a magic vibrating pen

[WildOrchid]

On another topic, I look forward to getting to know Viv, but she scares me a bit. She seems cold and driven. I have trouble seeing her form a relationship outside of sex with anyone. What makes you think she'd be a lesbian?

 

Why not? If Cass is the straight option then why not Viv as the gay option? Cass can be described as 'cold and driven' too and is focused on things just like Viv, yet it's totally fine for her to have a relationship or be straight and not Viv?

 

What makes you think Viv can't pursue a relationship?

 

 

Edit: pls don't take my post as attack, i'm genuinely curious.

[Deadmac]

Since the focal point of this game is too focused on romances, I have decided to wait out for an entirely different roleplaying game. I remember when games use to be about having fun. Now, I fully understand why Skyrim's relationships work. Even though your avatar can get married, the relationship does not interfere with the overall experience. "Dragon Age: Origin's" relations were awesome, for they felt rather innocent and casual. I just want to play a neat roleplaying game, which focuses on skills, demons, customization, heroism, and fun.

 

"Dragon Age: The Boring Inquisition" can rest in peace.

[Andraste_Reborn]

Make some characters gay, some straight and perhaps some bi.

 

That seems to be exactly what they're doing in DAI.

[Andraste_Reborn]

Since the focal point of this game is too focused on romances, I have decided to wait out for an entirely different roleplaying game. I remember when games use to be about having fun.

 

1. The romances are fun. At least for some of us.

 

2. There's no indication that the romances will take up more time or energy than the did in DAO. (In fact, David Gaider is on record saying that they're expending about the same amount of resources on romance that they always do.)

 

That said, if you want an RPG without romances, Pillars of Eternity looks like it's going to be great.

[ElitePinecone]

Since the focal point of this game is too focused on romances, I have decided to wait out for an entirely different roleplaying game. I remember when games use to be about having fun. Now, I fully understand why Skyrim's relationships work. Even though your avatar can get married, the relationship does not interfere with the overall experience. "Dragon Age: Origin's" relations were awesome, for they felt rather innocent and casual. I just want to play a neat roleplaying game, which focuses on skills, demons, customization, heroism, and fun.

 

"Dragon Age: The Boring Inquisition" can rest in peace.

 

Bye!

[Jorji Costava]

But this is not at all what I suggested.

The toggle proposed would strictly affect how the NPCs interact with the character, not their very existence. The toggle proposed would just prevent any same sex (or, conversely, opposite sex if the player is so inclined ) romances from being initiated. It does not delete any such characters from the game entirely, like your race toggle implies. So the two ideas are apples and oranges in comparison.

 

Perhaps I didn't communicate this well at all, but this is exactly similar to the hypothetical "racial toggle" I suggested upthread. In that proposal, characters of African descent would continue to exist; they just wouldn't hit on you, whereas when this option is disabled, they might. The kerfuffle over the Cheerios commercial a while back shows that this kind of thing is somehow still an issue for some folks. Still, this racial toggle seems like an extremely bad idea to me, and for the exact same reasons, so is the proposed gay toggle.

 

It's also worth mentioning that the proposal should be found completely unacceptable to anyone who's ever objected to playersexuality. For isn't the whole basis of the objection to that idea that it's bad to enable the player to exert control over the personality of the NPC's by clicking a button during the character creation screen? Wouldn't it be odd to have a "Zevran never betrays you at Denerim" toggle at the beginning of the game? After all, being stabbed in the back is way worse than being hit on by someone you don't like. But such an option would undermine the integrity of the characterizations; I don't see how any of the toggle proposals I've seen would be any different.

[Hellion Rex]

Since the focal point of this game is too focused on romances, I have decided to wait out for an entirely different roleplaying game. I remember when games use to be about having fun. Now, I fully understand why Skyrim's relationships work. Even though your avatar can get married, the relationship does not interfere with the overall experience. "Dragon Age: Origin's" relations were awesome, for they felt rather innocent and casual. I just want to play a neat roleplaying game, which focuses on skills, demons, customization, heroism, and fun.

 

"Dragon Age: The Boring Inquisition" can rest in peace.

See ya on release day!

[ElitePinecone]

Does it erase anyone's identity ? I highly doubt it. Again - Anders would still have the dialogue where it was implied he and Karl had a homosexual relationship. Anders just wouldn't put the player on the spot with a direct come on if the toggle was turned off.

 

I know you love to argue things to death, but... can't you just accept that a sexuality toggle makes people uncomfortable without interrogating them to find flaws in that reasoning? Giving players the option to remove any same-sex content (or opposite-sex content) is fulfilling a very specific request that is not done for any other content that people might find offensive. The intention behind that request is as important as its perception; are the people who request it homophobic, and would that request be seen as homophobic by other people? If so, why would Bioware want to feed those two narratives?

 

I'll quote David Gaider, since he explains this better than I can:

 

 

Ah, yes, the “toggle solution”.

 

I apologize if this comes across as dismissive. It’s just that I’ve seen this proposal quite often on forums like the BSN, to the point that it makes me wince just a little whenever it comes up. What it breaks down to, in essence, is that any design problem which causes disagreement among the fans can be solved by giving everyone what they want. Put a toggle in the options menu so the player can either have or not have whatever is in contention, and thus be pleased with the result.

 

There are a few issues with that, from a development perspective. The first is our need to treat every version of the game, whether that feature has been turned on or off, as a legitimate way to play and thus one we must test. The more fundamental a mechanic that is affected, the more things it can touch (even inadvertently) and thus the more testing it must receive. We need to be concerned not only about whether that variant works, but also how it affects the play experience.

 

It’s not about hand-holding or forcing the player to experience the game only a certain way, but about avoiding the player getting a radically different experience of which they may not be aware and for which we would be responsible anyhow, since we provided the option. You click that option in the settings, thinking it will do one thing, but end up getting something different. We have to consider that, and consider how well it meshes up with the experience we are otherwise crafting, and which we intend to support.

 

It is not, after all, like we can throw something into the options menu and absolve ourselves of responsibility for it. “Hey, you picked that option, man. It’s not our fault it changed your game experience.” We thus select our provided options carefully.

 

Beyond that, when it comes to content options like the so-called “gay toggle” …my question would be “why?” We don’t allow the player to de-select other sorts of content. A ‘violence’ toggle? A ‘mention of slavery’ toggle? A ‘sexual situations’ toggle? Why would we have a ‘gay’ toggle? Even if that was just to set the player’s personal preference, and we didn’t think that was incredibly on-the-nose to put up front, would de-selecting the ‘gay’ toggle mean a player should expect to encounter no gay characters? Ever? You don’t think there are those who would interpret it as exactly that?

 

There’s a degree to which, I think, players should be responsible for their own choices, and that doesn’t include filtering out anything which might potentially make them uncomfortable—not in a game which is labeled as big-M Mature. We’re always going to walk a line between accommodating player desires in-game, and having appropriate reactivity, but that doesn’t quite go so far as offering customizable story options out of the gate.

 

Some people might like that notion, but I suspect they like it in the purely theoretical and idealized sense. Practically speaking, it’s a rabbit hole that leads nowhere good.

[AkiKishi]

.It's also worth mentioning that the proposal should be found completely unacceptable to anyone who's ever objected to playersexuality. 

 

I don't see the connection... Playersexuality was forced on everyone because of how Bioware chose to do things. A toggle of this nature is no different to someone choosing to play on easy(casual) while I play on nightmare. The rules of our worlds are different, but in no way does what they do impact on mine and vice versa.

 

Since DA is an 18 rated game I don't see a great need for the option. But there is nothing inherently wrong with it either unless you want to dictate how someone else should play something they paid for.

[ElitePinecone]

unless you want to dictate how someone else should play something they paid for.

 

It should be obvious that paying $60 does not entitle you to complete control over your game experience. If there are same-sex flirt options in there, you do not get to engineer their removal simply by virtue of paying money. 

 

(You can request it, of course, but why should the developers listen to you instead of the four or five million other players?)

 

"We’re always going to walk a line between accommodating player desires in-game, and having appropriate reactivity, but that doesn’t quite go so far as offering customizable story options out of the gate."

[Jorji Costava]

I don't see the connection... Playersexuality was forced on everyone because of how Bioware chose to do things. A toggle of this nature is no different to someone choosing to play on easy(casual) while I play on nightmare. The rules of our worlds are different, but in no way does what they do impact on mine and vice versa.

 

Since DA is an 18 rated game I don't see a great need for the option. But there is nothing inherently wrong with it either unless you want to dictate how someone else should play something they paid for.

 

Not seeing the analogy you're trying to make here. Adjusting the difficulty level does not affect the beliefs, attitudes or behaviors of any of the NPC's, whereas a toggle very obviously would. At best, it would be no different from a "Zevran doesn't stab you in the back" or "Morrigan doesn't ditch you" toggle. And given the social and political context surrounding this issue, it's probably worse than that.

[AlanC9]

I know you love to argue things to death, but... can't you just accept that a sexuality toggle makes people uncomfortable without interrogating them to find flaws in that reasoning? Giving players the option to remove any same-sex content (or opposite-sex content) is fulfilling a very specific request that is not done for any other content that people might find offensive. The intention behind that request is as important as its perception; are the people who request it homophobic, and would that request be seen as homophobic by other people? If so, why would Bioware want to feed those two narratives?

 

Well... as long as we're talking about discussing something to death, why are we even talking about a toggle at all? Bio won't ever get as far as considering how such a toggle would be seen, because they don't consider the desire that leads to such a toggle as worth considering in the first place.

[AkiKishi]

It should be obvious that paying $60 does not entitle you to complete control over your game experience. If there are same-sex flirt options in there, you do not get to engineer their removal simply by virtue of paying money. 

 

(You can request it, of course, but why should the developers listen to you instead of the four or five million other players?)

 

"We’re always going to walk a line between accommodating player desires in-game, and having appropriate reactivity, but that doesn’t quite go so far as offering customizable story options out of the gate."

 

Why not ? People expect and get difficulty toggles , they have divorced the Friendly Fire option from the difficulty in DA:I. I don't think that's a rule as much as an opinion. I don't see why what someone else does matters. 

 

See below about LI off switch.

[AkiKishi]

Not seeing the analogy you're trying to make here. Adjusting the difficulty level does not affect the beliefs, attitudes or behaviors of any of the NPC's, whereas a toggle very obviously would. At best, it would be no different from a "Zevran doesn't stab you in the back" or "Morrigan doesn't ditch you" toggle. And given the social and political context surrounding this issue, it's probably worse than that.

 

Its simple it will just render them non LI status. Since given the reaction to Anders I doubt Bioware are going to have anyone actively flirting anyway. 

 

Just think of it as an LI off switch, maybe that is less emotive?