2139 réponses à ce sujet

[Red by Full Metal Jacket]

Personally, I don't romance Steve because I don't consider him a romantic partner for my MainShep, and I consider both Steve and Samantha's insertion to almost just fill a quota instead of be fully fleshed out (I felt differently by the end of the DLC cycle, but still).

 

 

Fun fact...there was originally supposed to be a m/m Kelly Chambers-like fling in ME2 with a crew member.  This was scrapped in the early stages. 

 

Steve was also originally meant to be the only m/m relationship in ME3.  The dialogue between Male Shepard and Kaidan wasn't there in the leaked script, whereas everyone else's romance dialogue is.

[SwobyJ]

Fun fact...there was originally supposed to be a m/m Kelly Chambers-like fling in ME2 with a crew member.  This was scrapped in the early stages. 

 

Steve was also originally meant to be the only m/m relationship in ME3.  The dialogue between Male Shepard and Kaidan wasn't there in the leaked script, whereas everyone else's romance dialogue is.

 

You're scaring me.

[Red by Full Metal Jacket]

You're scaring me.

 

No joke. According to the writer for Cortez, it went:

 

Kelly - m/f

Donnely - f/m

Gabby - f/f

Unnamed Navigator - m/m

 

Eventually the navigator was dropped and Kelly ended up being for both genders.  This was all in the early stages, apperantly.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

No joke. According to the writer for Cortez, it went:

 

Kelly - m/f

Donnely - f/m

Gabby - f/f

Unnamed Navigator - m/m

 

Eventually the navigator was dropped and Kelly ended up being for both genders.  This was all in the early stages, apperantly.

Daniels was going to be f/f? That doesn't seem right since even in ME2 you can clearly tell she likes Donnelly. 

[Nefla]

Every time I see this thread title "gay propositions" I think it's something saucy and then it's not and I am disappoint.

[lane]

Every time I see this thread title "gay propositions" I think it's something saucy and then it's not and I am disappoint.

i wish it was more saucy but people are way too serious lol ,i mean i also thought about some threesome romance type ,might be fun too haha

[Gregolian]

Holy exclamation points Batman.

[efd731]

I just want to give props to the people who are being patient and educational to posters like lane right now, because this thread makes me want to vomit through my monitor on anyone who fetishizes fictional homosexual relationships and thinks they're being "allies."

Think the pie eating contest scene in Stand By Me. That's how I want to puke on them.

Reads to first comma, thinks "makes sense" reads to end of sentence.....backs away slowly.

Also, read thread title expecting cutscenes demands or something.....slightly dossapointed.

[Boisterous Bob]

So getting this back to how it'll work in Inquisition...

Playersexual (like with Anders having slightly different dialogue based on you being male or female) seems oookaaayy to me, though not ideal. (I know some people don't like having certain dialogue options "barred" from their PC, but, well...isn't that why you do multiple playthroughs? To experience different sides of the same characters/situations?)

 

If you want to romance Alistair with a male character, you shouldn't have to rely on a mod.  You should be able to sweep him up in your manly arms (or elvish or dwarven arms) and openly declare your love.

Hmm, I honestly find this a little bit boring (not your posting; just the option that you happen to be arguing for). Games like Dragon Age have a huge amount of "catering" to the player; the devs repeatedly emphasize that they want to drive home a sense of player agency in Inquisition, in particular. With that going on, and with you being the badass top dog of an organization that bows to no one, doesn't that get a little dull? When everyone and everything are utterly mold-able based on little old you's decisions? In another thread, somebody mentioned the confrontation moments in the games when your companions had a beef with you (like Alistair if you sacrificed Isolde, or Sten when approaching Haven); I think those are some of the most interesting moments in the whole story. You're taking the role of the Inquisitor, who has underlings and agents who follow his orders and carry out his will; I want to hear more from the people who stand up to him and disagree. Or, as in this case, people who aren't immediately in love with him simply because he's The Inquisitor.

 

Call me crazy, but I actually hope there's going to be some element of rejection in the romances in Inquisition. Not just like Alistair, Sebastian, and Morrigan, who were utterly oblivious to you if you weren't a specific gender; I mean potential LI's who will acknowledge if you make an advance but still turn you down because they're Just Not That Into You. I'm thinking of Iron Bull laughing in the Inquisitor's face if he/she isn't a Qunari, or Cullen politely declining the advances of a male, or Cassandra scoffing and saying, "You're kidding me, right?" if you failed to help her out in a personal quest.

 

I'm a fan of 'playersexual' or bisexual romances personally.

Look at it this way - Alistair was a straight-only romance, and you were disappointed that you couldn't romance him with a male. But if they'd made him a gay-only romance, others would be disappointed that they couldn't romance him with a female. All you're really doing is displacing that disappointment onto another group of players.

I think the best way to ensure that each and every player has the greatest chance of finding a romance they are happy with is to remove gender-restrictions. I understand that some people feel this cheapens the characters and I do symphasise with that, but I feel that for the sake of equality this is the most appropriate option.

Of course, playersexual or even free-for-all, accepting-all-comers romances sound like they'd be the most "fair" because they offer the same opportunities to everyone, but I guess my problem with that is, while video games, especially fantasy video games, of course have quite an element of escapism in them, I think the characters are an area that should be as close to total realism as possible. (I'm 100% aware of the irony of saying this as I think of Merrill, the elven blood mage who has a little bit of history with a demon...but you get what I mean, yeah?) It's the characters that, more than anything, breathe life into the game, and if they're all equally "available" to you no matter what (side note: when people talk like this, especially when they DEMAND a game like this, I find it juuuuust a tad creepy; anyone else? Romancing on demand? GIVE ME flirting and sex with this character!?), they don't feel like real, complex individuals.

So when people say that having limitations excludes certain segments of the playerbase, or that it's "unfair," I tend to think...well, yep, it does exclude! And that's fine. I like that, because it makes me think of real-life people, who, whether they're gay, straight, bisexual, asexual, or whatever other individual circumstance, are not going to fall for you simply because you exist and take an interest in them. People have preferences and aversions, and to have those vanish simply because you clicked on the flirty heart dialogue option is a disservice to the character. I really do believe that having a character with restrictions is not denying content to x number of people; rather, it's an enhancement of everybody's game, because it serves the purpose of having believable characterization. I would have loved to play as a dwarf, but I wanted to play as a mage, so I had to make a choice and accept that I couldn't do both in the same playthrough. And I totally would have romanced Alistair with my male PC, but he wasn't into that. I didn't think, "Gosh, Bioware is excluding me, what a terrible idea on their part;" I thought, "Hmph. Fair enough, Alistair, them's the breaks. One more reason to play as a female on the next playthrough."

 

Is that really so narrow-minded or unfair? If you disagree with my framing of the issue, then please:

1) Give me the benefit of the doubt, and assume that I meant no disrespect; if you think what I said was unkind in some way, tell me without snarling.

2) Tell me what YOU think. I've heard lots of opinions on the subject, and I don't get tired of hearing what makes a given LI's romance more/less enjoyable to different people.

 

*Couple things I just thought of:

1) I've heard people disagree with those of us who think that diversity of characters' sexual preferences is a matter of realism, and they sometimes respond that sexual preference is utterly divorced from personality or any other aspect of characterization. While I agree that sexual preference is not totally predictable by any means, I disagree that it's "just one little trait." It actually tends to be a very major but very subtle (if that makes sense?) factor in nearly every single relationship a person forms, and of course that becomes a big part of who the person/character really IS.

 

2) I seem to recall one of the devs saying that modding would be something like DA2, i.e. extremely limited? That's honestly the #1 reason I could think of to go with the "all characters are available to all" approach, because the very creative and talented modding community can only do so much...

 

I am truly sorry this turned out to be so long.

[Stelae]

[on getting your LI of choice, whether your PC is male or female]

Hmm, I honestly find this a little bit boring (not your posting; just the option that you happen to be arguing for). Games like Dragon Age have a huge amount of "catering" to the player; the devs repeatedly emphasize that they want to drive home a sense of player agency in Inquisition, in particular. With that going on, and with you being the badass top dog of an organization that bows to no one, doesn't that get a little dull?

There's a lot to talk about in your post, this is the bit I can most easily address.  No, it doesn't get boring.  On alternate play throughs, I get to experience oodles of different LIs and different relationships.  This is partially based on gender, but more importantly, it's based on my Pcs falling for very different characters.   It adds to the replayability for me.  Your mileage may vary. 

 

But even if it were boring, I would rather that everyone got the same chances I did, than that some people were automatically left out, or couldn't romance the LI that was to their taste. I want them to have as much fun as I have.  As I've said elsewhere, it was harsh when my best friend and I both decided Alistair was rather lovely, but only I could romance him. Why should he miss out?  If this is really about roleplaying, he should be able to have access to the same content I do based on the character he makes.  Restricting his (or my) LIs doesn't advance the storyline, and it potentially means that a group of people who already face discrimination and hardship IRL get to experience it in a game as well.  How is that fun? 

 

ETA:  I'm all for an LI rejecting you for plot related reasons; you being a Templar or them being a blood mage, or you letting a village burn, or whatever.  Plot reasons, though, not gender-gates.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Whenever I see someone say it's "boring" having access to all the LIs, I have to assume the person is heterosexual and doesn't understand what it's like not being represented in 99% of media. It's not some novelty to me to not have access to the romance I want in a video game. It's what I've had to come to expect as the norm. Finally getting a break from that is certainly not "boring". 

[Boisterous Bob]

There's a lot to talk about in your post, this is the bit I can most easily address.  No, it doesn't get boring.  On alternate play throughs, I get to experience oodles of different LIs and different relationships.  This is partially based on gender, but more importantly, it's based on my Pcs falling for very different characters.   It adds to the replayability for me.  Your mileage may vary. 

 

But even if it were boring, I would rather that everyone got the same chances I did, than that some people were automatically left out, or couldn't romance the LI that was to their taste. I want them to have as much fun as I have.  As I've said elsewhere, it was harsh when my best friend and I both decided Alistair was rather lovely, but only I could romance him. Why should he miss out?  If this is really about roleplaying, he should be able to have access to the same content I do based on the character he makes.  Restricting his (or my) LIs doesn't advance the storyline, and it potentially means that a group of people who already face discrimination and hardship IRL get to experience it in a game as well.  How is that fun? 

 

ETA:  I'm all for an LI rejecting you for plot related reasons; you being a Templar or them being a blood mage, or you letting a village burn, or whatever.  Plot reasons, though, not gender-gates.

I guess I don't see how your friend is missing out, and I don't agree that "only you" could romance Alistair. Your friend was missing out in the sense that he couldn't romance Alistair with a particular character that he wanted to, but I really don't think that's the same thing as the player himself missing out on game content. You just have to do it with a different character. Not only is it to be expected in a game with various origins and various endings that you have different things available/unavailable to you based on what you started with, but it also does happen with other things in the game: you can't have a royal marriage if your aren't Cousland; you can't access Bann Vaughn's backstory if you aren't Tabris; and you can't have any spells if you're a dwarf. I think there's nothing wrong with restricting content to certain types of characters for reasons other than just their in-game choices, in a game that encourages multiple playthroughs.

 

I get frustrated by games like The Elder Scrolls when they allow you to be the best at everything, max out all your skills to 100, lead every guild, direct the fate of the world, etc. as a natural expectation; but even more annoying than that, I think, is when everybody immediately finds your character attractive. I think it has the effect of making all your characters feel the same, because everybody responds to them the same way regardless of the choices you made in character creation. I don't think CC is just about cosmetics; I think the factors you set there are (as in real life) something that the game world should pay attention and react to. They're a part of the character just as much as the choices made, even if they're not voluntarily selected at birth.

 

As for likening this to certain players experiencing "discrimination" in the game...Well, if you're head over heels for somebody in real life who simply doesn't match up with you, sexuality-wise, is that discrimination? And in the game, is it discrimination that people who chose a non-dwarven character got snarked at in Orzammar, or non-Mahariels got snarked at in the Dalish camp? I don't think this is just a matter of people being unfortunately narrow-minded; sexual orientation is a legitimate part of a character, and no, straight Alistair is not the same person as gay Alistair. It's not simply a matter of what kind of sex he likes. Sexuality shapes your experiences and affects your interactions every day in a thousand ways, and it makes tons of sense to treat it as a significant part of any character that's being written, not just some sort of quirk like Alistair's cheese fondness. Would Zevran be the same character if he were only interested in the ladies? Hell no. Would Morrigan be the same if she had no interest in men? Definitely not.

 

Edited to clarify: Why is restricting a romance based on plot choices okay, but restricting it based on set-in-stone, involuntary (except it's a video game so it is voluntary), just-as-much-a-real-part-of-who-your-character-is attributes like sex and sexual preference bad? I don't see how one is somehow unworthy of recognition by the game world and its characters.

 

Whenever I see someone say it's "boring" having access to all the LIs, I have to assume the person is heterosexual and doesn't understand what it's like not being represented in 99% of media. It's not some novelty to me to not have access to the romance I want in a video game. It's what I've had to come to expect as the norm. Finally getting a break from that is certainly not "boring". 

Well, if you're making that assumption about me, not only is it utterly irrelevant to the actual merits of our respective stances, it's also incorrect. (And as I said earlier, I wanted to romance Alistair too, but upon finding that I couldn't with my first character, I recognized that--not as discrimination--but as part of who Alistair is, and accepted that that demanded a different character in order to romance him. That's just realistic character-writing.

99% is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? And if it's a matter of quality representation, that's not a problem unique to non-heterosexuals or other minorities. I can look at literally any show or game or book's characters and find a bone to pick with the way it portrays women, or the way it portrays straight people, or the way it portrays Mexicans, or American Democrats, or whatever. That's honestly inevitable when you have an audience bigger than most countries. And I think it comes down to the fact that you aren't denied access to the romance you want. Your character on this particular playthrough is.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

99% is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? And if it's a matter of quality representation, that's not a problem unique to non-heterosexuals or other minorities. I can look at literally any show or game or book's characters and find a bone to pick with the way it portrays women, or the way it portrays straight people, or the way it portrays Mexicans, or American Democrats, or whatever. That's honestly inevitable when you have an audience bigger than most countries. And I think it comes down to the fact that you aren't denied access to the romance you want. Your character on this particular playthrough is.

I don't think it's a stretch, no. It's not an issue of "quality" representation. It's an issue of a complete lack of representation, especially in leading roles.

 

I am denied access to the romance that I want, because I don't want a heterosexual romance. It completely defeats the point of my problem with the system to just switch genders. 

[Boisterous Bob]

I don't think it's a stretch, no. It's not an issue of "quality" representation. It's an issue of a complete lack of representation, especially in leading roles.

 

I am denied access to the romance that I want, because I don't want a heterosexual romance. It completely defeats the point of my problem with the system to just switch genders. 

Leading roles, gotcha. I see what you mean in that case. Although when authors/creators do venture into that territory, there's usually some amount of backlash due to dissatisfaction with the portrayal (because groups of individuals are not homogeneous blobs who all think alike), so I guess I have some sympathy for people wanting to avoid that. I think it only gets "fixed" when it's common enough that there are enough to appeal to many different types of people within the given group. Regardless, I think I get where you're coming from now on that point.

 

I didn't mean to suggest that you should switch to a heterosexual romance, but rather that it's not unfair to expect you to create a new character for that homosexual (going with the Alistair example here) romance. I understand expecting access to the game's content; what I don't understand is expecting access to ANY part of the game's content, regardless of the character you're using at the moment. I don't think that's a fair expectation at all, and I see the LI sexuality issue as just one application of that, similar to my Amell or Tabris getting denied any glimmer of hope of marrying a monarch (even if my Tabris is a female romancing Alistair).

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I didn't mean to suggest that you should switch to a heterosexual romance, but rather that it's not unfair to expect you to create a new character for that homosexual (going with the Alistair example here) romance. I understand expecting access to the game's content; what I don't understand is expecting access to ANY part of the game's content, regardless of the character you're using at the moment. I don't think that's a fair expectation at all, and I see the LI sexuality issue as just one application of that, similar to my Amell or Tabris getting denied any glimmer of hope of marrying a monarch (even if my Tabris is a female romancing Alistair).

To be honest, I don't care if some characters are gated by gender, as long as there's an equal amount of romances for all genders/sexualities and everyone gets at least two options of equivalent quality. This is pretty unlikely to happen without making all LIs open, so I find that the easiest route to go. 

 

What was frustrating, to me, about your post was your claim that it was "boring" having access to all the LIs. To me, it's not boring in the least. It's something I'm extremely grateful towards the Bioware team for and something I haven't found in absolutely any other game at the same level. 

[Boisterous Bob]

To be honest, I don't care if some characters are gated by gender, as long as there's an equal amount of romances for all genders/sexualities and everyone gets at least two options of equivalent quality. This is pretty unlikely to happen without making all LIs open, so I find that the easiest route to go.

YES! I am with you on that. I mean, I would be quite happy if every character were bisexual for reasons of who they are as characters, just not simply out of convenience. I don't care what any given character is, as long as it's treated thoughtfully. I like the idea of 2 gay+ 2 straight + 2 bi characters, or some variation of course. (I've heard some people wanting asexual characters, too; I think that's more of a distant dream, but I sure do like the idea of a romance that is allowed to play out fully and richly without sex.) Honestly, making them all playersexual probably is the easiest and most likely, and on a list of grievances I might have over a game, it's not thaaat high. My annoyance with it comes from a worry that it could ignore what should be a legitimate part of character identity (and to be fair, I don't think DA2 sucked in this respect; I think the characters' romances could have been improved with more development time, but that's more an issue with the development timeframe than with the writing), and also from the people who seem to think that viewing a character's sexuality as more than just a throwaway trivial detail is somehow offensive to gamers rather than attention to realism.

 

 

What was frustrating, to me, about your post was your claim that it was "boring" having access to all the LIs. To me, it's not boring in the least. It's something I'm extremely grateful towards the Bioware team for and something I haven't found in absolutely any other game at the same level. 

 

As you may have noticed from my uber wordy posts higher up there, I need to learn to edit myself sometimes. I say things that make sense to me without remembering to provide context or clarification. Your point is well received; I do admire Bioware a lot when it comes to how they listen to players and respond with honest attempts to include them. I wish more companies did that, and did it as well as BW does.

I think it's "boring" when (a la TES) the only real difference between your various characters is cosmetic, and whatever backstory you think up. I like games taking notice of your character and reacting accordingly in more than just a slight dialogue change here and there. I probably expressed that clumsily. 

[XMissWooX]

Of course, playersexual or even free-for-all, accepting-all-comers romances sound like they'd be the most "fair" because they offer the same opportunities to everyone, but I guess my problem with that is, while video games, especially fantasy video games, of course have quite an element of escapism in them, I think the characters are an area that should be as close to total realism as possible.

(I'm 100% aware of the irony of saying this as I think of Merrill, the elven blood mage who has a little bit of history with a demon...but you get what I mean, yeah?) It's the characters that, more than anything, breathe life into the game, and if they're all equally "available" to you no matter what (side note: when people talk like this, especially when they DEMAND a game like this, I find it juuuuust a tad creepy; anyone else? Romancing on demand? GIVE ME flirting and sex with this character!?), they don't feel like real, complex individuals.

 

So when people say that having limitations excludes certain segments of the playerbase, or that it's "unfair," I tend to think...well, yep, it does exclude! And that's fine. I like that, because it makes me think of real-life people, who, whether they're gay, straight, bisexual, asexual, or whatever other individual circumstance, are not going to fall for you simply because you exist and take an interest in them. People have preferences and aversions, and to have those vanish simply because you clicked on the flirty heart dialogue option is a disservice to the character. I really do believe that having a character with restrictions is not denying content to x number of people; rather, it's an enhancement of everybody's game, because it serves the purpose of having believable characterization. I would have loved to play as a dwarf, but I wanted to play as a mage, so I had to make a choice and accept that I couldn't do both in the same playthrough. And I totally would have romanced Alistair with my male PC, but he wasn't into that. I didn't think, "Gosh, Bioware is excluding me, what a terrible idea on their part;" I thought, "Hmph. Fair enough, Alistair, them's the breaks. One more reason to play as a female on the next playthrough."

 

Is that really so narrow-minded or unfair? If you disagree with my framing of the issue, then please:

1) Give me the benefit of the doubt, and assume that I meant no disrespect; if you think what I said was unkind in some way, tell me without snarling.

2) Tell me what YOU think. I've heard lots of opinions on the subject, and I don't get tired of hearing what makes a given LI's romance more/less enjoyable to different people.

 

*Couple things I just thought of:

1) I've heard people disagree with those of us who think that diversity of characters' sexual preferences is a matter of realism, and they sometimes respond that sexual preference is utterly divorced from personality or any other aspect of characterization. While I agree that sexual preference is not totally predictable by any means, I disagree that it's "just one little trait." It actually tends to be a very major but very subtle (if that makes sense?) factor in nearly every single relationship a person forms, and of course that becomes a big part of who the person/character really IS.

 

2) I seem to recall one of the devs saying that modding would be something like DA2, i.e. extremely limited? That's honestly the #1 reason I could think of to go with the "all characters are available to all" approach, because the very creative and talented modding community can only do so much...

 

I am truly sorry this turned out to be so long.

 

To address your post:

 

Firstly, I really don't see how a character being Bisexual makes them 'unrealistic'. Nor do I see how four characters being Bisexual is 'unrealistic'.

In real life, if you walked into a room with four Bisexuals, would you have to pinch yourself to make sure you're not dreaming?

 

​I also don't buy the argument that characters having a certain sexuality 'detracts' from them in anyway, unless you think their sexuality is their only defining or unique feature.

 

Secondly, I'm not demanding anything - I'm perfectly content to have romances restricted - but I want these restrictions to be due to the way I play the game and interact with the characters, not which sex I happened to pick at the start of the game.

For example:

Anders: "Are you kidding me? You slaughtered a dozen Mages, imprisoned a dozen more in the Circle and you're constantly insulting me! I wouldn't romance you if you were the last person on Thedas!"

 

So, to answer your question - Its about choice.

I don't agree that bisexuality, or even playersexuality, is 'unrealistic' or 'detracts' from a character - so to me, bisexual/playersexual LIs have no downside.

I don't agree that locking content because I prefer to play as my own gender is 'enhancing' my experience - so to me, locked LIs have no upside.

So I choose the option which provides everyone with the most choice, and the greatest chance of being happy.

[Boisterous Bob]

 

To address your post:

 

Firstly, I really don't see how a character being Bisexual makes them 'unrealistic'. Nor do I see how four characters being Bisexual is 'unrealistic'.

In real life, if you walked into a room with four Bisexuals, would you have to pinch yourself to make sure you're not dreaming?

 

​I also don't buy the argument that characters having a certain sexuality 'detracts' from them in anyway, unless you think their sexuality is their only defining or unique feature.

 

I didn't mean to say that a bisexual character is unrealistic. I really like the fact that, in Origins, you could speak to Leliana and Zevran about their sexuality and have them refer to it; it was an acknowledged part of who they were. What I didn't like about DA2's romances (Fenris's and Merrill's, anyway) was that the characters were bisexual simply as a game mechanic for convenience's sake. Now, I don't recall Isabela's romance very specifically, but I think it was commonly understood that she was bi (not to mention the encounter with her in Origins), so no problem there. And Anders, who always gave the impression of being straight in Awakening or if you romanced him as a female Hawke, actually adjusts his dialogue if you romance him as a male to reveal that he is not solely interested in the ladies. So I thought those two were totally fine as bisexual characters because it made sense for them; I just don't like it being a thoughtless default with no reference whatsoever to the character's identity, for no other reason than convenience. I think that's a little lazy. Especially since we're led to presume that--while not an unthinkable rarity, and while not carrying the same sort of social prejudice as in real life--non-heterosexuality is considered unusual in Thedas. (Right? Game dialogue backs that up, I think.)

Re: characters having a certain sexuality: That's actually what I'm trying to say, that I'm happy with WHATEVER sexuality a particular character has, if it's part of their character. If it's something that's thrown in game to satisfy players who feel entitled to experience every aspect of the game in one playthrough, with no reference to the actual character at all, that's what I'm not keen on.

(Side note: I actually was a bit disappointed with Alistair, Morrigan, and Sebastian's complete lack of awareness of a same-sex Warden who was interested in them. I would have liked something akin to Aveline and Varric, where you flirt with them and get told "thanks but no thanks," rather than being absolutely incapable of expressing interest. Again, the bottom line is that any sexuality is fine with me (and in fact, diversity is rather more interesting than each and every one having the same orientation, in my opinion), as long as it's incorporated into the specific character and not just "default everyone to bi so that all people can romance them without considering the character's preferences and whether that actually fits with who he/she is.")

 

 

Secondly, I'm not demanding anything - I'm perfectly content to have romances restricted - but I want these restrictions to be due to the way I play the game and interact with the characters, not which sex I happened to pick at the start of the game.

For example:

Anders: "Are you kidding me? You slaughtered a dozen Mages, imprisoned a dozen more in the Circle and you're constantly insulting me! I wouldn't romance you if you were the last person on Thedas!"

 

So, to answer your question - Its about choice.

I don't agree that bisexuality, or even playersexuality, is 'unrealistic' or 'detracts' from a character - so to me, bisexual/playersexual LIs have no downside.

I don't agree that locking content because I prefer to play as my own gender is 'enhancing' my experience - so to me, locked LIs have no upside.

So I choose the option which provides everyone with the most choice, and the greatest chance of being happy.

 

See, I don't draw a huge line in the sand between plot factors and biological/non-chosen factors. (I mean, you DO choose them, because there's a character creator, but from the POV of your character, they're not "chosen.") I think that, just as real live people care about both of those things in their romantic choices--and in fact they would explicitly rule out someone they otherwise would consider based on something like gender--so too should a realistic character. In other words, yes it's about choice, but I like a kind of character-writing that gives choice to the NPCs as well as the player. Call me crazy, but I actually like having certain stuff off-limits if it's consistent with that character; it makes it feel like the LI's (who are typically companions or at least significant NPCs and thus major characters who are written carefully and not just random brief encounters like Dairren or Iona or Mardy) are important and active in the game's story just as the PC is.

 

Fair enough that you don't prefer to play as this gender instead of that one, but I don't think it's "unfair" or "cruel" (both of which are accusations that have been leveled from time to time by critics of the Alistair/Morrigan/Sebastian exclusions) to do so. I prefer to play a character of the same sex as me as well, but I think gender restrictions are an incentive to make more than one character. I totally understand that plenty of people don't agree with me, but (for reasons stated above) I contend that sexuality is a significant and real factor in a character's identity, and therefore it is 100% fair game, and in fact, a matter of high-quality writing, to incorporate it into their romances.

[XMissWooX]

I would argue that it's better to have every door open, and you shut them as you wish, than to stare forlornly at a locked door that will never open.

My preference would be:
If I want to romance Cassandra as a female, I can. If I want to interpret Cassandra as gay, I can.
If I want to romance Cassandra as a male I can. If I want to interpret Cassandra as straight, I can.
If I want to interpret Cassandra as bisexual, I can.

There are still limits, but they are ones I choose to impose upon myself and, as such, they are entirely flexible.

I think your issue here is that you don't segregate one playthrough from another (e.g. a character isn't gay in one playthrough and straight in another, they are always bisexual), or the game from real life (e.g. the characters don't just happen to be bisexual, they are that way because of lazy writing intended to cater to fans).
It's fine if you think that way but other people don't, and denying *them* content because *you* need to be denied content in order to be immersed is rather unfair.

There is no perfect way to do it. I prefer to set my own rules, you prefer to have them set for you. Whatever Bioware decides to do is up to them, but bear in mind that they aren't spending all this time and money to put DAI on a shelf and have it look pretty - they're making it to distribute - to sell - for people to buy, play, enjoy and ultimately turn around and say "thanks Bioware, that was a great game". In short, they're making it for the fans and, as they're becoming increasingly aware, they have a *very* diverse fan base. Even if they decided to do playersexual/Bisexual LIs again, someone, somewhere is going to be unhappy, but at least they'll have choice.

[daveliam]

 

See, I don't draw a huge line in the sand between plot factors and biological/non-chosen factors. (I mean, you DO choose them, because there's a character creator, but from the POV of your character, they're not "chosen.") I think that, just as real live people care about both of those things in their romantic choices--and in fact they would explicitly rule out someone they otherwise would consider based on something like gender--so too should a realistic character. In other words, yes it's about choice, but I like a kind of character-writing that gives choice to the NPCs as well as the player. Call me crazy, but I actually like having certain stuff off-limits if it's consistent with that character; it makes it feel like the LI's (who are typically companions or at least significant NPCs and thus major characters who are written carefully and not just random brief encounters like Dairren or Iona or Mardy) are important and active in the game's story just as the PC is.

 

Fair enough that you don't prefer to play as this gender instead of that one, but I don't think it's "unfair" or "cruel" (both of which are accusations that have been leveled from time to time by critics of the Alistair/Morrigan/Sebastian exclusions) to do so. I prefer to play a character of the same sex as me as well, but I think gender restrictions are an incentive to make more than one character. I totally understand that plenty of people don't agree with me, but (for reasons stated above) I contend that sexuality is a significant and real factor in a character's identity, and therefore it is 100% fair game, and in fact, a matter of high-quality writing, to incorporate it into their romances.

 

This is a very well written and thought out explanation of a point of view that isn't necessarily what most of the people in this thread will agree with.  I always appreciate reading explanations that vary from mine when the person really takes the time to really think about it.

 

One question that I've always had and I've never seen sufficiently answered is this:  How does a character being written as straight make the writing any more high quality than if they were written as bisexual?  I get the argument that having a variety of sexualities increases the variety, but I don't see how it increases the quality.  Especially when looking at an individual character.  I would contend that Anders character would be no more well written if he were only available to a female character.  So, outside of creating a variety of sexualities that we can encounter, I don't see how it increases the quality of the writing and/or characters.

[oceanicsurvivor]

The more discussions about this topic I've seen the more and more the idea of playersexual (as I understand it) bothers me. Its vaguely troubling to hear people have to headcanon any of the DA2 love interests as straight or gay. Some may not have been super open about their sexuality, like Merrill, but none of the character sexuality is defined by the relationship they have with the player. A bisexual individual can be with a straight person and that doesn't make them straight and they can be with a gay person but that doesn't make them homosexual either. Personally, it seems to come across as a bit phobic either way? And that is the part I dislike most about the 'realism' argument of having all bisexual LI's, because anyone who argues it isn't realistic and is just wish fulfillment on the part of the player is removing the characters agency as much if not more then those they argue against, because they are arguing in essence, that there is some inherent loss of autonomy or self in the bisexual identity.

 

I don't know if I'm explaining this well (So I am extremely sorry if anything I have said is causing offense! ) , but it seems like, throughout all these discussions, realism is only discussed when it comes to the bisexual characters. No one says that gay characters are unrealistic or that straight characters are unrealistic. No one has claimed it unrealistic that everyone (who was part of a two + gender species and therefore would possibly have identifications like gay/straight) on your ship in Mass Effect 2 was straight? And it also seems like part of it comes down to gender roles and expectations too? Like all of the arguments feel like (to me) they carry this undertone of wanting to put people in boxes. "So and So looks like they could be straight. Such and Such makes no sense as a gay character".

 

So yeah, I really hate the realism argument because it feels like, even if it isn't the intention of the poster (and I'm sure it isn't 99% of the time!), it feels like it inherently falls into gender/sexual orientation stereotyping and bisexual id erasure.

 

I have no real preference on the all bisexual or the 2/2/2 approach as long as everyone has an equitable number of choices that are of equal quality, but I really dislike it when the all bisexual approach gets criticized in this particular manner.

 

Anyways...that seems like a sure fire guarentee to alienate a crap-load of people. And again, I apologize for misrepresenting anyone else in my post, or any offense I've caused.  So I'm just gonna put a bag on my head and walk away now.

[Boisterous Bob]

This is a very well written and thought out explanation of a point of view that isn't necessarily what most of the people in this thread will agree with.  I always appreciate reading explanations that vary from mine when the person really takes the time to really think about it.

 

One question that I've always had and I've never seen sufficiently answered is this:  How does a character being written as straight make the writing any more high quality than if they were written as bisexual?  I get the argument that having a variety of sexualities increases the variety, but I don't see how it increases the quality.  Especially when looking at an individual character.  I would contend that Anders character would be no more well written if he were only available to a female character.  So, outside of creating a variety of sexualities that we can encounter, I don't see how it increases the quality of the writing and/or characters.

I don't think a character being straight makes him/her a better-written character. The only reason I might expect it (absent any other clues) is statistical probability.

So I don't think good character writing requires the LI to be written as straight. I think good character writing requires the LI to be written with consistency and logic. So, when a female romances Anders, his dialogue (from Awakening as well as DA2) is consistent with that sort of romance. But, when a male romances him, he adds to (or maybe replaces?) his dialogue to mention Karl, etc. In this case, he again demonstrates logic and realism. And I'm totally fine with male Hawke and female Hawke getting different dialogue with him, because Garrett =/= Marian. I don't see it as "I played a male, so Anders is gay/bi, but when I played a female, Anders was straight." I think Anders is always Anders, a bi man; he just shows different sides of himself and his history depending on who is romancing him. (The same kind of reasoning works with Isabela, too; it's who she is, no matter your Warden's/Hawke's genders.)

 

I hope I didn't misunderstand you--did I answer your objection or miss the point? 

[Boisterous Bob]

The more discussions about this topic I've seen the more and more the idea of playersexual (as I understand it) bothers me. Its vaguely troubling to hear people have to headcanon any of the DA2 love interests as straight or gay. Some may not have been super open about their sexuality, like Merrill, but none of the character sexuality is defined by the relationship they have with the player. A bisexual individual can be with a straight person and that doesn't make them straight and they can be with a gay person but that doesn't make them homosexual either. Personally, it seems to come across as a bit phobic either way? And that is the part I dislike most about the 'realism' argument of having all bisexual LI's, because anyone who argues it isn't realistic and is just wish fulfillment on the part of the player is removing the characters agency as much if not more then those they argue against, because they are arguing in essence, that there is some inherent loss of autonomy or self in the bisexual identity.

 

I don't know if I'm explaining this well (So I am extremely sorry if anything I have said is causing offense! ) , but it seems like, throughout all these discussions, realism is only discussed when it comes to the bisexual characters. No one says that gay characters are unrealistic or that straight characters are unrealistic. No one has claimed it unrealistic that everyone (who was part of a two + gender species and therefore would possibly have identifications like gay/straight) on your ship in Mass Effect 2 was straight? And it also seems like part of it comes down to gender roles and expectations too? Like all of the arguments feel like (to me) they carry this undertone of wanting to put people in boxes. "So and So looks like they could be straight. Such and Such makes no sense as a gay character".

 

So yeah, I really hate the realism argument because it feels like, even if it isn't the intention of the poster (and I'm sure it isn't 99% of the time!), it feels like it inherently falls into gender/sexual orientation stereotyping and bisexual id erasure.

 

I have no real preference on the all bisexual or the 2/2/2 approach as long as everyone has an equitable number of choices that are of equal quality, but I really dislike it when the all bisexual approach gets criticized in this particular manner.

Good stuff here.

 

I agree that playersexual is weird at best, aggravating at worst. It's essentially saying that So-and-so is this person if you're male, but So-and-so is a different person if you're female. Most people replay the games looking to see how their own changes cause the storyline to play out differently; everything else besides the PC ought to have consistency throughout, including the characters they know and love.

 

So why not just make all LIs bisexual? There would be nothing wrong with that....if they were in fact bisexual. Now, I hear what you're saying with regard to a character who might have come across as only interested in one gender at one point, and then being more openly bi at a later time, in a different situation, with a different PC. But what I'm saying is, if we see Alistair taking an interest in ladies and not expressing the slightest interest in men, it's entirely reasonable to come to the conclusion that Alistair is straight. Do we KNOW, unquestionably and beyond all shred of doubt, that Alistair has never had feelings for a man? No, because there's no reason for him to say something so weirdly specific like that in-game. All we have to go on is the fact that he'll romance a female Warden while a male Warden has no chance with him. (And, naturally, we'll see this directly contrasted with Leliana and Zevran, who will show their feelings for the Warden regardless of gender, which doesn't prove anything, but certainly reinforces a well-founded assumption.) Fair or unfair, it's not unreasonable to form an assumption based on their behavior, until such time as they "surprise" us and tell us that, nope, they are actually bi (like Anders).

 

Let's take Cullen in Origins as an example. He was infatuated with a female Amell/Surana, but a male couldn't even uncover a hint of interest from him. Now suppose that Bioware goes the default-bi/playersexual route with Inquisition. Cullen is now open to romancing by a male PC? This (while not impossible) would be highly unusual and not at all the norm. If you were to rewrite Leliana as heterosexual, she would no longer be Leliana. Same deal with Zevran; it would require rewriting their pasts and their dialogue with the Warden because it's a part of their characters. (Just like in real life...) It's the same principle with Cullen; he is (reasonably understood to be) established as straight, just like Alistair, Morrigan, and Sebastian. If some in-game reasoning in Inquisition explained away an orientation change for him or some strange reason he only liked Amell/Surana if they were female, but now he's interested in the Inquisitor either way....Well, that would be oookaaaayyyyy from the point of character consistency, but I think we would all recognize that as sloppy writing on par with retconning his posssibly violent departure from the Fereldan Circle.

 

 

Anyways...that seems like a sure fire guarentee to alienate a crap-load of people. And again, I apologize for misrepresenting anyone else in my post, or any offense I've caused.  So I'm just gonna put a bag on my head and walk away now.

 

Bahaha, to quote Felassan in The Masked Empire, "I was offended. Were you offended?" These conversations have a danger of descending into back-and-forth offense-taking, but I try to assume that, unless I am specifically called out and insulted by somebody, then anything like that is unintentional. Please know that's my intention for what I say as well 

 

Edited to add: I think I kind of glossed over what you said here:

 

"...it seems like, throughout all these discussions, realism is only discussed when it comes to the bisexual characters. No one says that gay characters are unrealistic or that straight characters are unrealistic[...]"So and So looks like they could be straight. Such and Such makes no sense as a gay character"."

 

Fair point. I agree that people's natural inclination is to assign Gay or Straight as an identifier for someone if they perceive same-sex or opposite-sex interest from them, without really considering bisexuality. Unless, of course, the person displays both kinds of interest, in which case it becomes apparent. I can see how this could really suck, but, without any cue from the person (e.g., Isabela's pretty darn forthright; Leliana can open up to you about it; Alistair flat out expresses discomfort with Zevran's flirtation; Cullen can't speak to a female mage Warden without stuttering, but he expresses zero interest whatsoever in the male counterpart), most of us have not encountered huge numbers of bi people firsthand, so it strikes a lot of people as a sort of, "Oh, I never really considered that. Okay, if you say so" possibility. And, while some fans do indeed go way overboard in analyzing a character, like "nah, Anders has an earring, he's clearly gay or at least bi, IT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE FOR HIM TO BE STRAIGHT DAMMIT" or other absurd sh!t reasoning like that, it is only natural for us to categorize. It's what every human being does, and it's not a bad thing until and unless it's used to trump a person's ability to speak for himself/herself or used to justify treating him/her poorly. My 2 cents, anyway

[XMissWooX]

Playersexual doesn't bother me, I think, because i see a individual's sexuality as just one, relatively minor aspect of their character.
I wouldn't like or dislike someone for their sexuality - I would like or dislike them because they are kind/cruel, calm/aggressive, patient/impatient, etc. So in that sense, there are many different aspects of a person's personality that I would consider more important that sexuality.
Take Merrill for instance - she isn't becoming a completely different character if you romance her with a male, then a female. She's still as shy, awkward, naive, determined and perky as ever. She has the same desires and motives as she had before. She has the same storyline and plot points as before. She still rivals you for not supporting her, and friends you for supporting her. The *only* thing that changes in this scenario is her sexuality, and even that is dependent on the player's interpretation.

Now I think I have this opinion because I'm not a highly-sexed person and I've always put very little importance on sex in general. I also couldn't care less if someone is straight, gay, bisexual, etc.

I don't play the romances for the sexual aspect, I play them for the emotional aspect - the ability to pick one of your companions and explore their personality more.
So when I say I prefer playersexual or bisexual romances, I'ts not because want everyone to jump into bed with me or because I want power over their sexualities, it's because I want the ability to explore each character as much as possible.
I suppose I could argue that I would be fine with a more platonic alternative to romances, if Bioware ever decided to go that route.

Some people (and Western culture in general) put a lot of emphasis on sex and sexuality, but for me it is really is a non-issue.