Ce sujet est fermé
@geth47
I stopped reading your post after your first three lines because in that short period of time, you conflate playersexuality and bisexuality (for the record, those are two different things) and then go on to state that bisexuality "degrades" characters, which is pretty disrespectful, whether you intended or not.
It's not about if the companion is bi or hetero or whatever. It's about what makes sense for the overall character of the companion. I'm not advocating for an all-hetero Thedas. I'm just saying it's a little too convenient to have everyone in the same sexual orientation, bi or hetero.
Companions should be looked at as characters of Thedas first, and LI's second. And like I said, if the character is better as bi, then make him bi. If he's better hetero, then make him hetero.
And if we're talking about "Bioware determines how things should be" which renders all our points meaningless, then why the hell are we even discussing this? I gave my opinion, and I said why I took that stance.
So what is the determining factor on what makes a character "better as hetero" or "better as bi." ?
Lmao.
I will say again, I don't mind the 2/2/2 prospect and I certainly see how playersexual romances can be seen as problematic, but I certainly do mind the idea that playersexual and bisexual are the same thing and that people who support playersexual romances are weak, scared of rejection and twisted. Nice to know my sexuality is degrading and sick
Thanks for that BSN. I'll go back to the Twitter thread now.
This whole agenda is appealing only for a weak minded insecure generation unable to deal with rejection, responsibility, consequences, careful planning with strategy to reach a goal, limitations of any sort, or even the notion that they can be rejected by someone based on their gender. Really sad times.
Yeah that's totally why I'm pro characters only being available if you alignn up with their personal goals. Because I have rejection issues 
It's why I wanted Anders and Fenris to auto dump a bloodmage.
It's why I didn't mind Isabela running off with the book if you didn't get her approval up (well I minded but I wasn't OMG TAKE IT OUT. It was a consequence and it made sense).
Yes I have so many issues with consequences for my actions. Clearly.
Also it's not careful planning or stragety to pick a female LI and romance her as a male. It's ticking a box in a CC 
That's a wonderful message to tell. Hide secrets from your loved one and be ashamed of your lifestyle till the day you die and beyond.
Great advice for any struggling people out there trying to figure themselves out. Not that anders if much of a rolemodel to begin with. He only tells people things to get what he wants.
In truth, If I didn't believe bioware incapable of it, I'd say this was meant to be foreshadowing of his betrayal and a clue of his deceptive nature.
...Why does this mean that he is ashamed of his orientation? I just always assumed he was attracted to Hawke from the beginning, so he dropped a hint to see whether Hawke would react.
I like romances, and all ther more reason to want restrictions and complexity to them.
Playersexual is the same of bisexual. It means that the particular npc has no problems with being with people from either genre.
It degrades them, as well as your choices, since you don´t even need to investigate that character in order to find out not only that he or she is bi, but also that a romance with you is a possibility.
What are you guys doing with rpgs in which choices should matter, if you can´t even deal with the idea of being rejected or hitting a closed door?
For all intents and purposes, all NPCs being bi is the same as everyone being bi in a game.
To pursuit a relationship with character X or Y should be no different than evolving to specialization A or B. Depending on the way your character was built, this could be impossible to achieve.
I´m starting to think rpgs were better when they were made thinking of the white male hetero as the core public. Some hysteric fanboys and girls simply can´t cope with the fact that freedom demands restriction and choices that matter open as well as need to CLOSED certain doors. That´s why we don´t haver berseker archers, or biotic geth, or mage dwarfs.
Also, story-wise, if a certain character is able to have a romance with a player-controlled character of any gender, this is definitive, concrete proof that the character is bi. It becomes part of his or her lore.
If I want to have medium protection in ME1, I can´t play as biotic. If I want heavy armor, I have to go with the soldier class. I love being able to use charge, and I also love to use cloak (with snippers or shotguns), but I can not cloak nor use charge in the same built. And I don´t think this should ever be changed.
Some people claim to be pro-diversity, when they are actually very much against it. True diversity comes with acknowledging and representing differences, and letting they play you. Being able to romance any character in a game, with any character built, with no regards to your genre or history is simply a sick reflexion of a twisted and troubled personality filled with insecurities and fear. This is not helping the rpg genre nor enriching it.
This whole agenda is appealing only for a weak minded insecure generation unable to deal with rejection, responsibility, consequences, careful planning with strategy to reach a goal, limitations of any sort, or even the notion that they can be rejected by someone based on their gender. Really sad times.
I know I've made this exact same argument before, but the same ideas keep coming up in these threads over and over, so it bears repeating. This whole post is premised on the idea that bisexual NPC's are incapable of rejecting PC; that's plainly not true in real life, and it's not even true in the games. In DAO, it was possible to sleep with Morrigan right out of Lothering depending on which dialogue options you picked, while Leliana's romance took quite a bit longer to develop. There's just no evidence for this idea that being bisexual by its very nature deprives you of agency.
I'd also take issue with the idea that people advocating for NPC's to be bisexual, playersexual or whatever are "troubled personalities" incapable of dealing with rejection. The issue is that insofar as it's reasonable to achieve, it's good to have an equal amount of content available to players of different social groups. If in ME, paragons had 50% more content available to them than renegades, that would be a legitimate problem with the game, and it would be so even though the majority of players are mostly paragons (this is consistent with the general pattern found among games with "good" and "evil" paths; for instance, around 10% of players took the evil path in Fable). If way more content is available to paragons, that tends to seem like a tacit judgment by the game that playing as paragon is somehow the "right" way to play. And perhaps the same is true for those who advocate for playersexuality; they don't want to be told by the game that their way of playing it is somehow not the 'correct' or 'best' way to do things.
EDIT: Fixed some phrasing
So what is the determining factor on what makes a character "better as hetero" or "better as bi." ?
Lmao.
I’d be okay with either way of handling the romances in DA:I, but if I had to choose, I’d certainly pick 2/2/2 over playersexuality.
Reasons:
1) 6 is more than 4, so overall there would be more romances available and replayability with different genders would be increased, while every gender still as exactly as many options as in DA2 and more than in DA:O.
2) My problem with playersexuality (assuming it means that characters change their sexuality based on the player’s gender) is how it breaks the immersion of of the romanceable characters being an organic part of their world. Basically, this creates two different world states with two different versions of the romanceable character: one where they’re straight and have probably always been that way and one where they’re gay and have probably always been that way I don’t know about others, but this “2 versions of 1 character”-thing seem weird to me and as an author myself (not a professional though) I would never do such a thing. I create every character with a set personality, set appearance and set sexuality – that’s who that character is and the way he is meant to be. Changing any of these aspects – may it be sexuality or part of their personality – only to make that character more compatible with the player character seems pointless to me. It makes the character feel artificial, like some gimmick in a computer game that’s supposed to please everyone and breaks immersion.
3) My problems with playersexuality (assuming it means that everyone’s bi) are:
a) It’s unrealistic (unless we find out, that bisexuality s something very common in Thedas)
It makes being bisexual a requirement for LIs. So if one of the writers creates a character that happens to be straight or gay, that character is immediately ruled out as LI OR will later be force to turn bi in order to fit into the “everyone’s playersexual”-formula. Alternatively, the writers would have to create only bisexual characters and that seems quite restrictive and standardized to me.
Why am I still okay with the playersexuality thing if they use it again? Cause that whole argument can be applied to a lot of other things as well. Why does everyone have the hots for the inquisitor no matter what sexuality/gender/race/hair colour/underpants/world views/specializations he has? Cause it costs a lot of time to account for all of these aspects that might realistically make a difference, but won’t here, because romances are not the main focus of the game.
Also, I can always hedcanon the characters’ sexualities if I want to. 
I don't know. But that's not reason enough to make everyone the same in terms of sexual orientation. What are some good reasons to make everyone bi other than to avoid fan backlash due to restrictions?
Sexuality affects character to some extent. And if forcing a sexual preference is hindering the character to take certain stances and have certain opinions, opinions that can help tell a better story, then we shouldn't place everyone in the same bin.
And how, pray tell, does a particular sexual preference hinder a character from taking a stance or an opinion? What kind of opinions are you even speaking of? And where did you get the idea that their sexual orientations are forced?
I have also said it once and I'll say it again: Every LI being available to both genders does not mean they all have the same sexual preference. 'Preference' being the key word here. Try viewing the topic from a Kinsey Scale angle.
It's a matter of perception, that's all.
This place is the only place I know where a character not showing any sort of signs of them being something is taken as admissible proof.A) I'm gonna skip the part where Anders' banter makes it pretty unlikely that anything as normal as a relationship was possible in the Cirlce and skip to 'Where's your prove that there was nothing between Anders and Karl if Hawke's female? Just because he doesn't mention it?
C) Not everyone needs to find a romance partner,however Isabela and Oghren are NOT the only ones who do. Aveline gets married and Fenris hooks up with Isabela.
D) Huh?
I don't know. But that's not reason enough to make everyone the same in terms of sexual orientation. What are some good reasons to make everyone bi other than to avoid fan backlash due to restrictions?
Sexuality affects character to some extent. And if forcing a sexual preference is hindering the character to take certain stances and have certain opinions, opinions that can help tell a better story, then we shouldn't place everyone in the same bin.
The romances are a gameplay mechanic. They are there for players to engage in and enjoy. Making the love interests available to everyone allows the most number of players to enjoy the romance content the way they like to. No matter if they want their PC to be gay or straight, they can still partake in the same amount of romance content as anyone else.
Not all companions are bi/ playersexual. Only the LI's are in DA2.
Sexuality and personality really aren't correlated IRL. Gay and bisexual people are just as diverse as straight people despite media stereotypes, so the idea that a certain character would "be better as straight"' or 'be better as gay/ bi/ etc makes no sense.
I don't know. But that's not reason enough to make everyone the same in terms of sexual orientation. What are some good reasons to make everyone bi other than to avoid fan backlash due to restrictions?
Sexuality affects character to some extent. And if forcing a sexual preference is hindering the character to take certain stances and have certain opinions, opinions that can help tell a better story, then we shouldn't place everyone in the same bin.
The reason is to provide as deep content as possible, coupled with providing choice to players. Why is orientation any different to your mind from race or class in terms sexual restrictions in storytelling?
Personally i never felt any issue in regards the ambiguity of the sexual orientation of merrill in terms of her characterisation when not romanced.Whereas i could see someone could argue that Fenris shouldn't be available to a mage and definitely not a blood mage.
Playersexual is the same of bisexual. It means that the particular npc has no problems with being with people from either genre.
It degrades them, as well as your choices, since you don´t even need to investigate that character in order to find out not only that he or she is bi, but also that a romance with you is a possibility.
For all intents and purposes, all NPCs being bi is the same as everyone being bi in a game.
To pursuit a relationship with character X or Y should be no different than evolving to specialization A or B. Depending on the way your character was built, this could be impossible to achieve.
I´m starting to think rpgs were better when they were made thinking of the white male hetero as the core public. Some hysteric fanboys and girls simply can´t cope with the fact that freedom demands restriction and choices that matter open as well as need to CLOSED certain doors. That´s why we don´t haver berseker archers, or biotic geth, or mage dwarfs.
Also, story-wise, if a certain character is able to have a romance with a player-controlled character of any gender, this is definitive, concrete proof that the character is bi. It becomes part of his or her lore.
If I want to have medium protection in ME1, I can´t play as biotic. If I want heavy armor, I have to go with the soldier class. I love being able to use charge, and I also love to use cloak (with snippers or shotguns), but I can not cloak nor use charge in the same built. And I don´t think this should ever be changed.
Some people claim to be pro-diversity, when they are actually very much against it. True diversity comes with acknowledging and representing differences, and letting they play you. Being able to romance any character in a game, with any character built, with no regards to your genre or history is simply a sick reflexion of a twisted and troubled personality filled with insecurities and fear. This is not helping the rpg genre nor enriching it.
This whole agenda is appealing only for a weak minded insecure generation unable to deal with rejection, responsibility, consequences, careful planning with strategy to reach a goal, limitations of any sort, or even the notion that they can be rejected by someone based on their gender. Really sad times.
My sexuality is degrading? Well now.
... Actually, I'm going to be perfectly frank and say that this post is one of the most insulting and callous things I've ever read, to the point where to respond to each statement and to point out why it is so is going to take too much time, and I highly suggest you read it again and re-consider whether posting this was really a good idea.
That's a wonderful message to tell. Hide secrets from your loved one and be ashamed of your lifestyle till the day you die and beyond.
Great advice for any struggling people out there trying to figure themselves out. Not that anders if much of a rolemodel to begin with. He only tells people things to get what he wants.
In truth, If I didn't believe bioware incapable of it, I'd say this was meant to be foreshadowing of his betrayal and a clue of his deceptive nature.
Uh, you realize that at the time, she was not a loved one? Just someone he had recently met and was friendly with and had a certain amount of romantic attraction towards?
And if he wasn't comfortable with telling her about Karl, that's well within his right. I can understand completley if he were more comfortable talking about it with a mle Hawke than a female one; even in real life, people are often more comfortable and become at ease quicker around people of the same gender. He could have a million and a half reasons not to tell her, and even if he doesn't, nobody is under any obligation to talk about their past relationships. People are allowed to be as revealing about their past relationships as they want to according to their own personal comforts and needs.
Before Dragon Age 2 I only ever played as female characters when given the choice. Then the Anders fuss happened and I just had to go investigate with a male Hawke. Turned out that I preferred male Hawke and it was a bonus that I could romance the same LI's I enjoyed as Fem Hawke (really not a fan of Merrill and I think I prefer romancing Isabela as Fem Hawke).
So for me, if I could only romance a character with one gender then it wouldn't be a huge problem, I'd happily play through as both to try it all out. However I think I just prefer it if that choice wasn't already made for me.
But then, for me the romances are meant to be an fun extra to the game. I really enjoy them and am looking forward to them in DA:I, but most of my time and attention should be on the actual plot of the game, not figuring out compatibilities for who I want my inquisitor to bump uglies with. If I wanted to deal with all the relationship negatives like rejection, compromise and responsibility then I'd go play real life.
It's a fantasy game. So let people have theirs.
The reason is to provide as deep content as possible, coupled with providing choice to players. Why is orientation any different to your mind from race or class in terms sexual restrictions in storytelling?
Why is it different in yours?
Choosing your class or race woll give you access to certain abilities or dialogue that others won't get, just as picking a certain sexuality would if we went back to 2/2 or 2/2/2. It increases replayability and that' a good Thing in my book. Gives me more reason to play as male characters and makes things a little more interesting. ^^
Why is it different in yours?
Choosing your class or race woll give you access to certain abilities or dialogue that others won't get, just as picking a certain sexuality would if we went back to 2/2 or 2/2/2. It increases replayability and that' a good Thing in my book. Gives me more reason to play as male characters and makes things a little more interesting. ^^
I don't really see how gender restrictions for romances increases replayability. Bioware games still don't allow polygamy, so you'd have to start another playthrough anyway in order to experience a different romance. Whether you do so as a male or female character isn't particularly relevant to that, although I do see your point.
For me it just leaves a sour taste in my mouth and decreases the chance of me replaying the game by about 75,4682 % (no I did not pull that number outta my ass what are you talking about) if I'm forced to play as a guy. It's no fun. 
I'd prefer a split of romances over playersexuality
Playersexuality makes the entire universe revolve around the protagonist in a juvenile power trip. I accept that there may be romances that's I'd like to have in my canon playthrough, like say with Traynor in ME3, but I'm not going to demand that I be able to romance all the characters because of it.
I don't really see how gender restrictions for romances increases replayability. Bioware games still don't allow polygamy, so you'd have to start another playthrough anyway in order to experience a different romance. Whether you do so as a male or female character isn't particularly relevant to that, although I do see your point.
For me it just leaves a sour taste in my mouth and decreases the chance of me replaying the game by about 75,4682 % (no I did not pull that number outta my ass what are you talking about) if I'm forced to play as a guy. It's no fun.
I'd love to do the Garrus romance love there's no way on Earth I'm sitting through 20+ hours of Hale's voice (which I do not like) to do so. There's no way. I'm sure there's some who feel the same about Meer's voice with some of the restricted female romances.
If Garrus had be a bi romance however I would've rolled another Shep for him. As it is I simply didn't do it and watched it on youtube.
So Anders is completely alright with telling some stranger guy he was in love with karl, but around a chick he just suddenly develops this nervous reluctance?
Add sexist to the list of bad traits anders has.
As a bisexual person I can admit to keeping certain relationships from people I've dated, specifically my male ones from certain females I've dated and my female ones from certain men I've dated, largely because of the attitude you are expressing here.
When it comes down to it, there is a lot of hate for bisexual people in lots of communities. Lesbians I date often don't take kindly to dating bisexual women and I am not comfortable talking about those relationships with them until I know them better. Men often make a big deal about the girls I've dated for various reasons, and again, I am not willing to talk about it with them until I know them better and trust them more! It's a lot easier to talk about my previous relationships with girls to other girls and my previous relationships with boys to other boys. That's just how it is and it is what makes me the most comfortable. If I just met someone, I don't owe them my entire romantic history, that's something they have to earn unless I am already comfortable with it.
It is not sexist, it is a matter of personal preference and feeling safe.
I'd love to do the Garrus romance love there's no way on Earth I'm sitting through 20+ hours of Hale's voice (which I do not like) to do so. There's no way. I'm sure there's some who feel the same about Meer's voice with some of the restricted female romances.
If Garrus had be a bi romance however I would've rolled another Shep for him. As it is I simply didn't do it and watched it on youtube.
See, I feel the same (in the...uh, opposite way).
I cannot stand Meer's voice. At all. It's nasal and awful and I wanna punch him in the face everytime he opens his mouth. (Which sounds kinda mean and I totally don't mean it, he's probably a great guy.) I struggled through ME1 and ME2 for Miranda and Tali and in the end, all I managed to do was make myself sad because I wasn't having any fun and because I knew how great it could have been if I'd only been able to play my beloved FemShep through it all. And let's not talk about ME3.
I am not entirely sure I'll ever get over my disappointment in that department. 
(Imagine me laughing hysterically with tears streaming down my face.)
Why is it different in yours?
Choosing your class or race woll give you access to certain abilities or dialogue that others won't get, just as picking a certain sexuality would if we went back to 2/2 or 2/2/2. It increases replayability and that' a good Thing in my book. Gives me more reason to play as male characters and makes things a little more interesting. ^^
I don't remember my character's sex opening up different abilities or dialogue options at every turn. That might be nice but it would be a resource sink surely.
If you want unhappy players to be forced to replay why aren't you arguing that romances should be class restricted or racially restricted, Character A shouldn't be allowed to be romanced by elves/dwarves etc(jaheira BG2 approach).
My point is that given there doesn't seem likely to be extra resources committted to romances the DA2 option that provides deeper content coupled with an element of choice per orientation is preferrable to no choice based on your orientation(2-2) or less content per romance(2-2-2). Hence why i'm not a fan of any of these romance restrictions as things stand.
See, I feel the same (in the...uh, opposite way).
I cannot stand Meer's voice. At all. It's nasal and awful and I wanna punch him in the face everytime he opens his mouth. (Which sounds kinda mean and I totally don't mean it, he's probably a great guy.) I struggled through ME1 and ME2 for Miranda and Tali and in the end, all I managed to do was make myself sad because I wasn't having any fun and because I knew how great it could have been if I'd only been able to play my beloved FemShep through it all. And let's not talk about ME3.
I am not entirely sure I'll ever get over my disappointment in that department.
Agreed. I felt Hale was overemotive in some sceens and her voice just...I hate her femshep voice. Which is a shame because I loved her in KOTOR and MG but her ME voice had me going "Ehh....." but I'm with you on the wanting to punch emotion. (Freaking female Inq man...it didn't help that I played the much much better female warrior before doing it.) I managed to truck though that for Revel's romance (TWICE though the second time was me mostly doing FPs and WZs so I didn't hear her voice that often other than death moans XD) And yeah I know you're feeling I don't even think I managed to get off Eden Prime. I got up to Ashley and went "I can't take this voice anymore." Same thing happened right after speaking to Tali in ME2. I know better than to even try it in ME3 XD
But it's not fun and it feels like work and it's for like...what? 10 to 15 minutes of content? Not worth it. Not even remotely.
I know your pain. *pats* there there.
I'd prefer a split of romances over playersexuality
Playersexuality makes the entire universe revolve around the protagonist in a juvenile power trip. I accept that there may be romances that's I'd like to have in my canon playthrough, like say with Traynor in ME3, but I'm not going to demand that I be able to romance all the characters because of it.
This goes beyond "it ruins characters."
Why do you care what other people do in their game? And why must you try to subtly insult players that want options?
Retour en haut