333 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

[Zyree]

That makes me really sad. I was holding out for Grey Warden like no tomorrow... 

[geth47]

Oh dear, where to start.

I suggest you work on your word choices. As it stands, your post is incredibly insulting. Calling bisexuality 'degrading' will get you verbally torn apart very VERY fast.

 

 

Actually, I was talking about the notion that every one of the npcs have to be "playersexual". That your gender, class, story and alignment should not impact the possibility of romancing a certain character.

 

But let´s say I do indeed think that bisexuality is degrading to a person. How is that insulting? And what business is that of yours? Should I be re-educated? Re-programmed in order to think along with your agenda? What do you think it should be done to people who hold this position, or who would reject you as a romacing prospect because they have the same gender?  

[Maria Caliban]

Playersexual is the same of bisexual. It means that the particular npc has no problems with being with people from either genre.

"Would you love me if I were a Western?"
"Always."
"What about horror? Epic fantasy? Historical wartime?"
"Never doubt it."
"What about if I were young adult paranormal romance?"
"...eh, don't push it."

[Cainhurst Crow]

Actually Ashara is a good example of how utterly annoying making differences based off genders can be. She disliked pretty much any gift you got her as a female. I don't see why ovaries had her dislike my gifts more. And being forced to recruit her as a DS fem Inq was one of the biggest WTFs I ever saw in a BW game. Then "oh that's nice." snideness to the gifts was the crap cherry on top. I hear even people go on about how Lis should treat genders different and be restricted complain about this. It's not so nice in practice when you're the one being crapped on.

Like anders lying and having no qualms sleeping with a mage hating templar, Ashara is an example of that particular system done wrong.

[Cainhurst Crow]

O~~kay then, moving on.

[Ryzaki]

Like anders lying and having no qualms sleeping with a mage hating templar, Ashara is an example of that particular system done wrong.

 

Eh you can rival Anders easily without being mage hating and all the mages being sent back to the circle can be justified (plus you're pretty much forced to not hating any mages by virtue of not being able to tell him and Merrill to bounce immediately).  But yeah Anders defintely should've been able to dump the more hardline Hawkes.

 

 

No she doesn't, and you can even lock in other romances after her

 

I think that is best, Cullen and Cassandra are confirmed, so I am guessing that Sera and Solas or maybe the Grey Warden will be romances, no clue who else..

 

XD

 

Ooh you can cheat on Liara with her can't you? And you get dumped after Liara finds out? LOL

 

DHMG? If he's a companion. I hope he is Party full of nuke mages would be hilarity.

 

Is what my blank post should've said

[AresKeith]

Playersexuality is indeed bisexuality, 

 

No it's not

[Ryzaki]

 

I did not say that bisexuality degrades on particular character. Had you read my messages, and you would know that was against the notion that all npcs should be "playersexuals". This degrades the characters, This degrades the game.

 

This  has never been the case and chances are it will never be the case. So why are you worried?

[geth47]

"Look at it this way - Alistair was a straight-only romance, and some people were disappointed that they 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."

 

And what forbids these disgruntled players from playing with a character built that allows a romance?

 

I can either cast spells or be a dwarf. i can either go berserk or be an archer. I can either be a geth or use biotic powers. 

 

Today´s generation can´t deal with a closed door. Can´t stand to a "NO". Can´t stare at the "game over. you failed!" game over screen. 

 

I think you boys and girls should create your own company. So you could create the games that you would like (and only you, apparently), where you could be of all classes at the same time, have more than one origin story for the same built, being able to romance all the characters, specialize in any way you can, use all the powers, use every piece of equipment with the same proficiency. 

 

I don´t know how some people ended up at bioware´s door. Their philosophy seem to go contrary contrary to true diverse experience over multiple plays and the use of choices that matter. Make everyone bi for the sake of equality is a simplistic and idiotic move. People are not equal, not are supposed to be. Everyone is different, peculiar in some way. Each character should have turn ons and turn offs, including being unable to accept a relationship if someone from the game sex.

 

Come to think of it, we can only wonder what kind of behavior this people have when they are turned down because someone does not want to be involved in a ****** relationship. If they think that even games should have this new order being imposed, how do they deal with rejection in real life. 

"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."

 

This degrades the game. I like to blind-play the first time. Since I know in advance that everyone can be romanced by my characters, they are already less interesting to me. customizable rpgs are games built over the premise that you can only acess a certain content if you are compatible. If you have a certain origin, have a certain talent, a certain specialization, distributed points to persuasion, etc. Instead of demolishing the genre, go play another game, or find some other way to have fun, without being angry or depressed because "x character of a videogame rejected my character. I wanna protest, i wanna cry. I wanna die". 

 

Face it. You can´t have your cake and eat it too. At least, not in the same play. To allow you to do it in a single play would not enrich the game, but make it poorer. It would not be wise, but totally stupid. It would not benefict the game nor the experience, but seriously degrade them.

 

You claim to be a female hetero. Well, I´m a male bi and I totally disagree with your assertions. Having gay or bisexual options is ok, but making everyone bi is irrational, unnatural, not at all true to life, A totally artificial experience that would not improve the games, but make them far worse. 

 

 "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."

 

Ok, for the sake of equality, let´s ban the races, the genres, the classes, the talents. Everyone will play with clones of the same character, a mix of dwarf+human+elf who happens to be androgynous. 

 

By the way, since when only having the option of romancing a character in a game is against equality. Against equality would be to forbid someone from playing that particular game. I played rumble roses on my playstation 2 and had lots of fun with it. Not even for a moment I felt excluded based on the fact that I was only able to use women fighters. 

 

You kids have a lot to learn about what equality and dealing with differences really is. 

[KainD]

No it's not

 

Yes it is. We don't have an option to play something other than a female/male. 

[Ryzaki]

Edited

 

Fine fine. No more cracks.

[TheBlackAdder13]

I'm definitely of the opinion that Anders is bisexual.

 

I disagree. If you're a fem!Hawke in DA2 he doesn't mention that Karl was his "first" -- he only says if for male!Hawke. If he were actually bisexual, I'd like to think that Bioware wouldn't be shielding potential female PCs who are thinking of romancing Anders from this. 

[KainD]

Having gay or bisexual options is ok, but making everyone bi is irrational, unnatural, not at all true to life, A totally artificial experience that would not improve the games, but make them far worse. 

 

Ok, for the sake of equality, let´s ban the races, the genres, the classes, the talents. Everyone will play with clones of the same character, a mix of dwarf+human+elf who happens to be androgynous. 

 

Fantasy setting isn't supposed to be rational and rational. Every member of the party is always a special snowflake in something, adding an uncommon sexuality on top of that is nothing special.

 

That won't make the game worse, it will just make it different. 

[Rosey]

Playersexual characters are characters that fall in love with the player character regardless of gender. That for the most part, express no sexuality of their own. In an individual playthrough, based on the gender of the player character, the romancable characters are then (straight, gay, or bi/pan sexual) attracted to the player character.

 

Bisexual - An actual sexual preference of a person who finds that they are sexually attracted to both the female and male genders.

 

So no, PlayerSexual and Bisexuality are NOT the same things.

 

Examples:

• Isabela is Bisexual. She prefers the company of both men, and women.
• Anders is what's known as Pansexual. He is attracted to the PERSON, not the gender.
• Both Merril, and Fenris, are almost exclusively Playersexual -- as in for the vast majority of the game they have no defined personal sexuality.

 

On the whole, in DA2, all of the romancable characters are Playersexual. Individually, only two of them have actual expressed sexual preferences.

 

 

As per the actual topic, as a female gamer (as per the request of the OP), I have zero issue with the 4 romancable player sexual characters route the Dragon Age series has taken so far. It allows inclusivity while still giving the individual gamer a unique experience.

[Ryzaki]

I disagree. If you're a fem!Hawke in DA2 he doesn't mention that Karl was his "first" -- he only says if for male!Hawke. If he were actually bisexual, I'd like to think that Bioware wouldn't be shielding potential female PCs who are thinking of romancing Anders from this. 

 

I can see why sadly. In Jade Empire the amount of 'OMG WHY IS MY LI AVAILABLE TO MEN TOO?' was utterly astounding. And you had to go out of your way to find Sky's m/m romance. Even before DA2 came out there was the whole "Fenris shouldn't be bisexual cause he'd lose his mysteriousness" kind of crap.

[MrMrPendragon]

No it's not

Yes it is. Or it may as well be since that's the only way we can perceive it. Gender roles are not something vague. You are either gay, hetero, bi.

Playersexual is none of those because playersexuality is adapting to the player's needs. Which to me doesn't make sense, because how would you know if the character is adapting to your wants or if the character is just bisexual? To have the playersexual mentality, you have to believe that the character is labeled as someone with a specific gender role, only to be surprised that he's not like that at all ---- the whole "hetero unless proven otherwise"

Short of asking the writers themselves, we can never know if a player is labeled and written as a bisexual or just playersexual. The only way for us to test bisexuality is to do the romance itself, except even then we can't clearly draw the line between playersexual and bisexual.

Playersexuality doesn't exist, and if it does i would be against it. This requires the character to adapt to MY wants, which means the player itself is sort of defining the companion's character to an extent.

The characters are written as one element of the story and the world of Dragon Age. No one is written solely for the purpose of being an LI, and playersexuality would do just that.

[radishson]

As a bisexual player who dislikes multiple playthroughs (I prefer making only one main protag per game and fleshing them out as much as possible) "playersexual" romances are very, very important to me.

 

Sexuality has nothing to do with lore, like combat or race-based choices.  Nor does variance teach diversity when heterosexual protags always end up with the most options.  You lose nothing with playersexuality.  Characters aren't ~forever ruined~ with bisexuality. They stay the same in terms of personality, powers, morality... everything important.  The only bonus is that players of all sexualities get to feel included and aren't restricted by arbitrary sexualities when deciding who to romance.  If you want to headcanon your LI as being straight or gay depending on the scenario, great!  But at least the option is there.

 

Even if my favoured LI was miraculously aligned with my sexuality, 2/2/2 frustrates me on principle.  If we, as a fandom, can understand the need for plot-centric choices that differ to our own, why can't the same be true for NPC sexuality?  My Hawke was pro-templar, so in effect, the pro-mage turn of events doesn't exist in her world at all.  If you gay romance Fenris, his bisexuality doesn't have to exist to you either. It's the exact same idea.

[Infighter]

 

Examples:

• Isabela is Bisexual. She prefers the company of both men, and women.
• Anders is what's known as Pansexual. He is attracted to the PERSON, not the gender.
• Both Merril, and Fenris, are almost exclusively Playersexual -- as in for the vast majority of the game they have no defined personal sexuality.

 

I find this really confusing. Are you saying a person has no sexuality unless they specifically state it to you somewhere? Doesn't the fact that they are both willingly to start a romance with either gender confirm that they are indeed bisexual?

 

Try to expand on this because I don't understand.

[KainD]

Playersexual characters are characters that fall in love with the player character regardless of gender. That for the most part, express no sexuality of their own. 

 

If a character doesn't express their sexuality and is also not a romance option then they are asexual, gotcha. 

 

 

 

• Anders is what's known as Pansexual. He is attracted to the PERSON, not the gender.

 

Everyone is attracted to a person... 

[Ryzaki]

Come on, Ryzaki kid. Can´t you do better? Instead of only complain about being called a kid, why don´t you answer to my objections? Let´s see if you can reason. It´s never too late to start trying. I´d wish you good luck, but I know that your kind is very much afraid of dealing with failure, so I know you will avoid it. 

 

First you guys tried to say that I was insulting, without even realizing I´m bi. Let´s see what you will try now. 

 

What exactly do you mean by "my kind"?

[radishson]

I find this really confusing. Are you saying a person has no sexuality unless they specifically state it to you somewhere? Doesn't the fact that they are both willingly to start a romance with either gender confirm that they are indeed bisexual?

 

Try to expand on this because I don't understand.

 

Exactly. The lengths people will go to deny that bisexuality exists is really concerning.

[Iakus]

 

Sexuality has nothing to do with lore, like combat or race-based choices.  Nor does variance teach diversity when heterosexual protags always end up with the most options.  You lose nothing with playersexuality.  Characters aren't ~forever ruined~ with bisexuality. They stay the same in terms of personality, powers, morality... everything important.  The only bonus is that players of all sexualities get to feel included and aren't restricted by arbitrary sexualities when deciding who to romance.  If you want to headcanon your LI as being straight or gay depending on the scenario, great!  But at least the option is there.

 

Then does the character's relationships change based on playersexuality?

 

I mean Anders' relationship with Karl, Leliana's with Marjolaine, and so on?

 

If a character's preferences spin about based on the player, then it changes that character's past as well as his/her present, you know.

[Ryzaki]

? Lelilana's relationship with Marjoline doesn't change. The only one that might change (which I doubt I believe he simply doesn't tell you) is Karl with Anders.

[radishson]

Then does the character's relationships change based on playersexuality?

 

I mean Anders' relationship with Karl, Leliana's with Marjolaine, and so on?

 

If a character's preferences spin about based on the player, then it changes that character's past as well as his/her present, you know.

 

Even the Anders and Leliana examples you give are laughably minute details.  Personally I think every LI should be bixesual in canon.  I use the term "playersexuality" because I realize that, for whatever reason, some straight people have a hard time imagining their LI as anything other than straight, so they'd prefer to leave it up to interpretation.  Either way, inclusion is important and it's worth the sacrifice.