333 réponses à ce sujet

[Loghain Mac-Tir]

As a pragmatist i favour the Bi/playersexual 2x2 approach because in a world where there are apparently only going to be a very finite amount of resources allocated to romance content i want as much content for individual LI's as well as providing a measure of choice to people based on orientation.

 

Agreed, In a perfect world with limitless content, you can expect 4 heterosexual romances (2 for each gender) 2 homosexual and 2 bisexual companions, But in a perfect world I am the President of the World Government, and it's just not happening. So, I am satisfied with 4 playersexual (that's a really stupid title) companions.

[fchopin]

Would you feel that Wynne was cheapened

Not only does it cheapen her but I would consider it a bug.

[Loghain Mac-Tir]

It seems it was cut content.

 

Darn it, would have loved that confrontation, especially with a high Intimidate check

something like this

 

(Intimidate) I am a Grey Warden b!tches', you really want to do this?

[Loghain Mac-Tir]

Not only does it cheapen her but I would consider it a bug.

 

Two words

 

Gameplay/Story Segregation

 

Edit

(kinda makes it three words, but you know what I mean) 

[Maria Caliban]

I've noticed that the 'all bisexual' group has become the 'all playersexual' group.

Are the people using this term conceptualizing Merrill or Anders as gay in one playthrough and straight in another?
 

Two words

Gameplay/Story Segregation

That's three words.

I don't consider gameplay and story segregation an inherently good thing. Many times, I believe it weakens the story.

A simple example would be the Old Republic and my light side, peace-loving Jedi Councilor not only constantly engaging in slaughter but actually getting achievements for killing 100/500/2500 NPCs on a specific planet. While I find it off-putting, I understand that the basic gameplay model was probably decided on long before the stories were. The people in charge of the stories are doing the best they can.

Alternatively, look at something like the latest Thief series. You're a master thief who supposedly goes after the most choice and valuable items but end up rummaging through every shelf, chest, and desk for hundreds of 2 gold pens and compasses. You're a master of stealth but the light, sound, and detection system makes stealthy gameplay difficult and unrewarding; you're much better off just knocking every single guard you encounter out.

There's really no reason for the gameplay to undercut the main character so much, especially when previous entries in the series managed to do so.

Alternatively, Skyrim's fast travel system is a good thing in my book.

[Allan Schumacher]

Not that I've actually made her a blood mage haha, but I separate somewhat what a character is capable of in combat versus how they see themselves within the actual story. In my mind, Wynne  Forgive me if I sound a tad stupid, I don't normally respond to topics such as these cause I feel out of my depth. Would you feel that Wynne was cheapened, Allan, if she specialized in shapeshifting or became an Arcane Warrior?

 

Blood magic, in particular, is the most egregious one because it's a topic with very strong opinions about it.  I can see pros and cons of providing accessibility for the companions, so in general I don't really have an issue with stuff like Shapeshifting and Arcane Warrior, although I think it'd be a nice touch if the Character said "No."

 

I like the specific specializations that Maria pointed out, as they are still somewhat character defining while allowing some freedom by the player to experiment and have a party that synergizes well with their own character.

[oceanicsurvivor]

 

Origins was a pretty big let down for people wanting m/m or f/f romances, I think. They made most of the romances more even in DA2, I think, but Origins was pretty clearly structured for Alistair and Morrigan to be framed as the "main" LIs. It's pretty harsh that the "main" LIs were also the straight LIs. I really hope that they'll make the "main" romances the bisexual ones if they go 2/2/2 in the future. Well, or just not have "main" ones. 

 

I think that was one of the nicest switches from Origins to DA2. I really like Leliana and Zev, but their importance to the plot of Origins is less  compared to Alistair and Morrigan. In 2, I would say Anders and Isabela are similar in that they both have a big tie in to the plot (even though, yes, you can nvr meet Isabela apparently). And as awesome as Merrill and Fenris are (and they had strong fleshed out back stories and side quests), they weren't consequential to the main storyline events.  The big heartbreaks I hear talked about a lot are Morrigan offering the Dark Ritual and Alistair having to break up with you to run the kingdom. Those were big and plot significant moments restricted by gender. Isabela can run off on male or female hawke, and Anders blowing up the Chantry could be heartbreaking for a same sex or opposite sex Anders/Hawke couple. It felt less like the LGB content was side content...if that makes any sense?

 

And to your most original question...I'm pretty ok with either. I would prefer all characters be bi instead of playersexual personally, if that is the approach taken. But 2/2/2 would be fine with me if they had the resources to implement it. I think it's unlikely, especially if the rumor that there are 4 VA's for the Inquisitor is true. The speculation that we have adviser characters is interesting, and it will be intriguing to see if DA goes with a fifth and sixth romance options that are non-companion. I could see them filling out a 6 LI option roster that way.

[HiroVoid]

I disagree in some respects, Maria. So, in combat, making Wynne a blood mage cheapens her? I mean, if we had control over every facet of a character's personality and beliefs, I'd agree, but these characters still are very much real characters outside of the player's dominion.

This becomes more of an issue when gameplay segregates from what a character's core belief is.  Wynne would never become a blood mage and despises them, so its simply something she wouldn't do no matter how the protagonist talked about how it would increase chances of defeating the blight.  On the other hand, I know some people talk about how the player shouldn't decide what the other characters wear and use, but unless the companions decide to handle their own equipment and inventory through advanced AI, the player doing it is the only way for them to progress through equipment like the player.  Of course, there are also some aspects that I agree where gameplay should take precedent over the story and characters though generally, they should try to complement each other as much as possible.

 

Of course, sometimes it can be fun just to mess around with the mod manager and do whatever the heck you can with it.  Want to make Morrigan a warrior, have a completely new companion non-canon in the series, or whatever else?  Go right ahead.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I've noticed that the 'all bisexual' group has become the 'all playersexual' group.

Are the people using this term conceptualizing Merrill or Anders as gay in one playthrough and straight in another?

Personally, I don't give it much thought. I suppose I imagine them as gay/straight per play through if they don't mention a partner of the opposite gender to the romanced PC and bisexual if they do. 

 

My preference for the playersexual/bisexual route is a mix, though. I think it would be nice if some characters were shown to be bisexual (like Isabela) and some are kept ambiguous (like Fenris). To me, this just covers the most bases. It gives an impression of diverse sexualities, if a person wants to roleplay it that way. 

[Hellion Rex]

I've noticed that the 'all bisexual' group has become the 'all playersexual' group.
 

What do you mean?

[devSin]

I've noticed that the 'all bisexual' group has become the 'all playersexual' group.

Are the people using this term conceptualizing Merrill or Anders as gay in one playthrough and straight in another?

I used "bisexual".

Though unless they bring it up, I don't actually care. I know I don't prescribe any sexuality to Merrill or Fenris; it never seemed to matter when I was playing.

When I hear the anti-"playersexual" arguments, though, I do chuckle that simply having them all be explicitly bisexual wouldn't really satisfy many of those people, even though it completely solves the problem they claim to have.

[Maria Caliban]

What do you mean?

When Dragon Age II first came out, the majority of people who supported the love interests being available to both male and female PCs described those characters as bisexual. The term playersexual was contentious and often used in a pejorative way.

I've noticed that playersexual has become far more common in discussions as a neutral term and had supplanted bisexual, so I was wondering if this was simply a linguistic shift or if the player base had embraced the idea that the companion's sexuality changed depending on the PC.

[SurelyForth]

I consider the DA2 love interests as being bisexual/pansexual, but "playersexual" seems slightly less likely to incite a tidal wave of stupidity from people who can't handle actual human sexuality.

 

I'm not entirely comfortable using it, though. 

[Rawgrim]

Playersexuality is bad. Makes the PC a sexual Mary Sue.

 

A variety of sexualities (equal amount for all) is good.

[Loghain Mac-Tir]

Playersexuality is bad. Makes the PC a sexual Mary Sue.

 

A variety of sexualities (equal amount for all) is good.

 

To call a character's orientation "Playersexual" would be to imply that said character only swings that way because of the PC, do you have any proof to support that ?

[Rawgrim]

To call a character's orientation "Playersexual" would be to imply that said character only swings that way because of the PC, do you have any proof to support that ?

 

I belive one of the devs (Gaider I think) said the DA2 love interests arn`t bisexual. So that means the love interests change their sexual orientation when the player picks a gender for Hawke.

[Allan Schumacher]

None of the devs have actually said it, as far as I know.

 

It's an interpretation that has come out of the fanbase that from time to time, David has referred to it on places like his tumblr, but often with quotation marks in what seems to me to be a referential way to make reference to this discussion.

 

Link

 

 

 

I have used the term in similar ways.  I actually try to NOT make any wholesale statements about DA2's characterization, though given that the issue is only affected via metagaming, I don't have any real issue against what the term references and take part in those discussions.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 11 avril 2014 - 08:03 .

[DrBlingzle]

I feel like I'm in the minority here but I'm not for playersexual characters, personally I just think it just makes the characters less realistic and character realism is something bioware has always done really well.

I wish bioware would set up the polls on BSN again so we can actually see which option is more popular.

Edit: I should probably mention that I am also for the 2/2/2 option (which as far as I'm aware means 2 hetro characters, 2 bi, and 2 h0mo right?)

[Ieldra]

I have a strong preference against the "playersexual" setup because it compromises worldbuilding for a gain I don't find significant.

 

Main points against it:

 

(1) If companions are "playersexual" that comes across, over several playthroughs, as if either everyone (in the world) is bi or your companion group is pre-selected - in-world - for sexual orientation. Keeping every playthrough self-contained in my mind in order to avoid being thusly affected takes effort, and more effort the more I talk with others about the story, and it is a constant strain on my suspension of disbelief since the little voice keeps nagging in my head "things don't work that way".

 

(2) Sexual orientation is part of a character's identity. Having it variable makes them less tangible and relatable.

 

In general, I think it is important that some requirements of equal representation are fulfilled, meaning that there should a similar amount of female and male LI options and player characters of no gender and major sexual orientation should be limited to only one option. Beyond that, I find it perfectly acceptable that if you want to romance a *specific* character, you are required to play a specific gender. These are roleplaying games after all.

 

I've been affected that way in both ME2 and DAO where my favorite characters were not romanceable by player characters of my preferred gender. It wasn't optimal but I didn't have a problem with it. Should my favorite character only be romanceable by a character of the same gender there is some chance I would forego the romance since I find it hard as a rule to play same-sex romances (though Leliana's worked well, surprisingly), but I would actually prefer having to forego a romance here and there to having my suspension of disbelief strained by a setup I just can't believe. It could even enrich my playing experience since I could now imagine my player character pining for someone they can never have. In that case, for a more positive outcome I'd romance someone else. Or no one in the first place.

 

I also think that players' appreciation for characters in general should not be bound up in the romances so much. If I appreciate a character, being able to romance them is a nice bonus, nothing more, and neither story nor game design treat the romances as more than that so I find it odd that some players ascribe so much importance to them. I would like Miranda and Morrigan just as much if they weren't LIs, and probably talk about them with equal passion.

 

All in all, I find it perfectly legitimate that a role-playing game may require some adaptability from the player if they want to experience specific pieces of optional content, or specific outcomes. Perhaps not quite as much as ME3's ending, but some.

[Rawgrim]

No clue where that quote was from, but it was an old quote. I remember people using that one shortly after DA2 had come out.

 

No biggie, anyway.

[Lorien19]

I never really cared that much to be honest...In my playthroughs romances are an extra option for my character's potential development.

If any kind of involvement(even if it's not necessarily romantic) with another character makes my own pc reconsider or overcome some misconceptions/prejudices/views by offering them a different perspective or generally help them evolve in any other way,then gender never really mattered to me,besides I tend to play many different characters with different personalities that don't necessarily have the same sexual orientation with me.

So both playersexuality and 2/2/2 are fine with me,even if my character is rejected in the second case by the romanceable character in question because he/she doesn't share his preference or for whatever reason,my character will still evolve by that "emotional" disappointment in a way,it's not like any of these would limit my RP choices.

[Maria Caliban]

I have a strong preference against the "playersexual" setup because it compromises worldbuilding for a gain I don't find significant.
 
Main points against it:
 
(1) If companions are "playersexual" that comes across, over several playthroughs, as if either everyone (in the world) is bi or your companion group is pre-selected - in-world - for sexual orientation. Keeping every playthrough self-contained in my mind in order to avoid being thusly affected takes effort, and more effort the more I talk with others about the story, and it is a constant strain on my suspension of disbelief since the little voice keeps nagging in my head "things don't work that way".

As a fan of speculative fiction, I don't understand this mindset.

I remember when I picked up Kurshiel's Dart and within the first few chapters understood that this was a world where the vast majority of people were bisexual, where prostitution was a sacred art, where angels had bred with humans, where people born in a specific county all smelled of apples when they perspired, and where not becoming pregnant was something a woman could choose to do during sex. None of this threw me or troubled my suspension of disbelief. I thought it was rather tame in terms of departure from reality.

I find myself wondering how gamers would react to a world like that in Perdido Street Station, and then I remember that Planescape: Torment is a thing.

[esper]

_{I prefer bi (or pan) sexual characters for the LI. At once I was for the 2/2/2, but I am not anymore, because I don't want an da:o situation were the major LI's are straight and thus excluding the s/s - nor do I simply want the opposite, because sometimes it is nice to have a breathing room for the player character.}

 

I never had same impact of Morrigan leaving, because she was only a very good friend and that friendship still stood even if you are apart. It is something entirely different if it is a person you are intimate.

 

The other option is that the romances are an extra way to express the playercharacther and you rarely if ever get the option of being able to express attraction to a character that can't be romanced by the current pc.

[Allan Schumacher]

Main points against it:

 

(1) If companions are "playersexual" that comes across, over several playthroughs, as if either everyone (in the world) is bi or your companion group is pre-selected - in-world - for sexual orientation. Keeping every playthrough self-contained in my mind in order to avoid being thusly affected takes effort, and more effort the more I talk with others about the story, and it is a constant strain on my suspension of disbelief since the little voice keeps nagging in my head "things don't work that way".

 

(2) Sexual orientation is part of a character's identity. Having it variable makes them less tangible and relatable.

 

If I may, isn't a lot of this alleviated if you see the characters of DA2 (or some other game) as bisexual?

[fchopin]

If I may, isn't a lot of this alleviated if you see the characters of DA2 (or some other game) as bisexual?

Yes most are alleviated but the problem is that they were playersexual in DA2.