333 réponses à ce sujet

[Andraste_Reborn]

I'm a straight woman and if it were an option, I'd prefer 2/2/2 over playersexuality. There are a couple of reasons.

 

1. It would allow for the existence of gay love interests. In fact, it's the only way we'd ever get a gay character as a love interest. (The only time BioWare has even approached that with an actual companion in its entire history of romances was Juhani in KotOR.) Not that I don't want to see bisexual love interests as well, but it's a little sad that gay characters can never be romanced in the DA series.

 

2. Everyone would get an equal number of choices, but we could stop having stupid arguments about playersexuality and whether it cheapens the characters. (I am sure we would move on to a whole new set of stupid arguments, because these are the BioWare forums and I do not expect miracles. But we've been at this for three years and Maker, I am so tired of it.)

 

I wouldn't miss out on anything since I play both genders. (At last count my DA2 play-throughs had: two female Hawkes in straight relationships, two female Hawkes in gay relationships, two male Hawkes in gay relationships and one male Hawke who got with Merrill after sleeping with and dumping Isabela and Anders.)

[AllThatJazz]

I like both. I enjoy the 2/2/2 approach because I feel it allows the writers to make sexuality a part of that character's identity - they can freely talk about past relationships, about what they find attractive in a partner etc in a way that is more difficult with playersexual characters because they have to be a bit more of a blank slate. Like with Anders in DA2 - he only talks about his romantic relationship with Karl if you romance him as a guy (because presumably if you play as female he's supposed to be straight), and yet in my opinion it really adds a lot of context to his character and to his hatred of the Circle. Part of me would have preferred to see Anders as a gay male only romance option (or at least more openly bi rather than playersexual) because it may have meant hearing more about this part of his past, and so giving more insight into his motives.

 

Personally, I also enjoy content that makes me play outside of my 'comfort zone' or personal preferences, though I do realise this isn't true for everyone. I tend to play what I am - a hetero female with a predisposition for talking rather than fighting. But if I see content I'm interested in that is locked because of my class/gender/race etc, I'm more likely to replay, and try something a little different - which I often end up really enjoying. I think as long as there is equivalent content (though not necessarily the same), then I'm happy - though this can be a tricky balance for devs to strike.

 

On the other hand, I would hate - absolutely hate - for any demographic to feel  under served or excluded or unhappy, so I'm totally fine with playersexual or (my preference) everybody bi. It's everyone's game, not just mine, and the only thing I really want is for us all to enjoy it.

xx

[daveliam]

@efd731:

 

I see where you are coming from to a degree, but I hope that you can see what berelinde's point was.  It's not so much that Traynor and Cortez specifically couldn't leave the ship as squad members, it's that the only 2 gay LIs were relegated to support roles.  There is something to be said about this.  There are usually nice little pieces of character development that happen when you take a character with you in the party.  They have reactions to environment and people and it helps round out their characters.  When that character is also a romance, it adds to the sense that these characters spend time together as you get to see how they interact with each other.  Not being able to do that with a romanceable character makes them somewhat less desirable to some players, and I totally understand that.  It's one of the reasons why I've only done a single Cortez romance and every other male Shepard that I've made has romanced Kaidan. 

 

I don't think that the ME team did that on purpose.  I don't think they said, "Let's make the gay characters play support roles"; and they weren't the only romances that were support roles.  However, the other two:  Allers and Chambers were bisexual.  So now, we have 4 support romances and they are all either gay or bisexual.  Also, those last two are often viewed as pseudoromances and it's likely that this is because of their support status.  Contrast that with the other side:  We have 8 romances who are (or were at one point) squad members and only 2 of them are bisexual (if you count Liara as bisexual) and the rest are straight.  Again, I don't think it was purposeful, but little things like this add up over time.  I think that berelinde was merely pointing this out and expressing his/her concern that, if we has NPC romances and there are set sexualities that aren't just bisexual, the LGBT characters will get relegated to a "lesser romance" status again.

[wright1978]

Hardly true; for instance, Merrill's romance dialogue changes a fair bit based on gender (as the issue of having human children hardly matters if Hawke is female).

 

Personally, I'm just a bit leery of the 2/2/2 solution, both because that itself seems to be more quantity than quality, and because I fear things like the hetero romances being the most plot-important again, as happened in DAO.

 

I'm very leery about 2/2/2 option because its depth sacrificed for forced rigid breadth in content which i already feel suffers because its treated so much as an optional feature as it is. Now if Bioware could reassure me by saying commensurate additional resources were being allocated to companion romances to make up for this but as it is i'm firmly in the playthrough playersexuality approach.

[Wolfen09]

i think they need to make all characters be either or.... but make it a little more challenging or something, i mean i understood anders, but for fenris it just seemed way out of character... make it fit better or make the pc work for it more

[Felya87]

If I could choose, I'd prefer the 2/2/2 way. so I have some motivation to create a male character, since I usually play as female. I was moved to create a male Shepard and a male warden only to romance Jack and Morrigan. a good thing, since I really liked Jack's romance, and Moneta have a great voice (Italian version)

 

If we are stuck in the playersexual route, than I hope for very different contents from female/male player.

 

I like to the gender of the character I create being recognizide, in the bad and good way. and one way for it to happen is in romances, by having a gay male refuse your advance, or a lesbian female flirting with you.

[jtav]

I prefer playersexuality/bisexuality. Sometimes I have very strong preferences for one gender of PC. I hate having to play against that to romance a favored LI.

[efd731]

I laugh at everyone who says they like equality but prefer the three way LI split. "Waaah I have a hard time picturing character X as gay because I have meta knowledge!" You are literally arguing against equality, because you are arguing against everyone having access to the LI of their choice.

[DrBlingzle]

I laugh at everyone who says they like equality but prefer the three way LI split. "Waaah I have a hard time picturing character X as gay because I have meta knowledge!" You are literally arguing against equality, because you are arguing against everyone having access to the LI of their choice.

I'm sorry but how is it against equality? Does saying "I like the 2/2/2 system" also mean "homosexual people should have no rights."?

[daveliam]

I laugh at everyone who says they like equality but prefer the three way LI split. "Waaah I have a hard time picturing character X as gay because I have meta knowledge!" You are literally arguing against equality, because you are arguing against everyone having access to the LI of their choice.

No. They are literally arguing for a different but still equal way for LIs to be distributed. Instead of having 4 LIs that everyone has access to (equally), they are asking for everyone to have access to two LIs and to be restricted from the others (equally).

[DrBlingzle]

No. They are literally arguing for a different but still equal way for LIs to be distributed. Instead of having 4 LIs that everyone has access to (equally), they are asking for everyone to have access to two LIs and to be restricted from the others (equally).

Thank you. Out of interest are you for for 2/2/2, player sexual or just don't mind?

[efd731]

M point was the playersexual route lets everyone romance all LI's. The three way split restricts you to 2-4 romances depending on how picky you are. Straight/gay people who don't role play gay/straight are limited to 3 LI's even before the LI's personalities become known. Or if their favourite companion is not of their type they have to change orientation(which is a huge deal for some people). I personally don't give a crap, mike hawke never had that problem(yes that's "my" canon hawke).

[efd731]

All I'm saying is that the split restricts access to characters. For all you people who this matters....name your favourite LI of the last two games......and imagine they were restricted to you unless you played outside your comfort zone.

[naddaya]

I'm in favour of playersexual LIs.

 

It opens up more content to more players. If the devs want a character to be specifically attracted to one gender, that's fine, but I have no complaints about the DA2 approach. It doesn't strike me as out of character or cheap. The characters are who they are. I know several people (and I'm one of them) who don't give a rats ass about their partner's gender, it's them as individuals they are attracted to. Their gender is part of who they are, and obviously important, but not restrictive.

[DrBlingzle]

All I'm saying is that the split restricts access to characters. For all you people who this matters....name your favourite LI of the last two games......and imagine they were restricted to you unless you played outside your comfort zone.

And I would be okay with that because sometimes thats the way the world works. IRL there might be people you are attracted to but their sexual orientation means they are not attracted to you.

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

2/2/2 all the way. Too bad for people who are icked out by having to roleplay as another gender, or as someone of another preference, but I would choose 6 different people to romance over 4 different people to romance - with the only perk to that option being that it doesn't matter what I have between my legs.

 

I would like 4/4 even more. I'm just not interested in romancing the same character again but with a different reproductive tool.

[efd731]

And I would be okay with that because sometimes thats the way the world works. IRL there might be people you are attracted to but their sexual orientation means they are not attracted to you.

I get that, but it's a videogame romance....escapism is the name of the game. Imagine telling the cullenites of either gender that he's unavailable to them. Or all the anders/fenris fans. It comes down to what pleases the most people, and if the only argument against it is "I don't like It because (unspecified)reasons" or "that's not how real life works" that's not a solid enough reason.

[DrBlingzle]

I get that, but it's a videogame romance....escapism is the name of the game. Imagine telling the cullenites of either gender that he's unavailable to them. Or all the anders/fenris fans. It comes down to what pleases the most people, and if the only argument against it is "I don't like It because (unspecified)reasons" or "that's not how real life works" that's not a solid enough reason.

I can understand that. I'm still in support for 2/2/2 but I can see your reasoning. Agree to disagree?

[efd731]

I can understand that. I'm still in support for 2/2/2 but I can see your reasoning. Agree to disagree?

damn, we just had an agreeable discourse on the internet! What is the world/BSN coming to

[geth47]

I think the reason why some people like me are so adamantly opposed to the notion of all npcs being "playersexuals" is intrinsically related to the whole notion of relevance and differences when building a personalized character. 

 

I did offer a quite large explanation regarding why I despise the notion of every character being Bi-sex  in this topic: http://forum.bioware...t-dragon-age-2/

[DrBlingzle]

damn, we just had an agreeable discourse on the internet! What is the world/BSN coming to

[efd731]

Geth47, the only problem is, without all the players knowledge being available to the PC, they wouldn't know. Femhawke has no clue that anders likes dudes. Etc etc.

[Lambdadelta]

I'm very heavily in favor of the playersexuality option, and I'm essentially of the opinion that it's the ideal way to go. The 2/2/2 set up is nice in theory but what it ends up with is that if you still end up having restrictions and limits. Suppose a player exlusively attracted to the same sex wanted to romance one of the two straight options; what then? There is still the possibility you are shoehorned into playing the sort of relationship you don't want to just because you want to romance the character who happens to be straight. The playersexual set-up removes this scenario. If all the romances are available to anyone, you can play as a character of any sexuality you want to without ever being forced into one you don't want, gay players don't have to play as someone they don't want to and neither to straight ones, and asexual or aromantic players have the option not to romance anyone at all. I honestly don't see a single flaw in that set up. It leaves the maximum amount of options open without forcing any player into anything. 

 

I don't have any strong opinions on the character's sexualities under this scenario because I already explained in previous threads while I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea of all of them being bisexual, and in fact that's how I like to see DA2's cast. But I do like the idea of some characters' sexualities being discussed and/or established to some degree, some less; character's orientations and romantic histories are far from irrelevant, but they don't define them. The way DA2 did it is good enough; leave some character's orientations open to your interpetation or imagination, like Fenris' and Merrill's, and some more established, when it's established in a way that relates to something relevant; Isabela's bisexuality is established through bringing up that she is sexually active and through the many kinds of partners she's had. Ander's bisexuality is (sort of) established through the fact that he is both clearly attracted to women but also had a relationship with a man. It's established not through brining up that they are bisexual, but in a round-about way, by bringing up past relationships and history because it is relevant to the story or their character or anything. This makes sense because they are not in a world where sexuality is supposed to be such a big deal; honestly, in fact, I think the concept of a sexual orientation doesn't exist at all in their world, but that's just how I see it. By establishing several of the romance options as being attracted to the same sex, whether or not they are also attracted the other, but not all of them, you achieve both representation and give the players room for their own interpretation on the character's sexualities.

 

Speaking personally, it was really nice for me to have several playthroughs of Dragon Age 2 in which I tried out every possible romance option and never had to play as a straight Hawke except only once. I'd like to be able to do that in other games too. 

 

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 can confirm this. It stung especially because, having gotten into the series through Dragon Age 2, I came into Origins expecting the romances to be the same and they... weren't. Really, anything is better than the Origins model. (Although I guess if you were romancing Morrigan with a female Warden it would make the Dark Ritual much more awkward and unpleasant, huh...? Plus I don't know if having two married kings would be lore-consistent, or something the Fereldan nobility would approve of, considering how they're both meant to be cis men which would mean no heirs...)

[geth47]

And since when it being a mistery is a problem?

 

Rpgs are about discovery. Knowing the characters.

 

Strangely, I saw none of the players using male sheps in ME3 irritated about this when they tried to hit on Traynor only to discover that she was lesbian. 

 

You seem to suppose that full playersexuality is a given, and anything that challenges this is a disappointment. 

 

Whenever you customize a character, you open options, but close others. If you pick a certain race, you may give up the chance of using a certain class or weapon. Learn to deal with it. Rejection is a part of life. If any npc can romance the protagonist, with equal consideration to all of his or her aspects, this is detrimental to the complexity of the NPCs. 

 

If only some proponents of the gay-agenda stopped to cry and display so much insecurities in dealing with even the possibility of a rejection (in a videogame!).

 

Playersexuality degrades the complexity and maturity of the games. Just like a game with everyone being hetero looks artificial, so does a game where everyone is bi and your character can not be dumped or rejected. 

[Xilizhra]

And since when it being a mistery is a problem?

 

Rpgs are about discovery. Knowing the characters.

 

Strangely, I saw none of the players using male sheps in ME3 irritated about this when they tried to hit on Traynor only to discover that she was lesbian. 

 

You seem to suppose that full playersexuality is a given, and anything that challenges this is a disappointment. 

 

Whenever you customize a character, you open options, but close others. If you pick a certain race, you may give up the chance of using a certain class or weapon. Learn to deal with it. Rejection is a part of life. If any npc can romance the protagonist, with equal consideration to all of his or her aspects, this is detrimental to the complexity of the NPCs. 

 

If only some proponents of the gay-agenda stopped to cry and display so much insecurities in dealing with even the possibility of a rejection (in a videogame!).

 

Playersexuality degrades the complexity and maturity of the games. Just like a game with everyone being hetero looks artificial, so does a game where everyone is bi and your character can not be dumped or rejected. 

You say this, but give no actual way in which bisexuality hurts you, the player. You appear to be getting mad at the ability of other PCs to avoid rejection.