Aye, that does seem a little arbitrary. Was this ever explained (by a dev I mean)?
I don't think so. I think that, as ianamus stated, it's just implied in her dialogue that she prefers guys, but I don't remember ever seeing any dev discussion about why they made that decision.
I was always under the impression that Jack just vastly preferred men, and that while she had been in relationships with women before she did not them particularly satisfying.
as i remember she just have group sex with some man and woman who as her use drugs and who later betray her...so thats all her relationship with women
Are you for it or against it? If you hate it, explain why ("it's unfair" doesn't count on its own). If you love it, do likewise.
And by class I mean either warrior, rogue or mage.
i am all for this race(espesially for elves because this is really make sense for them), nation(in some cases but i think this would be a rare stuff) and gender(some like/love women and some men and some noone) restrictions because this how it must be...no one can like-love anythink and everyone because all have their own feelings and opinions. be friend or neutral is not enought to became lovers not talking about stupid DA2 rivalty system
about class restriction i think this would be very rare and make sense for someone who really not like(or like Tevinter magisters who find nonmages-dwarfs not good enough for a real relationship because of mages dynasty reason) mages or warriors-Templars or even rogues/bandits-Bard/Crows
I'm for the restrictions, because when thinking of a character in a game, I would rather they be as realistic and logical as possible. Characters have their own taste in what they look for in a relationship, personality wise and physical, just having them bend to any sort of character with no personal concerns of their own doesn't make any sense and is just pandering to the player. Sometimes a relationship can never work because of the persons personal tastes, now I'm not saying they should be completely shut down to it, maybe some can become attracted to said character despite the racial and class, but it would take a lot of work and time. Even if they are -fake- characters, a good writer can make them as human as possible and to be human is to have personal tastes in things like a relationship.
If there's going to be more of a focus on the players choice in character and a stronger reaction to it from the game world, just having all the romances unlocked to all of them seems completely a step back to what that idea is.
No, I get that. I just find it odd that there is a female bisexual character in the game and she's gated from the female players. That could actually have been a really interesting story to explore with her letting her guard down with FemShep. I mean, every plot relevant or adjacent female character on the Normandy besides Chakwas was throwing her panties at MaleShep (including Jack), but suddenly, when Shep is a lady, she doesn't have the same hold over people?
It's not the end of the world, but I find it suspicious when considered with the ME team's already crappy track record with both LGB characters and female players. It just strikes me as "Let's make the punk bad-ass girl bisexual because guys love that."
Hilarious that you should mention Tali, since there is literally no reason why FemShep can't romance her. She has all of the dialogue leading to romance, and she's every bit as sexually frustrated with FemShep as she is with Sheploo. So they did exactly the opposite of what you're commending them for- they laid the groundwork for her to be bisexual, but pulled back at the last minute with no explanation.
They did something similar with Jack, where she says she's bisexual but she has no interest in FemShep, only Sheploo and his Healing ****. Also ridiculous.
Hehehe you just reminded me of a meme from ME2:
"You suffer from deep emotional trauma? I hear my penis is great at solving that"
I do agree that it is odd how Tali says mostly the same stuff as male shep to femshep...then nothing.
Long as their is sound reasons behind their preferences I dont mind.
But people don't have sound reasons behind their preferences in real life.
Threads like these should be blocked.
Having restricting in romances base on your inquisitor moral for example can be nice, just like Samara in ME 2 and 3 but restricting base on gender not really.
Mostly because most of the time the people who get the end of the spike are the ones that do not want to play the straight romances. The problem here is that despite everything you can be sure that they will do straight romances but you are never sure about the rest. Good examples of this are ME 2 and SWTOR, in a perfect world, sure everything could be a restriction but we do not live in a perfect world and bioware is maybe the only one doing something like this, at least on a more AAA level.
Maybe it's just me, but this is a somewhat questionable line of reasoning. Bisexuality doesn't mean that the character is more likely to cheat nor
. . . nor did I suggest that they were.
" . . . nor more likely to want to engage in a three some."
. . . nor did I suggest that they would.
Examples of potential complications are not, "What every bisexual person who ever lived would do." They're just that. Examples of complications that 'a' character of this persuasion might have, not examples of what 'every' bisexual character would do. Automatically taking something written or spoken to the most extreme interpretation possible, that it's suggesting all bisexuals would be unloyal or want to be involved in a threesome, is quite odd really. If I'd meant 'every bisexual is like this' I'd have said it exactly in those terms. This is called putting words in someone's mouth, when one gives an example of a complication for 'a' character and 'a' complication (or two) and the reader takes the complication as applied to all person's sharing aspects of the character.
Yes, these plot lines could happen with a bisexual character, but they could also happen with a straight or gay character.
Nor did I suggest these complications couldn't happen for Straight or Gay/Lesbian characters. If you'd like me to buffer all statements with a long line of lawyer speak listing complications, characters and all possible combinations before every post I can do that. It would, however, make for some rather tedious reading.
Now, what I actually was saying with this is much simpler, that a bisexual person isn't going to change their preference for 'you' anymore than a Gay/Lesbian or Straight character is going to change their preference for you. Hence the examples of complications that challenge a, "They may be bi, but I'm the protagonist, and now they're exclusive to me and any feelings toward gender beyond mine suddenly go away" which is the actual faulty logic.
Not to say a Bisexual person can't be loyal, nor is to say they that they must want multiple partners, but it's also too easy for developers to turn a character that's supposedly biseaxual into a character that just likes whatever gender the protagonist is. Anything that challenges, "I'm the protagonist you have to love me because I'm the protagonist" lines of logic is, in my mind, preferable.
Wow. That's really gross. Like really offensive and gross. Attraction to both sexes doesn't necessitate acting on said attraction. Presumably straight people, even married ones, still become attracted to other people in their gender of preference.
You too can put words in my mouth that I did not say. See above.
"So, why do people assume"
Why do you assume things that are incorrect? Probably for the same reason everyone does. People are flawed, but since perfection is neither possible nor interesting I'm perfectly happy to leave things as is. An [incorrect] assumption, on the part of several posters, about what I was saying lit a fire in the thread, and caused an entire line of discussion that perked it up a bit. Personally I find that more interesting than if everyone agreed with everyone. I wouldn't change a thing.
Personally I wish Bioware would let male avatars have more effeminate physical traits to choose from, in addition to the current, as well as features like long hair, make-up and other portions. I've never been much into the large bulgy muscled, gruff and gritty and all that . . . but many developers and publishers 'assume' that's what any male audience wants out of their male characters . . . (unless we're talking eastern developers, and select few western developers) but that's another thread.
Hilarious that you should mention Tali, since there is literally no reason why FemShep can't romance her. She has all of the dialogue leading to romance, and she's every bit as sexually frustrated with FemShep as she is with Sheploo. So they did exactly the opposite of what you're commending them for- they laid the groundwork for her to be bisexual, but pulled back at the last minute with no explanation.
They did something similar with Jack, where she says she's bisexual but she has no interest in FemShep, only Sheploo and his Healing ****. Also ridiculous.
I always did find it interesting that they set that up, but never delivered on it. If the Developers ever commented on why I've never been aware of it. I'm sure it would be an interesting read. Jack I tend to understand more, given a few things prior to my reply to your post, but I recall Tali seemed genuinely interested at a few points. I suppose it could be as simple as, "They reused male Shepard lines" for some reason, without the intention of going in the direcion . . . but . . . eh, who knows but the developers? Certainly it isn't for me to say.
You too can put words in my mouth that I did not say. See above.
"So, why do people assume"
Why do you assume things that are incorrect? Probably for the same reason everyone does. People are flawed, but since perfection is neither possible nor interesting I'm perfectly happy to leave things as is. An [incorrect] assumption, on the part of several posters, about what I was saying lit a fire in the thread, and caused an entire line of discussion that perked it up a bit. Personally I find that more interesting than if everyone agreed with everyone. I wouldn't change a thing.
Perhaps you are not aware that the trope of the cheating or multi-partner bisexual is an incredibly problematic one? One that causes incredible difficulty in the bisexual community? That it's a stigma attached to bisexuality to the point that many bisexuals feel uncomfortable revealing their sexuality because people automatically assume those scenarios you suggested? I am not sure whether you're aware of this, but I thought I'd point it out if you were wondering why people reacted as they did to your suggestions.
Perhaps you are not aware that the trope of the cheating or multi-partner bisexual is an incredibly problematic one? One that causes incredible difficulty in the bisexual community? That it's a stigma attached to bisexuality to the point that many bisexuals feel uncomfortable revealing their sexuality because people automatically assume those scenarios you suggested? I am not sure whether you're aware of this, but I thought I'd point it out if you were wondering why people reacted as they did to your suggestions.
People are people. They don't always do what the larger community might like, nor specifically what might make those that share similar interests look best. I've known too many people that cheated or liked all manner of odd things (regardless of gender or particular sexual preference), multiple partners being the least of them. So call me jaded, and leave it at that.
People are people. They don't always do what the larger community might like, nor specifically what might make those that share similar interests look best. I've known too many people that cheated or liked all manner of odd things (regardless of gender or particular sexual preference), multiple partners being the least of them. So call me jaded, and leave it at that.
The fact that people are people isn't the problem. And I don't put the weight of "behaving" on the backs of individuals in any given community. The trouble comes when people from the majority will take a look at a handful of people in any given minority community, point out these behaviours, and hold it up as "proof" that they're a "certain way" that allows for the majority to deny them respect, rights, acceptance and other things. Therefore, playing into these harmful stereotypes in various types of media only seeks to reinforce it, ESPECIALLY when there's precious few examples of positive representation of said community.
In other words: tropes like that are going to continue to be harmful until we have enough positive examples of representation to balance it out.
The fact that people are people isn't the problem.
You're right, it's not a problem. People are people. That's a fact. Not a problem. We're flawed. All of us. I prefer it that way. I'd, quite simply, have it no other way. The alternative is very boring by my measure. I don't know what circles you walk in, but in the ones I walk in individuals are responsible for their actions, not the larger group. People that attribute behaviours to a larger group based on the action of an individual aren't worth listening to. People that worry about what another group might think of another larger group because of the action of an individual isn't worth considering either. The individual is responsible. No one else. If said people have power over you, then you need to organize and do something about it peacefully, not limp around to their tune pretending that everyone's a good puppy while sweeping those that act otherwise under the rug.
Retour en haut