Uh, how does his being a racist add character depth again? Tolerance as a trait is certainly not less deep.
Racism? Really? Lol. How is it racist to not want to mate with somebody who is a different species than you are. Dwarves aren't going around killing human and elves, they just don't plough them.
For starters they can make one of the companions a "Kelly Chambers" she/he would be available for all races, plus the dog/nug/whatever other pet that the team picks up on their adventure.
Right, but they would need to have a male and a female character like this in order to keep it balanced. And since there are only 4-6 LI's in the games in this series, then that's 33%-50% of the LIs right off the bat. If there are only 2-4 more LI's, how much variety can be offered? Sure, you can have an elf who only romances elves and a dwarf who only romances dwarves, but then is that really adding that much "depth" to the romance feature?
Except it's not, and you can perform the Dark Ritual through a very easy work-around. But I would argue that Bioware should never have made a pregnancy-related plot point in the first place.
WTF are you even talking about? Choices do close doors, all choices do. Did you miss the part where I said choices are already restrictive by nature?
If you turn right, you can't turn left. If you go to McDonalds for lunch, you miss out on Burger King.
As it is, romance is already heavily restricted. There will only be between 4-6 romanceable characters at all, and chances are that confirming one will lock you out of any others. Why do we need more restrictions on top of that? Do you want half the people who play the game to not be able to experience a romance on their first playthrough at all? Why?
Uh, how does his being a racist add character depth again? Tolerance as a trait is certainly not less deep.
I really should try to stay away from 'romance' discussion. It starts looking very UNromantic after a while.
You can never perform the DR yourself if you're a female though.
If you're fine with choices closing doors then you must be ok with some romances being restricted based on the choice you made. That's not another restriction, that door was already closed to you when you picked male over female. If I chose to be an elf I cannot become king of Ferelden.
But that's not really the argument. No one is saying that restriction is bad in the game. They are saying that restriction is bad in this feature in the game.
You can never perform the DR yourself if you're a female though.
If you're fine with choices closing doors then you must be ok with some romances being restricted based on the choice you made. That's not another restriction, that door was already closed to you when you picked male over female. If I chose to be an elf I cannot become king of Ferelden.
No, it's because choices close doors that I am not fine with it.
Romance options are already limited. They do not need to be limited any further.
I don't think you even understand my point.
You said that restricted romances have more depth than accessible ones. By your logic, a mod that makes Alistair's romance accessible to male characters would therefore cause said romance to lose depth that it had previously. The canonicity of said mod is completely irrelevent to the point, and your insistence on harping on about that particular detail makes me think you either don't understand my argument, or you are just stalling for time.
If you had paid any attention to Varric in DA2, you would know that he doesn't, in fact, stay true to the 'beliefs' of his 'race'. He is actually a very non-traditionalist dwarf who hates living underground, and doesn't worship the Paragons.
So far, the only thing preventing him from being in a romance with anybody at all is the fact that he still pines for Bianca. There is little to no information about what he might be attracted to if she was out of the picture.
Of course the romance won't lose depth, because it's the same romance ,Alistair doesn't have a homosexual arc written, modding the game to change that doesn't actually change the fact that Alistair is not gay.
And yes Varric isn't exactly a traditional Dwarf he still doesn't show any sexual interest in humans.
I can see carrying on this conversation is rather a waste of my time and yours, we clearly want two completely different things from the game. I want to see characters being given more freedom away from the player character, not just romances, something I know I am in the minority with. In the romantic way I'd love to see characters as straight, or gay, or not interested in specific races, for me that adds more to the characters, they become less of an extension of the player and more their own. I loved the inclusion of characters like Traynor and Cortez in Mass Effect 3, I even played a FemShep to romance Traynor. And in DAI I would gladly roll a female Dwarf to romance Varric.
Guest_Fandango_*
When you return from the 'footie', maybe you can explain exactly how characterisation would be harmed in any way.
You'd be the first.
Of course the romance won't lose depth, because it's the same romance ,Alistair doesn't have a homosexual arc written, modding the game to change that doesn't actually change the fact that Alistair is not gay.
And yes Varric isn't exactly a traditional Dwarf he still doesn't show any sexual interest in humans.
I can see carrying on this conversation is rather a waste of my time and yours, we clearly want two completely different things from the game. I want to see characters being given more freedom away from the player character, not just romances, something I know I am in the minority with. In the romantic way I'd love to see characters as straight, or gay, or not interested in specific races, for me that adds more to the characters, they become less of an extension of the player and more their own. I loved the inclusion of characters like Traynor and Cortez in Mass Effect 3, I even played a FemShep to romance Traynor. And in DAI I would gladly roll a female Dwarf to romance Varric.
None of the characters in any DA game have a "homosexual arc". Aside from one conversation with Anders, all the same-sex romances play out pretty much identically to their hetero counterparts.
Can you explain why those romances are "less deep" than Alistair's?
What you want is impossible. The entire gameworld revolves around the player, it exists purely for you to play in.
As for the discussion about Varric being restricted to only female dwarves a while back, the glaring issue I see with something like that is RESOURCES. A romance in DA is a lot of content to restrict to a very small amount of players. If they had unlimited resources, then stuff like this might work and they could make dozens of niche romances for everyone, but that's not going to happen. When you only have 4-6 romances, it's unreasonable to limit one of the options off to such a small percentage of players.
Ok but how dose what happens in one world effect the one you are playing in? If say Varric romances your female Dwarf in your game. How dose him romancing a male Quinari in mine change your experience? In your game he is still a heterosexual species loving purist. The fact that you the player are meta gaming dose not change the experiences of those in the game.
But that's not really the argument. No one is saying that restriction is bad in the game. They are saying that restriction is bad in this feature in the game.
First off, its my view that restricting romance options for reasons of story, characterisation and the like is less 'harmful' than it is authentic. Indeed, that's kind of the point! I'd rather see my companions as real people than vehicles for the romantic advances of players who refuse to role-play different characters. And if you don't see how making every companion sexually available to a single protagonist damages characterisation\verisimilitude, I don't know what to tell you.
Okay, so you want to see the companions as "real people". And that's dependant on their sexual availability.
Is it safe to say, then, that from your perspective, real-life bisexuals are "less authentic" than individuals who express a clear gender preference?
And I suppose that asexuals, being the most restricted of all, must be the "realest" people.
How is it racist to be not be sexual attracted to another race?
"If Varric stays true to his races belief that they are better than the other races"
In any case, the point is that it doesn't add depth for any given character to have romance restrictions, unless you believe that, say, heterosexuals have inherently more depth than bisexuals.
First off, its my view that restricting romance options for reasons of story, characterisation and the like is less 'harmful' than it is authentic. Indeed, that's kind of the point! I'd rather see my companions as real people than vehicles for the romantic advances of players who refuse to role-play different characters. And if you don't see how making every companion sexually available to a single protagonist damages characterisation\verisimilitude, I don't know what to tell you.
But nobody is asking for "every companion" to be "sexually available" to the PC. They are not asking for the companions to be "vehicles for the romantic advances of players". It's this kind of hyperbole that is part of the problem.
Why? Why is it bad that a person is locked out of a particular romance based on the choices you have made? You cannot have everything in life after all. You can't have everything in the game either, so why should romances get a free pass?
Because, as has been stated for several pages, not everyone believes that by simply restricting a character's romance options, it adds depth to the character. If there's a reason for it based on the story, then sure. Like, I would understand if Velanna was only available to elves. But to say that any character that doesn't have these restrictions is somehow "less than" or "weakened" is wrong.
Why? Why is it bad that a person is locked out of a particular romance based on the choices you have made? You cannot have everything in life after all. You can't have everything in the game either, so why should romances get a free pass?
They don't. Romances are extremely limited as-is, simply by the fact that there's only a small number of them.
Obviously you don't pay a great deal of attention to these forums, or you'd see that a large number of people already don't get to romance the characters that they want.
One argument I simply do not understand: How is it beneficial to be forced to play as another character in a different playthrough? If you have to be FORCED to play as another character in a different playthrough...then what's the point? People who are forced to play a character they don't want to play will simply end up enjoying the game less for it, while people who look forward to that gain nothing by being forced to do something they would have done anyway.
I mean, the whole idea behind a RPG like Dragon Age is to allow the player to choose something they actually LIKE. If I wanted to be forced to play a male human or another character I cannot customize, I'd play one of the hundred other games on the market.
And the one thing I really, REALLY do not like in this thread is the insinuation that having characters be bisexual somehow makes them lose depth and makes them worse characters than if they'd been gay or straight. Because despite what some people like to claim, the companions in DA2 have NOT been proven playersexual. It is your perception that makes it so, not the game. So unless you can prove otherwise, that argument about character depth pretty much flies out the window.
(*sigh* Not that I expect anything to change in this topic, mind you. We've been through this over and over and over again and it's still always the same exact discussion. If I wasn't actually interested in other people's opinions or so absolutely terrified that Bioware might listen to the opposing faction if no one brings forth any counter-arguments, I wouldn't even be here anymore.
...actually, I probably would, but only to amuse myself. 
)
The writers should just come up and say that everyone on Thedas is bi. That would solve a lot of problems.
I'm firmly of the belief that Isabela, Anders, Merrill, and Fenris are bisexual characters, but people still have problems with it because they didn't all have explicitly clear "Look at how bisexual I am" conversations or moments to clue everyone in.
Because, as has been stated for several pages, not everyone believes that by simply restricting a character's romance options, it adds depth to the character. If there's a reason for it based on the story, then sure. Like, I would understand if Velanna was only available to elves. But to say that any character that doesn't have these restrictions is somehow "less than" or "weakened" is wrong.
Preach, Dave!!!!
I'm not reading 9 pages, but I will respond to the OP's original question.
It's certainly more realistic for an individual to have preferences.
* Lady A only likes men, but has no preference regarding race.
* Lady B only likes mages, regardless of gender or race.
* Lady C only likes elves of either gender.
* Lady D only likes female human warriors.
HOWEVER, that doesn't make a very fun or rewarding game experience. So yes, it would be more realistic. But this is not a realistic dating simulator, it's an epic fantasy tale of heroes and villains. It's okay to fudge some things, and this one of those.
I'd rather the various potential romances just be "hero-sexual".
Guest_Fandango_*
Okay, so you want to see the companions as "real people". And that's dependant on their sexual availability.
Is it safe to say, then, that from your perspective, real-life bisexuals are "less authentic" than individuals who express a clear gender preference?
And I suppose that asexuals, being the most restricted of all, must be the "realest" people.
Retour en haut