12496 réponses à ce sujet

[karushna5]

That was the past. Do you really think they are going to do this again?

Even in isolation the range of quality over those options compared to the straight ones were wide. If romanced, Garrus had a whole lot of content compared to cortez, or Sam.

And a straight male Shepard has tons of options. Whoever his last Li was, including Tali who had tons of content, Liara, and Ashley. And Allers who is NPC too.

And in the media as a whole, romances are scarce. The amount of validation the media gives you is hard to measure. Every day in ways so many it is impossible to notice, you are told being straight is good and "normal". To be able to see ourselves in the world around us is important. When it isn't there it hurts, in a way hard to explain to people who are recognized. The fact that nearly no media is doing so, or if they do it is back handed and insulting, hurts.

When we are children is when this stuff is ground in. There was never a lesbian disney princess. There was never a Cartoon where the plucky hero gets the guy. We accept our fantasies are impossible or bad and it hurts us. Obviously this game isnt for children, but my point is media is not gay friendly and it has a huge difference being able to play them out as no where in the world can.

[Cobra's_back]

But neither had any Quality, there is NO romance with Kaiden he just shows up and says he had feelings for you but everything was too busy to mention earlier. Cortez misses several cutscenes, and much less content than the companion LIs.

But that isnt the point. The very fact that 2 options should be enough even though you have at least 4 isnt fun. If it isnt fair than why do set sexualities? I am willing to give them a shot, and the idea of a character being just for me, a main one who is cool to say she is a lesbian, means a lot, if it is scribbles I will be... Really disappointed.

And if the people who still want more are saying,"It doesnt have to be fair, just 2 options." Than that sucks. I dont mind just having two options, merrill vs Isabela I was fine with. It is the disparity compared to everyone else. I mean many women have complained that (straight) guys have more options. Some (straight) men even complained that they didnt have More options.

It makes sense that lesbians and gay men might do the same.

 

I'm not on the camp that will say it doesn't have to be fair. I heard 2/2/2. I thought this is their way of trying to be fair. I also give them credit if they hold back on the loaded choices. The choices that make a person feel like they were troll. They may not want the backlash.

 

So I have a wait and see approach.

[Sjofn]

I hope you don't apply this reasoning to real life. I'm not attracted to short men, even if that makes me racist towards dwarves, and I'm not obliged to "overcome" my lack of attraction just because a short man wants to have sex with me.

 

I have certain visual "types," but if a guy was awesome enough? I am pretty sure I could overcome it. But a woman could be my most perfect soulmate, but I still couldn't get past the fact she is a woman. I am not wired to say "lol no short dudes." But I am wired such that I cannot, cannot, cannot get over the "that there is a woman." That is my point. That you have dealbreakers that you don't want to overcome (which is fine, you wanna narrow down the pool based on something as superficial as height, that's obviously your right) is not the same as a dealbreaker like actual sexual orientation.

[Cobra's_back]

I think DA team is better in this department than ME.... but there will be next ME and i think they'll focus on having more romances for the straight dude again.

 

Sorry to hear this. If they do this I could show my support and not buy the product. I'm straight but I do want an equal playing field for all. 

[Nocte ad Mortem]

 

I have certain visual "types," but if a guy was awesome enough? I am pretty sure I could overcome it. But a woman could be my most perfect soulmate, but I still couldn't get past the fact she is a woman. I am not wired to say "lol no short dudes." But I am wired such that I cannot, cannot, cannot get over the "that there is a woman." That is my point. That you have dealbreakers that you don't want to overcome (which is fine, you wanna narrow down the pool based on something as superficial as height, that's obviously your right) is not the same as a dealbreaker like actual sexual orientation.

This is a claim that assumes waaaay more about neuroscience than we actually know. Preferences besides gender may well be wired in, unavoidable. Sexuality can be fluid for some people. We don't know enough about the brain to understand why people feel the way they do about various preferences in attraction. 

[In Exile]

Expecting parity with regards romantic content is entirely fair and I understand that the failings of previous Bioware games - not to mention the industry more generally - may have heightened the concerns of some, but I've less sympathy for those who absolutely must have their pick of LI's, regardless of how (and who) they choose to play. Miffed a gay NPC is gay? Grow up! Wish Aveline was romancable? Get over it! Want to experience all the romantic content the game has to offer? Play the damn thing accordingly!

 

I don't see how wanting Aveline to be romanceable or wanting Alistair to lick some lampost is any different than wanting dual-wielding warriors, or any other gameplay feature. 

[karushna5]

Expecting parity with regards romantic content is entirely fair and I understand that the failings of previous Bioware games - not to mention the industry more generally - may have heightened the concerns of some, but I've less sympathy for those who absolutely must have their pick of LI's, regardless of how (and who) they choose to play. Miffed a gay NPC is gay? Grow up! Wish Aveline was romancable? Get over it! Want to experience all the romantic content the game has to offer? Play it accordingly.

Just as you also understand, that the ONLY time we had any fairness was with all Bi party. The reasons we want it, is it is all that has been proven to work. If they prove otherwise, we will probably be glad, but so far the only one that gave us those choices was all bi. It works, if something else works, great. But I am wary that anything could have the same amount of fairness.

[In Exile]

This is a claim that assumes waaaay more about neuroscience than we actually know. Preferences besides gender may well be wired in, unavoidable. Sexuality can be fluid for some people. We don't know enough about the brain to understand why people feel the way they do about various preferences in attraction. 

 

Not to totally derail the thread, but there are some very interesting and well-developed models about how sexual attraction is formed, though this tends to relate more to fetishes than physical appearance. It could be generalizable - and there are some fascinating studies about fluidity in attraction to different genders, and that people can have their baseline moved to some degree. 

You also get outliers like me. I don't actually see myself as straight, but since such a small subset of guys could ever be my physical type, I'm basically straight. 

[BubbleDncr]

Sorry to hear this. If they do this I could show my support and not buy the product. I'm straight but I do want an equal playing field for all. 

 

The thing I don't know about ME3 is if the ME2 characters (Miranda and Jack, etc) were romance-able by the straight male if they hadn't romanced them in ME2?

 

I mean I couldn't start a new relationship with Thane or Jacob in ME3.

 

So maybe ME3 felt so unbalanced because they had to deal with the leftovers of decisions they made in previous games. For ME4, since they're starting fresh, I think there's a good chance they'll be more balanced from the beginning.

[Sjofn]

This is a claim that assumes waaaay more about neuroscience than we actually know. Preferences besides gender may well be wired in, unavoidable. Sexuality can be fluid for some people. We don't know enough about the brain to understand why people feel the way they do about various preferences in attraction. 

 

Sexuality can be fluid for people, sure. It's not for me, it's not for a lot of people. I'm just saying that in a world where dwarves and elves exist, being told "I don't dig elves" is going to ping a lot more "wtf, RACIST" outrage in me than "I am not interested in your gender, sorry." I can identify with one but not so much the other. I mean, this thread has a whole bunch of foot stomping on the I ONLY WANT TO ROMANCE DUDES/LADIES front, but now it's, "Oh, well, gosh, sexuality is fluid."

 

I'm sorry, no. I am totally with you when you only want to romance people of your preferred gender, AS your preferred gender. It's why I do prefer the everyone-likes-you model. But if I'm going to be rejected for a reason other than "you literally kicked a baby into a bottomless pit, total boner killer"-type moral clashes, gender is the only one that actually makes sense to me, and I find it REALLY surprising others don't see it, given the fury of "I need to romance <person> as <gender>!!!!!" This very argument shows why set sexualities can be important. Our sexuality is important to us, so I can understand why they might want to make it important to the characters they write. It's not a choice I'd make, but I don't think it's completely bonkers they did.

[Former_Fiend]

What if the male LI are just Cullen and DHMG? Nothing broken here...

 

On top of that, some of the LIs might not even be on the 12 apostles shot if they are NPCs.

 

If the stated intent is giving everyone at least two choices regardless of orientation, then there would have to be at least six LI's, three per gender.

 

You are right, though; they aren't necessarily out of the twelve characters we've seen. I would be surprised if they aren't, though.

[mopotter]

How would people feel if none of the companions/follower NPC's (scribbles and leliana) were female only romance options, but say...Empress Celene was?

 

And then say, one or two of the female companions/followers were bi. But Empress Celene would be the only "royalty" anyone could romance, and thus gay female characters would be the only ones with the opportunity to end the game as "royalty" (similar to marrying Alistair or Anora at the end of DA:O).

 

I guess I'm wondering if smaller romances for certain demographics that make more awesome game endings possible, is acceptable?

Just for myself, as long as there was one guy, whether he be straight or bi, who hopefully is funny and reasonably sane,    I wouldn't see any problem with something like this.  I'd probably eventually have a character would was interested since I tend to make enough different characters to see all story lines.  

[SurelyForth]

Just as you also understand, that the ONLY time we had any fairness was with all Bi party. The reasons we want it, is it is all that has been proven to work. If they prove otherwise, we will probably be glad, but so far the only one that gave us those choices was all bi. It works, if something else works, great. But I am wary that anything could have the same amount of fairness.

 

There is no way for anything else to be fair, because "fairness" is, as we have seen over these 200+ pages, a nebulous concept that has everything to do with the fact that different people want different things. Unless every love interest is available to every race/class/gender, someone is always going to feel like their choices are lesser, or unsatisfactory compared to the romances they can't do. As long as there is content marked "other", unfairness will be an issue.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

 

Sexuality can be fluid for people, sure. It's not for me, it's not for a lot of people. I'm just saying that in a world where dwarves and elves exist, being told "I don't dig elves" is going to ping a lot more "wtf, RACIST" outrage in me than "I am not interested in your gender, sorry." I can identify with one but not so much the other. I mean, this thread has a whole bunch of foot stomping on the I ONLY WANT TO ROMANCE DUDES/LADIES front, but now it's, "Oh, well, gosh, sexuality is fluid."

 

I'm sorry, no. I am totally with you when you only want to romance people of your preferred gender, AS your preferred gender. It's why I do prefer the everyone-likes-you model. But if I'm going to be rejected for a reason other than "you literally kicked a baby into a bottomless pit, total boner killer"-type moral clashes, gender is the only one that actually makes sense to me, and I find it REALLY surprising others don't see it, given the fury of "I need to romance <person> as <gender>!!!!!" This very argument shows why set sexualities can be important. Our sexuality is important to us, so I can understand why they might want to make it important to the characters they write. It's not a choice I'd make, but I don't think it's completely bonkers they did.

I'm definitely not saying gender based sexuality is fluid for everyone. What I'm saying is that which preferences are fluids differs per person. It's not any better to condemn someone as a racist for not liking common racial traits sexually than it is to call someone a sexist for not liking certain genders sexually. There's no real evidence to suggest they can just "get over" their aesthetic preferences. It doesn't mean they think the race is inherently inferior just because they don't have a sexual attraction to its common traits.  

[mopotter]

Alistair and Jacob are the booby prizes. Quality is subjective but not many want the guilt treatment or the dumping process. Again, I have no problem with the Bi-sexual approach. Could it be that BioWare is trying but they are afraid of possible backlash from dumping and guilt treatments? I like to take the wait ans see approach. As far as I'm concern some of the choices may be loaded choices. 

Sorry. Not sure what you mean, and I may have misunderstood this, but  Alistair was NOT a booby prize.  Jacob, ok, ME3 totally messed up Jacob's romance, to the point I deleted that character as if it never happened.  

[SurelyForth]

Sorry. Not sure what you mean, and I may have misunderstood this, but  Alistair was NOT a booby prize.  Jacob, ok, ME3 totally messed up Jacob's romance, to the point I deleted that character as if it never happened.  

 

I think they're saying that Alistair is comparable to Jacob in that the relationship can be ended by the NPC. While I wouldn't call Alistair a booby prize, given how otherwise well-integrated and written his romance arc is, it is frustrating that a female PC can be dicked over because of in game choices that don't necessarily seem like they'd result in a public dumping. 

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I think they're saying that Alistair is comparable to Jacob in that the relationship can be ended by the NPC. While I wouldn't call Alistair a booby prize, given how otherwise well-integrated and written his romance arc is, it is frustrating that a female PC can be dicked over because of in game choices that don't necessarily seem like they'd result in a public dumping. 

She said earlier it's because you have to make him do the DR or one of you dies, which she considers a guilt trip.  

[Sjofn]

I'm definitely not saying gender based sexuality is fluid for everyone. What I'm saying is that which preferences are fluids differs per person. It's not any better to condemn someone as a racist for not liking common racial traits sexually than it is to call someone a sexist for not liking certain genders sexually. There's no real evidence to suggest they can just "get over" their aesthetic preferences. It doesn't mean they think the race is inherently inferior just because they don't have a sexual attraction to its common traits.  

 

Ah, I misunderstood your point. I am reeeeeally not comfortable giving people who dismiss an entire race out of hand a pass (there is an awful lot of cultural crap to sift through for why that might be first, imo), but it's not a fight I particularly want to have. Suffice to say that it's way, way, way less head-scratching in my eyes for people to hope "gosh I hope that dude is into my gender" than the people who feel the need to install "let's make Isabella white" mods, and I think it's a much less problematic decision for them to have made than if they had gone down some different arbitrary yes/no branch.

 

What I wonder is if they'd have as many LIs as they seem like they're going to (assuming the everyone-gets-at-least-two logic holds) if they went everyone-is-bi. From a purely selfish standpoint, I prefer the bigger numbers (as I am one of those people perfectly happy to play either gender, and the only type of romance I never do is fem/fem, so I'd be +1 from DA2!). But I am totally aware that is selfish, and since it ultimately shakes out to still just two for an awful lot of people, I suppose OVERALL it doesn't really matter.

[azarhal]

If the stated intent is giving everyone at least two choices regardless of orientation, then there would have to be at least six LI's, three per gender.

 

You are right, though; they aren't necessarily out of the twelve characters we've seen. I would be surprised if they aren't, though.

 

I'm going to have to repeat it I guess.

 

5 LIs can gives everyone two choices as LIs while respecting having set sexualities in the mix, they never said that it was equality distributed between genders (2 bisexual choices for one gender and 1 bisexual, 1 gay and 1 straight on the other for the round down)

 

BioWare  already showed that it was more important to have representation across the game than in the party with its only 3 females companions because there is plenty of female character in the rest of the game...

[karushna5]

There is no way for anything else to be fair, because "fairness" is, as we have seen over these 200+ pages, a nebulous concept that has everything to do with the fact that different people want different things. Unless every love interest is available to every race/class/gender, someone is always going to feel like their choices are lesser, or unsatisfactory compared to the romances they can't do. As long as there is content marked "other", unfairness will be an issue.

I quite disagree. Some people want some things or others, but it is fairly easy to see that some sexualities have not been given a fair shake. Many lesbians, myself included, wanted Morrigan. Many gay guys wanted Alistair. But hardly approaching fair that 2 main plot characters were both straight, while Lelianna and Zevran were bisexual and also options.

I get this was the time, and gay stuff was on the hush hush. But today, fairness for me is the same amount of content. Something that I think most people here agree. We want what we want, but that doesnt make fairness any more nebulous. Same amount of content.

[Sjofn]

In other news, what they did with Jacob in ME3 was seriously the biggest load of crap. I think part of why it made me so angry was because I know, deep down, they never even thought about doing that to a straight male Shepard.

 

I wound up playing a lot more ManShep + Kaidan playthroughs than I expected as a result, weirdly enough. The Jacob thing and the Thane thing (that one didn't bug me as much, obvs) plus Kaidan insisting I cheated on him (I SURE FELT BROKEN UP AFTER HORIZON, DUDE) just made my various femsheps way less fun.

[mopotter]

I call Al the female "warden guilt trip". I just played this one a few months ago.

 

Let's say you romance him and keep him romanced even after the Landsmeet. You have to make him do the DR if you want him to live. He hates Morrigan and now he has to sleep with her. You have to watch it as well. He is locked in at the gate in the end (unmodded). If he didn't do the DR, your Warden is responsible for his death.

Ahhh,  this I can understand.  

 

Hated the DR and a few other things they did to Alistair.  Especially hated having to watch it, knowing the reason was so a guy whoever romanced her as a male warden could watch their character.  I eventually went with Zev because of the DR.  Alistair and Anora marry get along just fine, Loghain dies to save the land he loves and Alistair says I'm right.  But still don't see him as a booby prize.