12496 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

It's always possible that you don't like the main romances. It's also possible that all characters are bisexual and yet, you don't like any of them. But this isn't the point, because people always have different tastes when it comes to romances. You can't please everyone. But you can create the romance system fair if everyone gets the same ammount of LI's (as for quantity) and everyone has the possibility to choose between a story relevant plot character and a second character (if they don't like the main romanceable person).

 

I agree that it's a valid enough measure of fairness.  Though I do get the impression that it's unfair for others simply because one person may be able to romance someone while another person may not be able to romance that same person.

[renfrees]

Damn, I hate the term "main romance".

[Sjofn]

Any system that denies me sweet, sweet DHMG love is objectively unfair, I thought everyone understood that.

[LiaraShepard]

Damn, I hate the term "main romance".

 

okay, let's say "most story relevant characters"

[Allan Schumacher]

Damn, I hate the term "main romance".

 

Not a fan of the term either.  Ideally, for me, none of the romances can be considered the "main" romances.  But I think on some level it's going to be unavoidable for some people based on how they experience the story and how vital they think someone is.

[LiaraShepard]

I agree that it's a valid enough measure of fairness.  Though I do get the impression that it's unfair for others simply because one person may be able to romance someone while another person may not be able to romance that same person.

 

Well, I'm one of those people who actually like the idea of everyone being bisexual/playersexual. But since it was denied I think the only possible way to create fairness is to consider the things I mentioned above.

[Sjofn]

The only romance I felt like "woof, really glad I blundered into doing that one first" was Anders. I mean, I love Alistair's romance a lot, but I didn't feel like it ramped up the plot for me like it apparently did for other people. Same with Morrigan.

[jncicesp]

Well, I'm one of those people who actually like the idea of everyone being bisexual/playersexual. But since it was denied I think the only possible way to create fairness is to consider the things I mentioned above.

Closest to fair anyway.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

This topic came up at PAX Prime's LGBTQ talk.  It spawned out of a discussion regarding all LI being universally available.  Steve and Samantha came up, and I believe it was Dusty that asked the audience if it would have been better if Steve and Samantha were available to men and women.  In a room of probably 200-300 people, and from what I remember it was a clear majority that did not raise their hands.

 

I talked about it with some of the people I was near.  The biggest thing was representation.  There is someone that gets caught on the mic during the discussion with a statement about representation and included an emphatic "Thank you" at the end of it.  And I think much the same way that you dislike the concept of "NPC romances" because they are "lesser romances," and what I also learned in talking with people in the other romance thread about whether or not romance content is vital: by being a romanceable character it's given as much attention and exposure as possible.  Many, many people in that discussion mentioned that they value romance content in our games because it's an explicit and unambiguous way for LGBTQ views to be acknowledged. 

 

Back to PAX: for some, it simply felt good to have a romanceable character who's romance content was created specifically with them in mind.  (and I think that that is okay) We could handle representation with other non-romanceable NPCs (and I think we should still do that), but I think it's analogous to your concerns about NPC romances.  For at least some of the people that like it from a representation perspective, it's stronger representation than with a character that isn't romanceable.  Maybe it's just me struggling with my own advantages (especially in gaming), the idea that someone felt "This character is FOR ME" seemed reasonable.  Especially as a guy who has a lot of content that specifically targets me and maybe takes for granted that other people don't have this experience as much.

 

 

With respect to romance options, the reality is that if we include romance content in any way, there will always be a degree of being unfair towards someone.  Spoken differently, I think the only genuinely "fair" breakdown is for romance content to not exist.  Because even if there was a perfect split with all the characters you meet in the game in terms of man/woman, and they were all universally romanceable, the reality is that some people are going to look at some romances and consider them superior to other romances.

 

The most common hypothesis for our romance breakdown will be some notion of 2/2/2.  (Disclaimer: I am not giving any validity to the breakdowns, nor the names that I will use... I have taken them from the forum as commonly seen theories/hypotheses).

 

Cassandra - straight

Solas - Straight

Cullen - Bisexual

Scribe Girl - Bisexual

DHMG - Gay

Sera - lesbian

 

With this there are 4 options for a male inquisitor, and 4 options for a female inquisitor (which is equivalent to DA2 in terms of the amount of choice).

 

First off, right off the bat.  Anyone that has already decided that none of these characters are interesting to them as a romance have lost.  The content is inherently unfair to them because they will not have any sort of romanceable character.

 

Now even then, some have already pegged Cassandra and Solas as the "main romance."  So it's also possible that those that don't like Cassandra and Solas are stuck with options that are innately "inferior."  And that might be the case, because some romances will simply be better received than others (especially on an individual player basis). 

 

 

I have seen some say that they'd prefer 4 bisexuals like DA2, because then it's fair and no one gets access to a romance that someone else does not.  Except for those that lose their romanceable content....  Imagine we were to make it Cass, Solas, Cullen, and Scribe girl as all bisexual.  To some, this is fairer.  Except for those that really want to romance Sera or DMHG.  Is this really "fairer" simply because we've restricted people from getting content in the interest of being "fair" by effectively isolating "all those that want to romance a character but cannot all have to suffer together."

 

So I think on some level we have to pick our battles on what is considered "fair" because I feel that the only truly fair way is no romance content, which obviously is not what a lot of people want.  Any decision that we make (and this goes beyond just romances) is going to be disappointing to someone.  The trick is attempting to reconcile the opposing viewpoints.  I think it's also important to note that having set sexualities brings to the forefront that "4 isn't enough if we want to ensure choice."  As such, I don't think it's necessarily accurate to simply say "well do 6 bisexuals" because had we gone into development with the mindset of "lets just make the romances all bisexual" then we may have very well ended up with only 4 (and applied the writing resources elsewhere), because in terms of choice it's all we'd need.  Stated otherwise, it's possible that having set sexualities provides the impetus to have more than 4 romances.

To be honest, I wouldn't really expect people to raise their hand to that question, because I expect people would take it the wrong way. I think it would have been better if all the ME3 LIs were open to everyone, but I wouldn't have raised my hand, either. I don't want to be the guy saying, without context, that the gay characters specifically should be open to everyone. If the question was whether everyone should be available to everyone, I think more people would feel comfortable raising their hand. That isn't to say I believe everyone there wanted it, I just don't necessarily think agreement with the system is the only reason why no one would raise their hand.

 

It makes me really uncomfortable that some people think a relationship is lesser just because the character is bisexual. I don't doubt that's true for some, because there's well known discrimination against bi people even inside the LGBT community. A lot of gays will actively avoid dating bisexuals. To me, it seems like an extension of that. I can't really say that I relate to it. 

 

To me, fair means everyone gets the same options and a relative amount of content available. Fair doesn't necessarily mean you definitely get the option you want. Sure, that's disappointing, but that's not the same as unfair. I don't see fairness to mean that you will definitely get the romance you like with the maximum possible amount of content. I just see it as a comparable amount of content being made available for all genders and sexualities. DA:O's main romances were unfair because they weren't available to everyone. The only way I'd see DA:I as unfair is if, for example, Cassandra was the only "main" romance, which would leave certain genders/sexualities without the option to an LI with similar content. 

 

As far as the disappointment scale goes, though, no romantic content isn't more fair than anything else. Then you just have people disappointed that they can't romance anyone. It's not solving anything, it's just disappointing even more people than any other system we discussed. I mean, if the choices are "give everyone the same content" vs "give everyone no content" and our measure of fairness is disappointment, I think it's fair to say "all content" will easily win here.  

[Ryzaki]

The only romance I felt like "woof, really glad I blundered into doing that one first" was Anders. I mean, I love Alistair's romance a lot, but I didn't feel like it ramped up the plot for me like it apparently did for other people. Same with Morrigan.

 

Anders and Morrigan got a lot more banters as well as their plot relevancy. DA2 was a lot more equal in that aspect.

[Sjofn]

Well, I didn't notice the Morrigan banter thing because by the time I got around to romancing her, I was well into my "NO MAGES IN MY PARTY EVER" period of DA:O. I blame the staff animations in DA:O. They were so lame!

[JadePrince]

I keep asking everyone that says there's "value" in set sexualities what theories they have on what that value would be. Sometimes I get vague implications of "differences". Literally every elaboration on these differences so far has been some differentiation on how gay characters somehow got damaged from being gay. Even as bad an idea as I think that is, I think it could just as easily be achieved with a bi character with a same sex partner in their past. If I could hear even one example of a decent way this could impact LI stories, maybe I would be optimistic. As is, I don't see how it's not giving up half my options for basically nothing.   

 

The best example for 'set sexualities' adding something valuable that I can think of is if it allows for more moments like Anders mentioning that he and Karl were a couple (and hopefully those details being present no matter what gender you play as). I didn't romance him, but, as a queer player, it really meant a LOT to realize that there were characters in this world who were inarguably queer EVEN IF I didn't queer-romance them. (Of course at the time, I didn't know they took that line out for female Hawkes)

 

Of course, to my mind, the ideal would be that all potential LIs are bisexual and the rest of your non-LI party companions can be gay or straight or bi or whatever else. 

 

TL;DR -- I REALLY hope that in DA:I there are VISIBLE, IMPORTANT queer characters that exist outside of our romances. 

[Nocte ad Mortem]

The best example for 'set sexualities' adding something valuable that I can think of is if it allows for more moments like Anders mentioning that he and Karl were a couple (and hopefully those details being present no matter what gender you play as). I didn't romance him, but, as a queer player, it really meant a LOT to realize that there were characters in this world who were inarguably queer EVEN IF I didn't queer-romance them. (Of course at the time, I didn't know they took that line out for female Hawkes)

 

Of course, to my mind, the ideal would be that all potential LIs are bisexual and the rest of your non-LI party companions can be gay or straight or bi or whatever else. 

 

TL;DR -- I REALLY hope that in DA:I there are VISIBLE, IMPORTANT queer characters that exist outside of our romances. 

They didn't have to limit who he told that to, anyway. Isabela is open about being bisexual. Anders is open about having heterosexual encounters, so it's not even like they were keeping him ambiguous. I think it was a mistake that he didn't mention it to female PCs, but they definitely don't need to make LIs set sexualities to do it. They already have done similar with Isabela.   

[KaiserShep]

Well, I didn't notice the Morrigan banter thing because by the time I got around to romancing her, I was well into my "NO MAGES IN MY PARTY EVER" period of DA:O. I blame the staff animations in DA:O. They were so lame!

 

Lol, the animation of the mage in DA:O made playing one as anything other than an arcane warrior with the spellweaver blade seem extraordinarily tedious to me. I could never get past the Circle of Magi. Once I found myself shooting magical crap at giant spiders, I was pretty much done and moved on to the rogue. For all the crap DA2 might get on its combat mechanics (not from me, however), I was thoroughly surprised by how much I enjoyed the new mage combat design.

 

They didn't have to limit who he told that to, anyway. Isabela is open about being bisexual. Anders is open about having heterosexual encounters, so it's not even like they were keeping him ambiguous. I think it was a mistake that he didn't mention it to female PCs, but they definitely don't need to make LIs set sexualities to do it. They already have done similar with Isabela. 

 

I agree that this was a mistake, and it does properly break the illusion if you replay the game and romance Anders with the the alternate gender.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I don't think characters should leave out parts of their history based on PC gender. It's fine with me if characters are kept ambiguous to everyone, like Merrill and Fenris. If past romantic partners come up, I think they should be equally referenced regardless of PC gender.  

[JadePrince]

They didn't have to limit who he told that to, anyway. Isabela is open about being bisexual. Anders is open about having heterosexual encounters, so it's not even like they were keeping him ambiguous. I think it was a mistake that he didn't mention it to female PCs, but they definitely don't need to make LIs set sexualities to do it. They already have done similar with Isabela.   

 

No, I agree with you (and I said so in my reply). I'd love for all the potential LIs to be bisexual-- it's PLAYERsexual where you run into problems like them changing the dialogue to let female Hawke's headcanon Anders as straight (and why does that matter? So long as a women can romance him, why would they care that he's had a history with a guy?).

 

So i agree, they shouldn't need set sexualities to make this stuff happen, but I guess set sexualities at least guarantees that it will? I dunno. It's frustrating. :/ Like I said, ideally, they'd let the LIs be bisexual and save the set sexualities for the rest of your companions.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

No, I agree with you (and I said so in my reply). I'd love for all the potential LIs to be bisexual-- it's PLAYERsexual where you run into problems like them changing the dialogue to let female Hawke's headcanon Anders as straight (and why does that matter? So long as a women can romance him, why would they care that he's had a history with a guy?).

 

So i agree, they shouldn't need set sexualities to make this stuff happen, but I guess set sexualities at least guarantees that it will? I dunno. It's frustrating. :/ Like I said, ideally, they'd let the LIs be bisexual and save the set sexualities for the rest of your companions.

I understand. It's nice to try to stay positive. 

[Ryzaki]

Well, I didn't notice the Morrigan banter thing because by the time I got around to romancing her, I was well into my "NO MAGES IN MY PARTY EVER" period of DA:O. I blame the staff animations in DA:O. They were so lame!

 

Pew pew shooters really. DA2 if nothing else really made mage combat look much better.

[JadePrince]

Okay, so this is mostly joking, but I thought of one reason that romancing a gay male character (instead of a bisexual one) as a gay PC could be better. If Bioware insists on sticking with the promiscuous bisexual trope (like Zevran), then if my LI was gay instead, I'd at least be able to avoid having to listen to him talk about boobs and about how hot all the women in the party are. Seriously, I love you Zevran but you talk a LOT about boobs. To such an extent that I sometimes wondered why he was even with me. 

 

OH! Also, if the LI was only gay, then maybe we'd avoid bugs like the one epilogue card that talked about Zevran and my Warden's future using female pronouns for my Warden (seriously, that was annoying, wtf).

 

(Obviously, the real solution to these problems is better writing and better QA testing, not set sexualities. This was me just wracking my brain to come up with something, so Mort, I think your point still largely stands that there's not much to be gained from set sexualities for LIs.)

[renfrees]

The best example for 'set sexualities' adding something valuable that I can think of is if it allows for more moments like Anders mentioning that he and Karl were a couple (and hopefully those details being present no matter what gender you play as). I didn't romance him, but, as a queer player, it really meant a LOT to realize that there were characters in this world who were inarguably queer EVEN IF I didn't queer-romance them. (Of course at the time, I didn't know they took that line out for female Hawkes)

 

Of course, to my mind, the ideal would be that all potential LIs are bisexual and the rest of your non-LI party companions can be gay or straight or bi or whatever else. 

 

TL;DR -- I REALLY hope that in DA:I there are VISIBLE, IMPORTANT queer characters that exist outside of our romances. 

The only example of "set sexualities" that would be justifiable to me, is if character's sexuality affected their stories and/or choices in a relevant way (and not just - I slept with this and that. Uh well, okay, whatever).

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Agreed - I hope you don't understand me to be saying otherwise?

The last line of your post seemed that way to me, but I accept if you say it wasn't your intention. It's often that people get off page with one thinking of "all LIs available" as "all bi" and the other as "playersexual/fully altered per playthrough".   

[jlb524]

 

I have seen some say that they'd prefer 4 bisexuals like DA2, because then it's fair and no one gets access to a romance that someone else does not.  Except for those that lose their romanceable content....  Imagine we were to make it Cass, Solas, Cullen, and Scribe girl as all bisexual.  To some, this is fairer.  Except for those that really want to romance Sera or DMHG.  Is this really "fairer" simply because we've restricted people from getting content in the interest of being "fair" by effectively isolating "all those that want to romance a character but cannot all have to suffer together."

 

 

That is fair because everyone has access to the same romance content and is everyone is limited from romancing the same characters.

 

If I really wanted to romance Sera....sure it sucks if she's not available as a romance option in the game but I wouldn't consider it unfair.  I wouldn't even say not being able to romance her b/c she's straight and only available to men is unfair either.  I don't think fairness and gender-exclusive romances are necessarily mutually exclusive.

 

When I think of 'fairness', one thing that comes to mind is numbers.  DA:O was not fair for obvious reasons.  To go further, I think there should be an equal amount of companion romances available for everyone.  I don't believe that companion = non-companion.  These are two different types of characters with different interactions and roles in the story. If a certain demographic ends up with more companion romances than another, that is not fair.

 

As far as 'main romance' vs. non-main (or plot-important vs. not), it's not a huge sticking point for me as far as this discussion is concerned.  Comparing Leliana and Morrigan's romance from DA:O, my issue isn't that Morrigan is more plot-central it's mainly that Leliana had less content in general and literally no banter existed for the f/f Leliana/Warden romance.

 

Again, I think there could be fairness in a system with set sexualities (based on objective things like numbers, companions vs. non-companions, etc).  I don't have high hopes for it happening.  Thus, I will always prefer the DA2 system.  I see it as at least being fair.  Plus I'm not convinced set-sexualities add anything of value.

 

Edit:   Your hypothetical list actually seems fair to me.  There is the same amount of options divided among companion/non-companion characters.

[daveliam]

I agree that it's a valid enough measure of fairness.  Though I do get the impression that it's unfair for others simply because one person may be able to romance someone while another person may not be able to romance that same person.

 

There will always be people who complain about fairness, whether that is justified or not.  Fair, to me, is having equal number choices and representation in LI's.  If a straight male gamer has three options, then I should have three options.  If there is are straight male characters, then there should be gay male characters.  i don't think that those characters need to be the same in order for it to be fair. 

 

DA: O is a great example of "unfair" in my opinion.  Straight male gamers have two options, one of whom is very heavily involved in the plot of the game.  Gay male gamers have a single option, who is an optional recruit and heavily prefers females.  It didn't feel like Zevran was "for me" (using your idea).  It felt like he was designed as a Latin Lover character and then, almost as an after thought, they thought, "Oh, we can make him bisexual too!  Let's just add in a few lines for males....."

 

The closest to "fair" is clearly DA 2, although straight female gamers get an extra choice.  Everyone gets multiple options and they are all about equally relevant to the main plot, with the exception of Fenris.  ME 3 could have done a better job of being "fair", but had a good idea.  If straight female gamers had not had half of their options taken away from them and straight male gamers not had SIX different LI's to choose from, it would have been much more equitable.  I didn't have an issue with the fact that I couldn't romance Garrus, because I had Steve, who was "for me". 

 

If DA: I were to have the 2/2/2 split, then that is very fair in my opinion, even if it means that there is one male who I can't romance.  That's because there will also be one male that straight females can't romance.  And one female that straight males can't romance.  And one female that lesbians can't romance.  If all of the characters are equally related to the main plot, then this is a very fair approach, in my mind.

[renfrees]

The closest to "fair" is clearly DA 2, although straight female gamers get an extra choice.  Everyone gets multiple options and they are all about equally relevant to the main plot, with the exception of Fenris. 

I don't see Merrill being even remotely relevant to DAII plot. To me, she is the character, most removed from DAII story. Hell, even half-made Sebastian had bigger impact, than her.