12496 réponses à ce sujet

[Grieving Natashina]

Before I begin, let me say this:  I'll be the first to admit that I could be way the hell off here and allowing anxieties to do the talking.  Some of this post is based upon the concern I have about NPC romances being bisexual, as well as a few developer comments.  

 

I have a simple question:  Why is set-sexualities needed for "fleshing out a character?"   I can appreciate those that said at PAX and other cons that they "wanted a romance just for them."  Well, that seems to be talking about mainly straight ladies and gay players and I'll be the first to say that those are the groups that have been overlooked the most for romance content.  Yet, I thought DA2 did a good job: the romances felt mostly fleshed out for both genders, except Anders hiding his past about Karl from a lady Hawke; I didn't feel like Isabela was talking to a male Hawke when I was playing a woman, ect.  

 

With some of the recent comments by the devs, I've been left with the impression that those that companions are pansexual are suddenly "sex dolls" in the eyes of BioWare.  Pansexuals care about the person, not the gender of the body.  There are some bisexuals that won't date those that are GQ or Trans, for instance.  That's the difference between the two, for those that are curious.

 

One thing that is really bothering me here is the assumption that, there is no way IRL that a poster and my four of their friends of either gender could all be attracted to the same person.  It seems odd that BioWare has this disconnect.  In a group of non-straight friends, we might all want to date the same person that has that certain charm, that certain...something.  Heck, I've been there and yes, for friends that I had for several years.  This does work both ways too; I've had both men and women wanted to date me for years, when I was single.  

 

With so many speculating that the two NPCs are going the two bisexual LIs, I've been feeling like "Oh, here's your pan romance.  You can't journey with them or kill stuff with them, but they'll (probably) be guest party members and at least somewhat important to the plot." Meanwhile, I have a party full of straight and gay party members with the words "they need to be more fleshed out" in my mind.  Is that the reality?  Doubtful, but again, this is some of my fears and concerns.  

 

By the way, I know the romance content is optional.  If there isn't a romance to my taste, I am not going to come on here to moan and cry.  I avoid doing that, and I haven't done so to a company post-launch of their game yet (not even when I was playing WoW.)  If something in a game isn't to my taste, I am not going to pitch a temper tantrum over forums about it.  My Dward Quizzy would quietly join my rogue from NWN, my cleric from NWN2 and my Sith Warrior from ToR: I'll just remain single and enjoy the 80% of the rest of the game that has nothing to do with PC or NPC romances. 

 

Plus, as others have mentioned, I've noticed that at least in Origins (never played the ME games, going by what I've experienced), with set sexualities, I did notice the plot important romances being straight.  I think it's odd that the two straight romances (Alistair and Morrigan) automatically join the party, yet you can skip one bisexual romance (I've read about folks missing Leliana at the tavern) and have two times where you can kill the other (Zevran's ambush in the beginning and the Crows near the end if you didn't get high enough affection.)  

 

*Note: I'm not going to count being able to "kill" Leliana at the Ashes as another chance to kill off the bi character, mainly because she's not the only one that will attack you and "die" if you defile the Sacred Urn.

 

Now, I know you can exile Alistair and run Morrigan off, but you can't kill off either character and they are automatic recruits. Just think about this: Straight women can become Queen Cousland with Alistair; straight guys, if they play their cards right, through Alistair, can become King Cousland ruling with Anora.  That isn't a big deal?  On the other hand, you can choose to not die (and your friend not dying) by letting a witch get pregnant with the soul of an Old God.  It's implied by Morrigan that you have the chance to redeem an Old God's soul!  Perhaps that was just me, but that was huge.  

 

 

Anyway, I apologize for the wall of text, but I needed to get this off of my chest.  It's something that I hope can be addressed more fully in the coming months.  

 

Edit: Stupid lousy formatting issues. <grumble>

[ladyoflate]

-snip-

 

There are some bisexuals that won't date those that are GQ or Trans, for instance.  That's the difference between the two, for those that are curious.

 

-snip-

 

Small quibble from someone who IDs as bi myself: quite a lot of us define it in context of the definitions of heterosexual and homosexual, ie 'the same' and 'different'. So I am bi and I am attracted to my own gender and other genders. Bisexuality: the grab-bag of sexual identity. (otherwise, excellent post)

[Grieving Natashina]

Small quibble from someone who IDs as bi myself: quite a lot of us define it in context of the definitions of heterosexual and homosexual, ie 'the same' and 'different'. So I am bi and I am attracted to my own gender and other genders. Bisexuality: the grab-bag of sexual identity. (otherwise, excellent post)

Pretty much, and thanks.

 

Edit: I love you signature, by the way!  My favorite quote along those lines was from Mercedes Lackey: Being best friends is the only way to be lovers.  Staying best friends is the only way to be married.  

 

After almost 10 years of marriage, this is one of the most accurate things I've ever read about marriage and love.  Worked for my parents too; they are about to hit 37 years together and still are the best of friends.  

[Allan Schumacher]

Some of this post is based upon the concern I have about NPC romances being bisexual

 

And this is why I struggle with the notion of pursuing fairness because it's nebulous to define.  The only thing I can see as being "fair," as stated, is the lack of romance, because no one person would be advantaged over another (because one person's advantage/benefit is another person's disadvantage/detriment).

 

You're concerned because this implementation may cause the content to be less appealing to you.  But making it in a way that is appealing to you comes at the cost of making it less appealing to someone else.  How do we reconcile this?  More romance content?

 

 

 

 

I've been left with the impression that those that companions are pansexual are suddenly "sex dolls" in the eyes of BioWare.

 

I think you may be mistaking what other people say about them and attributing those comments to us.  What makes you think that I consider them sex dolls?  I'll admit the entire concept of pansexuality is much more relatively new, to me, so I may have made mistakes communicating it.  I'm curious where, so I can learn.

 

 

 

 

One thing that is really bothering me here is the assumption that, there is no way IRL that a poster and my four of their friends of either gender could all be attracted to the same person.  It seems odd that BioWare has this disconnect.

 

I thought that I've been pretty consistent in telling people that their "realism" based arguments are unfounded and superceded by other realism things such as the explicitly finite availability of those that are interested in the player character.  It's certianly never the oft-used (and incorrect) statement that having 4 bisexuals in the group means "everyone is bisexual."  It simply means "the arbitrarily finite amount of people that are romantically interested the player character happen to be bisexual."

 

But it seems I give the impression that you feel I do not believe that you and four of your friends could all be attracted to the same person.  I'm not sure why, however.

 

 

 

 

Now, I know you can exile Alistair and run Morrigan off, but you can't kill off either character and they are automatic recruits. Just think about this: Straight women can become Queen Cousland with Alistair; straight guys, if they play their cards right, through Alistair, can become King Cousland ruling with Anora.  That isn't a big deal?  On the other hand, you can choose to not die (and your friend not dying) by letting a witch get pregnant with the soul of an Old God.  It's implied by Morrigan that you have the chance to redeem an Old God's soul!  Perhaps that was just me, but that was huge.

 

I agree that these are valid concerns.  I think it's ideal if *none* of the romances could be considered the "main romance(s)."

[jlb524]

And apparently women-only civilisation can only consist of stripdancers. How did they become so advanced? Oh, yes, Protheans did it.

 

LOL, omg...that almost sounds like the plot to Pretty Woman in Space.

 

Yeah, I dont think it is any coincidence that a huge fan love exists from women for Vivienne and Cassandra.

 

These are the huge f/f fan favorites for women?

 

Oh then they'll totally be straight or unavailable

[DragonRacer]

Alistair, yes.  Morrigan could still be kicked to the curb, I believe.

 

Edit: and didn't Leliana meet you at the edge of Lothering if you don't recruit her, giving you a second chance for recruitment?

 

Nope. Not that I recall, at least. My very first DA:O playthrough, I didn't know who any of the companions would be. People warned about Loghain's soldiers chillin' in Dane's Refuge (the pub in Lothering) and since I was supposed to be keeping a low profile, I never went in there. At all. And then left Lothering to go about my way. Lothering was destroyed by darkspawn and, apparently, Leliana with it. I never even knew she existed until I got near the end of the game and found these forums, and was all like, "Who's this Leliana person people keep talking about?"

 

And then I found out. Whoops. Accidentally killed potential companion I never knew existed.

[In Exile]

Yeah, I dont think it is any coincidence that a huge fan love exists from women for Vivienne and Cassandra. If I had a romance each game of who i could, it would have been
Da:O- Morrigan (when I heard there was a bi option I was really surprised it wasnt her)
DA:2 Isabela (I romanced her, it was great!)
ME1- Ashley (I actually like her flirts and she is pretty sweet)
ME2- miranda at first, but I think I would prefer Jack later(it would be hard to choose)
ME3- The same

Although I appreciate the loss for female gamers who wanted to romance Morrigan, I do think that it was a good inversion to have the supposedly "good' and ostensibly chaste Leliana as the S/S LI (who, to this day, I think prefers women to men for romantic attachment, and the M!Warden is a special case). 

[In Exile]

Small quibble from someone who IDs as bi myself: quite a lot of us define it in context of the definitions of heterosexual and homosexual, ie 'the same' and 'different'. So I am bi and I am attracted to my own gender and other genders. Bisexuality: the grab-bag of sexual identity. (otherwise, excellent post)

 

Maybe I'm different, but I don't look at it through the lens of gender as much as I do through types that I'm either attracted to or not. But the difference here might be that I'm not open about my sexuality, and I prefer a much narrower range of men than I do women. 

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Although I appreciate the loss for female gamers who wanted to romance Morrigan, I do think that it was a good inversion to have the supposedly "good' and ostensibly chaste Leliana as the S/S LI (who, to this day, I think prefers women to men for romantic attachment, and the M!Warden is a special case). 

Do you think Leliana comes across as "chaste"? I didn't get that at all. I thought the bards were all pretty free with that sort of thing. Leliana has religious faith, but she's certainly not reformed to the point Sebastian is. From her commentary on some things, I got the impression she still believed seduction was an acceptable tool for espionage, for example.  

 

I do agree that it seems she tends towards women, though. Her history leans more towards women than men, with Marjolaine and Justinia. She definitely does not show any of the signs that Zevran does of being mostly heterosexual.  

[Grieving Natashina]

Allan Schumacher, on 12 May 2014 - 1:21 PM, said:

And this is why I struggle with the notion of pursuing fairness because it's nebulous to define.  The only thing I can see as being "fair," as stated, is the lack of romance, because no one person would be advantaged over another (because one person's advantage/benefit is another person's disadvantage/detriment).

 

 

You're concerned because this implementation may cause the content to be less appealing to you.  But making it in a way that is appealing to you comes at the cost of making it less appealing to someone else.  How do we reconcile this?  More romance content?

 

 

Okay, first I know that this a concern that I'm not alone in.  If you really are asking my opinion, I prefer DA2's method.  How that was "unfair" to any player is beyond me.  Seriously, I will never understand how having everyone available to all is "unfair" in any way.  If anything, as a bisexual Roleplayer, the most freedom that myself (and several others) have ever had.  I didn't feel locked out due to any gender, and I was free to be whatever I wish.  Straight man romancing Isabela?  Done!  I can experience the differences in the way she treats me.  Lesbian romancing the same character?  That had a different dynamic.  A m/f Isabela romance had a much different feel and vibe to it as a straight man.  So, I don't know why there wasn't an idea to take that set up, and give it more details.

 

I think you may be mistaking what other people say about them and attributing those comments to us.  What makes you think that I consider them sex dolls?  I'll admit the entire concept of pansexuality is much more relatively new, to me, so I may have made mistakes communicating it.  I'm curious where, so I can learn.

 

 

I didn't say you.  It was David Gaider himself that left that impression with me.  Here's the quote:

 

http://dgaider.tumbl...mances-in-games

 

 To me, the idea that a player should get their followers and then simply select one or more companions to be their romance, and that romance is their cuddly bunny for the entirety of the game and plays out exactly as they wish, would be the worst of both worlds. It would be wish fulfillment on a level that reduced the characters into romantic playthings— sex dolls, really. And I have no interest in creating that, even if there are people who think it’d be grand.

 

 

Yes, I was left with the impression that having a pansexual cast = sex dolls in the eyes of at least members of the DA Team.   DG being one of them.

 

 

 

I thought that I've been pretty consistent in telling people that their "realism" based arguments are unfounded and superceded by other realism things such as the explicitly finite availability of those that are interested in the player character.  It's certianly never the oft-used (and incorrect) statement that having 4 bisexuals in the group means "everyone is bisexual."  It simply means "the arbitrarily finite amount of people that are romantically interested the player character happen to be bisexual."

 

 

 

Yes, you have been and it does mean a lot.  However, you're not responsible for writing in the DA Team.  You aren't one of the main writers, you don't have a say in this.  I'm wondering why those that have a say in this do feel this way, and I was hoping that someone would explain this in slightly less caustic terms than "sex dolls."  

 

But it seems I give the impression that you feel I do not believe that you and four of your friends could all be attracted to the same person.  I'm not sure why, however.

 

 

 

This isn't about you, though it was directed to the people you work with.  That's why I didn't quote you directly.  I didn't want you to think that I was putting words into your mouth.  

 

This was directed at DG's comments that having a cast that was available to all genders as "wish fulfillment," when truthfully I thought a cast that was mainly ambigous about their sexuality was the most inclusive thing I've ever played.  Do I think that DG feels that way about pansexuals IRL?  Of course not!  

 

Do I feel like he thinks that way about four companions in all of Thedas being possibly attracted to the same person as pandering to the player, when it happens in RL?  Yes.

 

I agree that these are valid concerns.  I think it's ideal if *none* of the romances could be considered the "main romance(s)."

 

I know E3 and other cons are right on the horizon, so hopefully we can get some more clarification on this.

 

 

[ladyoflate]

Pretty much, and thanks.

 

Edit: I love you signature, by the way!  My favorite quote along those lines was from Mercedes Lackey: Being best friends is the only way to be lovers.  Staying best friends is the only way to be married.  

 

After almost 10 years of marriage, this is one of the most accurate things I've ever read about marriage and love.  Worked for my parents too; they are about to hit 37 years together and still are the best of friends.

 

Aha, yeah, I do agree, but also my signature is a clarification 'cause for a couple of days on here I kept talking about things that were typically associated with romance but would also make great additions to an in-game friendship and stuff. But yes I think friendship is absolutely critical in a romantic relationship. You can have a torrid affair with someone you dislike, but let's face it that's not healthy.

 

Now if only I knew that people were getting the pun bit.

[In Exile]

Do you think Leliana comes across as "chaste"? I didn't get that at all. I thought the bards were all pretty free with that sort of thing. Leliana has religious faith, but she's certainly not reformed to the point Sebastian is. From her commentary on some things, I got the impression she still believed seduction was an acceptable tool for espionage, for example.  

 

I do agree that it seems she tends towards women, though. Her history leans more towards women than men, with Marjolaine and Justinia. She definitely does not show any of the signs that Zevran does of being mostly heterosexual.  

 

I don't think she's actually chaste at all. That was just the perception of her pre-release (which is why I had it in quotations), and the initial trope that she falls in as an ostensibly devout woman who was part of the religious order. Leliana absolutely uses her sexuality as a weapon in a way that Morrigan, IMO, does not, but the cultural perception of her was that Morrigan would be the "type" to do that because of how she dresses. 

 

That's all I meant. That she flipped the people's expectation, and that was good. 

[ladyoflate]

Maybe I'm different, but I don't look at it through the lens of gender as much as I do through types that I'm either attracted to or not. But the difference here might be that I'm not open about my sexuality, and I prefer a much narrower range of men than I do women. 

 

Actually, I always sort of personally defined 'pan' as having the same sort of 'type' across all genders, and I was bi because I also am MUCH more specific in my tastes for dude than in my tastes for women and nonbinary peeps.

 

I can date a straight-up blonde girl, but get that yellow-haired manliness away from me. (shh alistair has shades of redhead)

[In Exile]

Aha, yeah, I do agree, but also my signature is a clarification 'cause for a couple of days on here I kept talking about things that were typically associated with romance but would also make great additions to an in-game friendship and stuff. But yes I think friendship is absolutely critical in a romantic relationship. You can have a torrid affair with someone you dislike, but let's face it that's not healthy.

 

Now if only I knew that people were getting the pun bit.

 

Totally unrelated, but I've never experienced this so-called sex thing ever before in my life. I've just never been attracted to anyone I've disliked. Argued with? Absolutely. But I kind of don't get that trope. 

 

 

Actually, I always sort of personally defined 'pan' as having the same sort of 'type' across all genders, and I was bi because I also am MUCH more specific in my tastes for dude than in my tastes for women and nonbinary peeps.

 

I can date a straight-up blonde girl, but get that yellow-haired manliness away from me. (shh alistair has shades of redhead)

 

That makes a lot of sense to me. I do agree with your definition, in hindsight. 

[jlb524]

I agree that these are valid concerns.  I think it's ideal if *none* of the romances could be considered the "main romance(s)."

 

I think people will consider Cassandra to be one regardless.

 

She is a returning character that had an important role in DA2.  It also seems like she will be vital in getting the Inquisition up and running in DA:I, and might even be the first party member we meet.  

 

Cassandra has thus far been featured heavily in marketing and I'm willing to bet if BW releases a trailer featuring a romance scene, it will be with Cassandra and a Male Inquisitor.  

 

These things give the perception that she's more important than others.

[Grieving Natashina]

I think people will consider Cassandra to be one regardless.

 

She is a returning character that had an important role in DA2.  It also seems like she will be vital in getting the Inquisition up and running in DA:I, and might even be the first party member we meet.  

 

Cassandra has thus far been featured heavily in marketing and I'm willing to bet if BW releases a trailer featuring a romance scene, it will be with Cassandra and a Male Inquisitor.  

 

These things give the perception that she's more important than others.

 

Well said.

[In Exile]

I do think that DG's comments regarding "sex dolls" - while unfortunate - were not quite as hostile to the idea of a pansexual cast. I think this earlier part of his comment is important: 

 

 

2) I dislike the idea of every character being sexually available to the player. Not that it cheapens them, necessarily, but it would lend itself towards their objectification. Take the first Witcher game, for instance— I enjoyed many things about that game, but the collectible sex card mechanic? Ultimately it rendered every female character in the game into a puzzle to be solved. What do I do to sleep with them? How do I get their card? Yes, you can ignore the mechanic (I certainly tried, even though I ended up sleeping with several characters purely by accident) but having the mechanic in the first place necessitates a difference in how they are approached, both from a writing and implementation standpoint. As soon as the player is aware it’s possible, you are in fact encouraging them towards a certain type of behavior. Even ignoring the awkwardness of doing that solely to female characters, doing it to all characters equally would still make them be viewed as potential romances and thus change how the player related to them.

 

 

 

I think his comments about "sex dolls" need to be filtered through the lens he is applying to TW1's mechanic. I think this ties in with his preamble to the sex doll comment: 

I would, however, resist making the romance elements of our games more prominent without also changing the nature of that content. Adding an element of failure, for instance, or by having not all characters be available to all player characters (they’re attracted only to certain types, for instance). Adding different types of romance: tragic romances, romances where your partner cheats on you, romances where the character is already involved in another relationship, characters that don’t know how to relate to someone else on a romantic level or aren’t interested in such. It needn’t all be unhappy, of course, but were I to cross the threshold of making all followers possible to romance I’d at least want to change the approach into something more plausible.

 

 

His comments seem to be tied up in an important way to the scale of the romances, and the differences between TW1 and his preferred approach for DA. None of this is to excuse the comment, because I do think it's hurtful in the immediate context of the paragraph, especially since it focuses on the idea of romanceable companions. But I think DG's reaction is partly based on the idea of having 9+ romanceable companions, who are romanceable in the same way. That his comments could be read as a comment on pansexuality - particularly in light of DA:I's decision to have restricted sexualities, is I think unfortunate. But not necessarily his meaning (though it could be; so don't take this as my saying that he couldn't have meant exactly what the paragraph reads like he meant). 

[ladyoflate]

Totally unrelated, but I've never experienced this so-called sex thing ever before in my life. I've just never been attracted to anyone I've disliked. Argued with? Absolutely. But I kind of don't get that trope.

 

I think it's really just a fiction thing, it makes for good drama and such. I've had sex with people I've felt ambivalent about/disliked before, but it was also the laziest-in-a-not-good-way sex of my life because neither of us was really motivated to make it supergreat for the other or learn about each other's bodies. So.

[javeart]

To me it was very very lacking. I liked Liara, romanced her in one, was true to her in 2, and romanced her in 3. My gf romanced Garrus and the incredible difference to see those side by side was ridiculous. Regardless of that, she lacked a lot of oomph and was a little too empty of any passion with the relationship. (Not saying they didnt have their intrests, but I liked the relationship more of Leliana and Marjoline without the obvious bit of the backstabbing)

Leliana was similiar, lacked a lot of passion in regards to the romance, sweet, but I have sch a hard time putting my finger on it. Liara and Leliana seemed very passive characters, especially Liara who seemed like more of a plot device in 1. Sam, on the other hand an unimportant character, was actually fine, but Leliana and Liara seemed more backdrops. Jacob felt similiar in some ways. He seemed fairly passive not so much as a personality as a character.

I do think that (kinda)Tali, Liara, Leliana(there is a reason she is the most romanced), Merrill, are made somewhat passively and that appeals to straight male gamers. I am not saying that they did not have needs or intrests or goals, but they took a more back seat to their own story.

Women on the other hand always seem to lean towards more active characters. Garrus, (a reason many ladies wanted Wrex), Thane(except at the end), Alistair, Zevran. Anders, (kinda)Fenris. Varric
Jacob and Kaiden are fairly passive and my theory is that is why they are disliked more in the fandom. Many lesbians I have seen show a preference for active characters- Jack, Miranda, Morrigan, Isabela, Ashley, and from the looks of it Cassandra.
Not saying so much for the forcefulness as Alistair actually hates to do anything and is fairly passive personality wise.

I dont see it as a sexist thing, I just always felt that straight men like passive usually more then women, and women usually prefer active types.

 

Curiously enough, I'm straight and though I don't enjoy playing a men, I do enjoy playing a lesbian PC and my tastes matches this perfectly. I fet the same about Liara and Leliana romances, I liked a lot Isabella and I got a little bit frustrated that I couldn't romance Morrigan and specially Jack(I really never understood why she was a male shepard exclusive, I think she tells you she's been with other women, doesn't she?

[karushna5]

Although I appreciate the loss for female gamers who wanted to romance Morrigan, I do think that it was a good inversion to have the supposedly "good' and ostensibly chaste Leliana as the S/S LI (who, to this day, I think prefers women to men for romantic attachment, and the M!Warden is a special case).

In part, but she is only good because she was a immoral spy who delighted in messing with other peoples lives for The Game and the betrayal of her lover is what makes her good. She is actually a whole lot more morally grey than she seems at first, and if you harden her, she will admit that her whole vision thing was just to make her feel special.

I mean also, we dont want to be thought of as evil preying on women, as the evil lesbian trope normally shows. But we do gravitate toward dark and mysterious characters. The first time homosexuality was compared to vampires was Camille and ever since the lesbian vampire has been a staple of media.

I think in generalities, we like tenderness and also bite. Miranda, and Morrigan almost come right out of some lesbian novels I have read. Of course this is all from conversations with people from a small corner of the internet and generalities are normally a bad thing to make about a whole groups romantic prefrence

[In Exile]

In part, but she is only good because she was a immoral spy who delighted in messing with other peoples lives for The Game and the betrayal of her lover is what makes her good. She is actually a whole lot more morally grey than she seems at first, and if you harden her, she will admit that her whole vision thing was just to make her feel special.

I mean also, we dont want to be thought of as evil preying on women, as the evil lesbian trope normally shows. But we do gravitate toward dark and mysterious characters. The first time homosexuality was compared to vampires was Camille and ever since the lesbian vampire has been a staple of media.

I think in generalities, we like tenderness and also bite. Miranda, and Morrigan almost come right out of some lesbian novels I have read. Of course this is all from conversations with people from a small corner of the internet and generalities are normally a bad thing to make about a whole groups romantic prefrence

 

Again, it wasn't my intention to comment on who Leliana really was - just that there were very, very adamant views on the old bio boards based solely on appearance and it was nice to see those expectations undermined, at least superficially. 

[Nocte ad Mortem]

And this is why I struggle with the notion of pursuing fairness because it's nebulous to define.  The only thing I can see as being "fair," as stated, is the lack of romance, because no one person would be advantaged over another (because one person's advantage/benefit is another person's disadvantage/detriment).

 

You're concerned because this implementation may cause the content to be less appealing to you.  But making it in a way that is appealing to you comes at the cost of making it less appealing to someone else.  How do we reconcile this?  More romance content?

I wanted to pick this up again, because I feel like we got off page on the "fairness" issue in my first reply and I didn't adequately address it. 

 

I'm against gender gating because I don't like it. I'm not positing it as an objective truth that gender gating will always result in unfairness. It's possible for there to be gender gating and for everyone to get equitable amounts of content. If everyone gets the same amount of choices, the same amount of content for those choices, and at least relatively even plot integration for their choices, then the system is fair. I believe 2/2/2 could be a fair system. I would rather have 6 bisexual LIs personally. I totally acknowledge that this is a personal opinion. There's no real objective argument for or against gender gating. It's all down to personal preference. I don't think mine are less valid, but they're not necessarily more valid, either, and I acknowledge that, definitely. 

 

My argument has always been that, in my opinion, allowing all choices to be available for everyone maximizes potential for enjoyment. Everyone has a better chance of getting someone they'll enjoy romancing if the maximum amount of LIs the resources cover are made and allowed to be romanced by anyone. Some people agree with me, some don't. Obviously someone will win and someone will lose. This time I already lost, we'll see what happens next time. I would like to go back to the all bi system, but for Inquisition obviously the only hope I have now is that the system will be equally distributed. 

 

But my question for the fairness issue is, if it's totally fair that the "main romances" go to anyone, then why are they never gay? If NPCs are always just as good, then why are the NPCs usually the bi or gay options? I think we all know it's because everyone knows which options are more desirable among the majority of players, if we're being totally honest. I'm not asking for those options to be made homosexual, though. I don't want the content to be slanted in favor of homosexuals. I just want an equal amount. The position that, "nothing is ever going to be fair unless we just axe the content," comes across as a brush off and maybe even a little bit of a threat, to me. You're generally a reasonable individual, so I want to say that's not how you mean it to sound. It's a personal issue, to me, so I'm probably being over sensitive. 

[The Elder King]

@Natashina: your should note that when Gaider made the sex dolls comment he was referring to the concept of making ALL followers romanceable, and not just four bisexual/pansexual/ambiguous, since he was talking about the former just a phrase before his sex dolls comment.

[Grieving Natashina]

 

 

I do think that DG's comments regarding "sex dolls" - while unfortunate - were not quite as hostile to the idea of a pansexual cast. I think this earlier part of his comment is important: 

 

 

 

I think his comments about "sex dolls" need to be filtered through the lens he is applying to TW1's mechanic. I think this ties in with his preamble to the sex doll comment: 

 

His comments seem to be tied up in an important way to the scale of the romances, and the differences between TW1 and his preferred approach for DA. None of this is to excuse the comment, because I do think it's hurtful in the immediate context of the paragraph, especially since it focuses on the idea of romanceable companions. But I think DG's reaction is partly based on the idea of having 9+ romanceable companions, who are romanceable in the same way. That his comments could be read as a comment on pansexuality - particularly in light of DA:I's decision to have restricted sexualities, is I think unfortunate. But not necessarily his meaning (though it could be; so don't take this as my saying that he couldn't have meant exactly what the paragraph reads like he meant). 

 

 

 

I know it was in relation to the awful mess in TW1.  I did notice, sadly, that the term "you just want sex dolls" came up on the forums a lot by posters in the wake of that comment towards those that preferred DA2's system. 

 

For one: Not many have asked for 9+ romances.  If anything, 4-6 is the number that seems to be preferred.  So I'm not sure why that was even a point.  I have read several people that feel the same way I do: We aren't asking to romance all the companions, we're asking that those that are designated to be LIs be available to all genders.  Somehow, I think that a human dating an elf would be a tad more controversial than two people of the same gender being together, but that's neither here or there at this point..  

 

Secondly, I was referring to pansexual relationships in video game, not his feelings towards pansexuals IRL.  If anything, he's been working his hands to the bone and really striving to learn more, to be better.  I will not state otherwise.

 

That's why I'm hoping during Convention Season this summer he might be able to clarify what he meant by that statement in direct relation to Dragon Age.  Otherwise, I'm left with the impression that he feels that players asking for the return of the DA2 system just want "sex dolls."  

 

 

@Natashina: your should note that when Gaider made the sex dolls comment he was referring to the concept of making ALL followers romanceable, and not just four bisexual/pansexual/ambiguous, since he was talking about the former just a phrase before his sex dolls comment.

I'd like to know who said or implied that we'd want all companions romanceable, much less all characters in the game.  DG was using such broad terms that doesn't reflect much of the views of the actual Dragon Age fans, yet he was talking about romances in DA as well as TW1.  

 

How did it go from, "We prefer the DA2 system" to "We want all the characters available?"  That's where the disconnect is happening for me.  

[In Exile]

I think it's really just a fiction thing, it makes for good drama and such. I've had sex with people I've felt ambivalent about/disliked before, but it was also the laziest-in-a-not-good-way sex of my life because neither of us was really motivated to make it supergreat for the other or learn about each other's bodies. So.

 

Right, I get that. The bold is one of the reasons I've pretty much never had a one night stand (I've been with people I knew for a very short time - a few day - but the experiences were underwhelming). Also, now I'm forever going to have imagines of post hate-sex in media works being two characters who just sit around dissapointed with what just happened.