12496 réponses à ce sujet

[Grieving Natashina]

I appreciated listening/reading your experience and thoughts, though.  It is one of the many reasons why I started on this forums ages ago, as well as try being active in other fora (social media, emails to companies/writers, blogospheres, etc), because that type of ripple effect does matter.  Being able to trade discussions and offer minority/non-typical lived in experiences and perspectives and sundry, and have that have an actual affect on others, to actually be heard, is a really beautiful and important thing in my eyes.  

I wanted to quote this for emphasis, because this is completely how I feel.  The fact that the devs are brave enough to come out and speak to us, especially on issues most other AAA companies won't even touch, is nothing short of amazing to me.  

[Shadow Fox]

Merrill's was innocent, but then it was supposed to be the innocent love story of that game. 

IDK her friendship romance kinda felt like enabling an addict to me.

[Ryzaki]

IDK her friendship romance kinda felt like enabling an addict to me.

 

Enabling on friendship and that awful fights about said addiction on rivalry. She at least got better though. But bumpy ride.

 

I actually would've liked a completely mutually destructive rivalrymance. Anders was close but Hawke stayed mostly in place during it. Sort of how Hawke if rival says his and Aveline's romance would've gone down.

"I suppose it would've been like Wardens think of blights." "I don't like where this is going." "It becomes their reason for living...but maker the carnage."

[Shadow Fox]

Enabling on friendship and that awful fights about said addiction on rivalry. She at least got better though. But bumpy ride.

 

I actually would've liked a completely mutually destructive rivalrymance. Anders was close but Hawke stayed mostly in place during it. Sort of how Hawke if rival says his and Aveline's romance would've gone down.

"I suppose it would've been like Wardens think of blights." "I don't like where this is going." "It becomes their reason for living...but maker the carnage."

That's probably why I liked Fenris' romance the most.

 

He breaks it off when he realizes he's not ready/stable enough for a relationship rather then drag his girlfriend down with him through an unhealthy and potentially dangerous relationship.

[Deviija]

I liked the idea that sometimes being too much of a yes-friend or doing what you think may please someone is not necessarily the *right* thing.  Which is what Merrill's relationship was trying to do, I think.  I'm unsure if it worked out precisely as well as possible with Merrill's choices.  I'd like to see more of that kind of thinking when it comes to relationships, however.  Sometimes romance/friendship isn't about just saying constant streams of sweet things and agreeing with everything they say or do.  

 

Mutually destructive paths for a PC and LI to walk down together sounds like it has some good potential to be different, with some tragic and dramatic ends.  I tend to play renegades/"evil" (as much as can be in BW games) types, as it is often my first go-to roleplay character archetype, so (as a poor example) something like where Anders reveals his plans or you discover his plans for blowing up the Chantry, but then get a choice of, "I'm in!  Let's be destructive terrorists together!" could be interesting.  

[Lady Nuggins]

Have you personally experienced any of the NPC romances or friendships?  Did you think it was equal to the relationships with party members?  If so, why?  I've been thinking that perhaps if someone could explain an example of a NPC romance meaning as much to them as one from a party member, I could get more open minded about this.   

 

I can articulate why they aren't as important to me, and why I think it's almost a waste to have them in the game.  I'm not even saying "Make the NPC romances automatically bisexual in my party," I'm saying, "Why have NPC romances at all?"  I'd be happier if they were in my party and not available (like Aveline and Varric) versus having them as a NPC romance.  Not "put 'em in my party, keep them as LIs and make them bisexual."  

 

 If you (or someone) is really a fan of NPC romances, can you please articulate why?   I'm more than happy to listen, if someone can try to explain this to me. Simply saying, "Well, some people just like them" isn't much of an answer to me.  Why do those folks like them?

 

Well I can tell you why I really loved Steve Cortez in ME3.  I'm pretty sure you've said you haven't played ME, but I'll try to explain what particularly appealed to me about that setup.  Also I want to state that I am not necessarily all for NPC romances in general, and I completely understand the concerns everyone has about them, but this is one example where I think it (mostly) worked.

 

Steve Cortez is your shuttle pilot.  That means that he cannot come out with you on missions, because his job is to actually get you to and from the mission location.  This is a job that he takes very seriously.  As he explains it, no matter how good of a soldier you are, you can still get shot out of the sky if you don't have a good pilot to get you on the ground.  There are several occasions throughout the game when Steve gets to literally swoop in to save you from a bad situation. When he's not chauffeuring you around, he's your acquisitions officer and is in charge of the armory.  That means that he is in charge of the very equipment that is going to keep his boyfriend alive.  

 

Whether you interact with Steve as a friend or a romance, your relationship with him is deeply personal almost from the beginning, when you find him mourning the death of his husband.  He is an openly emotional person, and so every conversation with him feels very warm and personal.  And yet, he's completely a soldier.  He never hesitates about stepping into danger, and he never expresses doubt about Shepard doing it either.  He has complete confidence that when you leave the shuttle without him, you're going to come back in one piece.

 

So what you have is this romance where someone always has your back, is giving you all the support you need, gives you a little pep talk before every mission, and is always waiting to fly in and get you to safety at a moment's notice.  It's a unique dynamic that would not have been the same if Cortez were a party member.  

 

Now, that's not to say that this romance didn't suffer from lack of content.  But that was due to failure on the part of the devs, not just because it was an NPC romance.  It wasn't the missions that his absence was felt, but places where an NPC could have had just as much presence and dialogue if they'd bothered to add it (and I've heard that the NPC romances were added late in development, so I suppose there were limitations).  So no, it wasn't perfect by any means, but it absolutely had the potential to be fantastic with just a little more effort, and I think it's entirely possible for Bioware to get it right next time.

[rapscallioness]

*snip*

Honestly, Allan, I don;t think anyone expects all of the Followers to be LI's. They never have been. So, that's not new.

 

As far as the Witcher Card Effect, don't undersell your fans, or yourselves. The fans that appreciate the romance content care very much for these characters. The fans care very much abt the characters in general. Love them, or hate them, the fans care. They are not approaching it like the Witcher Cards. BW romances are on a whole 'nother level. Which of course speaks to the great job you all do in implementing these romance arcs. So, don't undersell yourselves, either. In my mind, there is no comparison between BW romances and the Witcher Cards. I understand that he prolly means that he does not want them to become like the Witcher Cards, but I don't think that's something you really need to worry abt.

 

I know you all want to make the romances quality content. And that sounds awesome to me! And therein lies the rub. I want to experience this quality content. Yet, I feel as though my opportunities to do so are becoming more closed off. This is coming from the perspective of a straight female to whom the idea of just rolling a male PC to experience a character romance is not the same at all. Just as I imagine that to a gay man, just rolling a female PC to experience a character romance is not quite the same.

 

No, the romances are in no way critical to the main story, but many things are not critical. Armor customization is not critical to the main story. Exploring the various caves and dungeons is not critical. PC customization is not critical to the main story. But all these things add up to sum weight and importance in the overall enjoyment of a game. For me, games are not experienced as crit path and everything else. For me the experience is all one thing.

 

Now, I certainly don;t expect, nor do I want you all to bust the budget on the romances--I'm in it for the action/adventure; mystery; and smashing things, too. I just want my little half measure full of Choice in regards to this side, non-critical content. I don't want you all to put a great deal of effort into something that is not critical to the story. I just want the opportunity to experience the content into which you all did put the effort.

 

I think alot of the concern simply comes from the fact that we just don't know what you all are doing, or where you all are going with this. As best anyone can figure right now, it's not 4 bisexual npc's vs. 2/2/2--for example. From what I'm seeing, most ppl are thinking it will be more like 2 npcs and then 2/2 for the actual Companions. Which for me would mean there's a good chance I would have one Companion LI choice. Unless I want to roll a male PC, or I swing the other way.

[Allan Schumacher]

As far as the Witcher Card Effect, don't undersell your fans, or yourselves. The fans that appreciate the romance content care very much for these characters. The fans care very much abt the characters in general. Love them, or hate them, the fans care. They are not approaching it like the Witcher Cards. BW romances are on a whole 'nother level. Which of course speaks to the great job you all do in implementing these romance arcs. So, don't undersell yourselves, either. In my mind, there is no comparison between BW romances and the Witcher Cards. I understand that he prolly means that he does not want them to become like the Witcher Cards, but I don't think that's something you really need to worry abt.

 

I've been giving it a bit of thought, and while the comparison to the cards may not be perfect, it does highlight my own personal challenges and mental hurdles I know I must overcome myself.  Now it's easy to conclude "well at least you're not a writer, so it's not your problem" but that does undermine a bit of the collaborative effort.  If something makes me feel off, I do share that with people like Mike and Mark.

 

 

I suppose there's a context clarification required here, and I'm saying this on the assumption that it's oh so painfully clear that I am speaking on my behalf and under the assumption that people appreciate a degree of transparency and honesty with me.  Though I won't be surprised, and even expect, that some people will find my position simply unacceptable and will probably not be something they consider valid. 

 

Even though I'm not a writer, it genuinely hurts, if just a little bit, to see people conclude that Solas/Beardy/Cassandra doesn't interest them because they're ugly and they don't want to romance them.  It actually frustrates me to see people get very upset because Varric couldn't be romanced because, to me, Varric offered so much more than just a romance (Varric and Isabela are my two favourite characters from DA2, and are a source of pride that I am affiliated with a game that provides two characters that are, to me, so fantastic.  Honorable mention to Aveline who is also flipping amazing to me).
 

I have my own bias.  Romance content has never been particularly vital for me.  As a straight male I was literally teased by peers for not finding the simple act of lesbian sex sexually arousing (it was a non-issue for me.  Two women was as attractive to me as two men).  So intrinsically I had heavy resistance to any sort of character that I felt was added simply to exploit male lesbian fantasies.  You can actively see me deny that Juhani could even be romantically attracted to a woman Revan (note: Link contains questionable language in the text I quote).  In there you can see both my jadedness towards the idea of heterosexual attraction to lesbians, as well as my inherent blindness that a lesbian might actually prefer that and inadvertently, I was seeking to erase that content.  This spilled over into, for a bit, me being somewhat outspoken against romance in games.  In summary, I felt that objectification of characters was a serious enough issue and it made me feel super uncomfortable.  For the most part I've grown up and the various ideas of being a "true gamer" and what is considered "acceptable content" varies from person to person.  I doesn't bother me if someone loves our game only for the characters... that's fine and hey if the game we deliver does that well enough for you, then that's a success.  Especially since I think our characters are typically the strongest parts of our games (it's what I love!).

 

 

So to my point: it actually makes me feel uncomfortable to make someone romanceable solely because someone wants to romance them - this discomfort is accented when I see people dismiss characters because they aren't attractive enough to be romanceable.  It's a position that I struggle to relate to as it's not something that is in alignment with how I gauge attraction.  That's not to say that I think that romance content is worthless.  I think that romance, by its nature, amps up the potential investment.  I liked learning about Isabela's romance content.  Even though Anders in general wasn't my favourite companion, I appreciate that being in a romance makes his actions leading into Act 3 all the more impactful.  I've seen people say how they absolutely love his romance because of how emotionally powerful it is during that scene.  Same with Isabela when dealing with the Arishok.

 

 

I'm at a point where I think that the availability of choice in the romances is absolutely important.  Unequivocally so.  This is because, now that I've grown a bit and learned some perspective: it is easy for me to appreciate that it's a raw deal to have no choice.  Doubly so if you have to deal with nonsense like "well be happy you even got anything!"  I think a part of that choice also lends itself to the meaningfulness of the relationship.  Ideally the quality and quantity of romance content between the various romances has to have some level of parity.  Otherwise we implicitly send messages, and often those messages end up coming across as "the same people that have to deal with the scraps have to continue getting the scraps."

 

If people were to say to me "We need to make Companion X romanceable because people want to romance that I " it feels squicky to me (to use a term I recently learned).  I do not feel comfortable, at all, with the idea of making someone an available love interest simply because someone wants to romance them.  Maybe that's not fair.  It's probably not even rational.  But that is the type of hurdle I have to deal with because I'm well aware that it's actually pretty easy for me to unconsciously objectify a person (especially a woman, in my own experience).  Being more aware of it helps me catch myself, but I am hypersensitive to it.  I ran into the same issue many have with DA2, where initially I had resistance to the characters all being bisexual.  Fortunately I was able to recognize "It provides a fair distribution" which stops my brain from going off and doing its own thing.  It helps me go "okay, I think this is respectful and not objectifying."  It no longer bothers me and I realize that many of my initial concerns weren't really valid.  Maybe this is still the case with the oft discussed 2/2/2.  Maybe I just need to realize "okay I'm being silly."  But my brain still trips up in other places, and it's a constant challenge to dissect how something makes me feel (and even more challenging... why).

 

 

With the way my mind and my thoughts work, if someone is okay with Solas not being romanceable in a hypothetical Cullen/Scribe/Sera/DMHG bisexual romance situation, but they get upset if Solas is available in a 2/2/2, my brain still reads it as: "I'm upset because I want to romance a character, but I can't."  And while I can understand the perception that because others can romance that character, it feels "oh so close," I still mentally trip up and have a hard time seeing it as something other than "I'm upset because I want to romance a character, but I can't."  And I struggle, probably because of my own biases, for why it'd be okay to not romance Solas in the hypothetical 4 bisexual, but suddenly it's not okay once it's 2/2/2.  It strikes me as one of those very complicated "How do I ascertain when one person benefiting is just another person suffering?"  For any particular gender there's still two homosexual and two heterosexual pairings.  Bisexuals still have access to 4 love interests in both systems.  So I start to experience an uncomfortable amount of of very challenging cognitive dissonance because when all the quantity of choice is made equivalent and no group (save bisexuals - since I think they'll always benefit the most) is advantaged over the other, I feel a strong resistance to the idea of making a character romanceable simply because someone wants to romance that character. 

 

My anxiety starts to kick into overdrive as I constantly question: "Is it acceptable to make a character romanceable simply because someone wants to romance them?"  I mean, I have mental hurdles simply ADDING romantic content of ANY kind.  I'm not even a writer, but I wonder (in large part because of personal experience) "is this actually interesting and respectful, or are we just doing what everyone else does and making romance content to be consumed because people want to do all sort of things (sexual or otherwise) with the characters.  While I love, love, LOVE their characters as is, I'm not sure if it's a coincidence that two of my favourite DA2 characters are Varric and Aveline.  But one potential advantage I saw (and maybe believe in, maybe not.  Mostly just confused....) in terms of fairness was representation.  So now my brain overthinks: "Is it worth undermining what that large group from PAX indicated me, by making Steve and Samantha bisexual?"

 

There's a whole host of other overthinking aspects (hello 2:20 AM!): 

 

"Is this just negotiating when they say representation is fine with non-romanceable NPCs?  Do they feel that way because it's less important to them?  Is it worth appealing to those that want all bisexual over those that feel the representation is important to them?  How different is it than me saying I'm okay giving up heterosexual (or even ALL) romances because I prefer other type of character content?"

"If they are given 4 options, just like DA2 did, what does it mean when people say that they're okay with the character not being romanceable by anyone, but it makes them upset if they're romanceable by some people."

"What reasons are there for adding romance content?  Why is romance content added!?  I know why some value it so much (LGBTQ expression).  I think some just happen to really like it because it makes it more personal. Can the content be done in a different way that is less controversial and heated!? [now you know why I posed the question earlier...]"

 

 

So in that sense, I guess "Yay that Allan isn't a writer?"  I think I'd need to become mentally stronger anyways, because even with some degrees of separation from actually creating the characters (both in art as well as in writing), I know it can feel like an emotional rollercoaster when I see people assuming the worst based off a short blurb or dismissing a potential love interest simply because they aren't physically attractive enough.  Or just not interact I guess.  But I have my favourite characters and it's sucky to see people dismiss them as unworthy for a variety of reasons simply at a superficial reveal, even if it's unfair of me to expect otherwise since none of you have much of the context that I have.

 

 

But yes, on a personal level romance content is something tricky for me because I'm always self-doubting whether my assessment is correct and while I can recognize the fairness of choice and amount of content, I mentally struggle when someone says they'd be okay with not being able to romance a character but ONLY if they cannot be romanced by anyone.  I don't know if I can convince myself that it's increasingly problematic and part of that is because I know that it's possible for me to say and do things that are objectifying without even really realizing it.  And if this comes at the cost of valued representation that other people do find, it's just creating mental hurdles because "make this person romanceable for me because I want to romance them" is very awkward for me.  I know that will ****** some people off, but much like telling an anxious person to "just stop thinking about it" isn't that effective, stating "but what you do is better than something like The Witcher cards!!!" is something that my brain trips up on genuinely believing.  Sorry.

 

 

I'm sure I've said something wrong, or misspoke, or just pissed someone off because I wasn't clear in what I was trying to say.  Maybe it's an epiphany I still need to have, but I also think that as long as there are people saying to me "I really appreciate the representation so thank you" it's going to be a challenge.  Apologies in advance if that's the case.  It's against my better judgment to click "Post" but for better or worse, it's 2:40 in the morning and sleep deprivation is impacting my judgment....

[Former_Fiend]

From what I observed after the ME3, I thought the Thane kerfuffle was about Shepard not being able to show sorrow and/or mourning for Thane if he was romanced.  It seems Citadel fixed this, but yeah...>.>

 

That always bothered me, Romance or no. 

 

Thane died, touching moment. Back on the ship, talk to Garrus. "Just thinking about the ones we've lost, like Kaiden/Ashley. Good thing we didn't lose the other one."

 

...Dude, we just lost Thane! Was big for me because, having not played ME1, Thane was much more important to me than Kaiden or Ashley ever were.

[Nightdragon8]

@Allan wow

 

Honestly... I understand where you are coming from but, you have to remember that the people you are dealing with that are Human, and wither or not we want to admit it, most people objectify people, and put them into categories of "Attractive and not attractive". Yes its superficial, shallow and what have you. But thats how some people react. If not all. To one degree or another.

 

Honestly, Cass yea she looks alright, not a supermodel but more of woman next door like or average. Viv, honestly haven't seen a in game picture of her so i really can't give an opinion. As for the others, all there have been is concept art and that is notoriously completely off. Varic looks alright, granted different than DA2, which was hard to get used to but i came around and he looks alright. Morigan looks fine, different than DA:O but well that was a long time ago and an engine or 2 ago. But she looks alright.

 

As for romance in games in general, I like it, it gives a level of interest for me. As a fan of Japanese Visual Novels, i like the romance in them (sometimes) and have grown used to it.

 

Is it a deciding factor in me buying and playing a game? Not really. I have plenty of games with no romance in them. Does it help sell a game for me.. maybe but, it may tip the balance if i'm on the fence for the game but, generally no. I mean I didn't buy the witcher 2 because of the sex scenes, If i just wanted that, then there is always a site somewhere where they show those kinds of scenes. I played the witcher 2 cause of the story. Which, it does a decent job doing.

 

Now about Varic... he clearly stated that, he "Wasn't into humans" I'm fine with him being romancable buy Drawves only, and considering that only comes up for FHawke, would indicate that he is hetro, thus I have 0 issues with him being only romanceable buy female Drawves. Granted his 'tastes' could have changed over the years, so BW could change it.

 

After playing DA2 multiple times, the whole "playersexual" thing... I understand why it was there, but i dunno it felt artificial to me, which is really my reason for disliking it. I honestly really can't explain it but thats how i felt about it. My only real objection was the way Anders was at pretty much the start of the game. I mean first he broken up because of Karl then the next moment wanting to jump in my pants, i know some people react that way with greif its just still, disconcerting. Now if thats what the writers where going for then ok, however i get the feeling that it wasn't so there you have that.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Honestly, Cass yea she looks alright, not a supermodel but more of woman next door like or average. Viv, honestly haven't seen a in game picture of her so i really can't give an opinion. As for the others, all there have been is concept art and that is notoriously completely off. Varic looks alright, granted different than DA2, which was hard to get used to but i came around and he looks alright. Morigan looks fine, different than DA:O but well that was a long time ago and an engine or 2 ago. But she looks alright.

Here you go:

Spoiler

[Nika]

Concerning the entire 2/2/2 vs everyone bi debate, I can't help but think of something that Anders says in DA2. I don't remember the exact wording, but it's along the lines of "I believe that we fall in love with a whole person, and not just a body". So instead of saying "but OMG they're all bi, how unrealistic", you might as well say they simply found the right person, whichever gender they may be.

 

Personally, I also believe that you can't say that someone definitely will only love people of one gender for the rest of their lives. Friend of mine absolutely hated women for most of his live, bad experience with female bullying, terrible mother and stuff like that. He had gay relationships, really good ones because you could see they really cared for each other. But now he's been together with a women for years, and not because he suddenly woke up one morning thinking "oh nevermind, I like breasts better after all" but because he found a person he fell in love with, someone special.

Probably an extreme example, but it happens the other way around as well.

 

I hope I expressed this well, english is not my first language so it was kinda hard to write down. I mean no offence, I just think that love is more about the person itself than the looks/gender or whatever!

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Concerning the entire 2/2/2 vs everyone bi debate, I can't help but think of something that Anders says in DA2. I don't remember the exact wording, but it's along the lines of "I believe that we fall in love with a whole person, and not just a body". So instead of saying "but OMG they're all bi, how unrealistic", you might as well say they simply found the right person, whichever gender they may be.

 

Personally, I also believe that you can't say that someone definitely will only love people of one gender for the rest of their lives. Friend of mine absolutely hated women for most of his live, bad experience with female bullying, terrible mother and stuff like that. He had gay relationships, really good ones because you could see they really cared for each other. But now he's been together with a women for years, and not because he suddenly woke up one morning thinking "oh nevermind, I like breasts better after all" but because he found a person he fell in love with, someone special.

Probably an extreme example, but it happens the other way around as well.

 

I hope I expressed this well, english is not my first language so it was kinda hard to write down. I mean no offence, I just think that love is more about the person itself than the looks/gender or whatever!

You did a good job.

[KainD]

Personally, I also believe that you can't say that someone definitely will only love people of one gender for the rest of their lives.

 

But I can definitely say what gender is that person is going to have sex with for the rest of their lives, depending on what their sexuality is. 

 

 

So instead of saying "but OMG they're all bi, how unrealistic", you might as well say they simply found the right person, whichever gender they may be.

 

So if sex is not the main thing, how about we have one sexual relationship and one asexual relationship with the same person, depending on the players gender? 

[Mes]

Concerning the entire 2/2/2 vs everyone bi debate, I can't help but think of something that Anders says in DA2. I don't remember the exact wording, but it's along the lines of "I believe that we fall in love with a whole person, and not just a body". So instead of saying "but OMG they're all bi, how unrealistic", you might as well say they simply found the right person, whichever gender they may be.

 

Personally, I also believe that you can't say that someone definitely will only love people of one gender for the rest of their lives. Friend of mine absolutely hated women for most of his live, bad experience with female bullying, terrible mother and stuff like that. He had gay relationships, really good ones because you could see they really cared for each other. But now he's been together with a women for years, and not because he suddenly woke up one morning thinking "oh nevermind, I like breasts better after all" but because he found a person he fell in love with, someone special.

Probably an extreme example, but it happens the other way around as well.

 

I hope I expressed this well, english is not my first language so it was kinda hard to write down. I mean no offence, I just think that love is more about the person itself than the looks/gender or whatever!

 

Oh, totally. Totally agreed. It's something I've learned about myself as well (very, very gradually) over the years. 

 

That's why in my perfect game we would have technically a 2/2/2  sexuality split, BUT a straight man could still fall for your male PC, or a gay man could fall for your female PC, etc etc. Under very rare and difficult to come by circumstances, but it could still feasibly happen. 

[Mes]

But I can definitely say what gender is that person is going to have sex with for the rest of their lives, depending on what their sexuality is. 

 

 

You really don't know the power a glass of wine and the right mood setting can have, do you. 

[KainD]

You really don't know the power a glass of wine and the right mood setting can have, do you. 

 

There are certain things a person just can't control, like blinking when eyes are in danger. Getting turned on is one of those things, and it requires a specific gender, at least for me. 

[Nika]

There are certain things a person just can't control, like blinking when eyes are in danger. Getting turned on is one of those things, and it requires a specific gender, at least for me. 

Well, everyone sees those things differently. And I'm not talking about being tuned on, if you want to get turned on you might as well visit certain sites on the internet. I was talking about loving someone in a romantic way.

[Mes]

There are certain things a person just can't control, like blinking when eyes are in danger. Getting turned on is one of those things, and it requires a specific gender, at least for me. 

 

That's debatable, I think. My straight male friend had a psychologist basically tell him that his body would respond whether he was touched in the right places by a man or a woman.

 

Not to mention the huge tie between emotions such as embarrassment/humiliation to our sexual organs. We don't even need to always feel turned on to be turned on, if that makes sense.

 

That's not to say that every straight person will have one experience where they feel attracted to the same sex, or every gay person will have at least one instance of being attracted to the opposite sex. It's just that I genuinely think our sexualities are way more fluid that we realize.

[KainD]

Well, everyone sees those things differently. And I'm not talking about being tuned on, if you want to get turned on you might as well visit certain sites on the internet. I was talking about loving someone in a romantic way.

 

And I was talking about being turned on. I could technically fall in love with anyone, but I can have sex only with a specific gender. Hence: 

 

 

So if sex is not the main thing, how about we have one sexual relationship and one asexual relationship with the same person, depending on the players gender? 

[Sequin]

Cass is a beautiful woman.

That's literally all I came in here to say this morning.

You may now continue your discussion.

[KainD]

That's debatable, I think. My straight male friend had a psychologist basically tell him that his body would respond whether he was touched in the right places by a man or a woman.

 

Not to mention the huge tie between emotions such as embarrassment/humiliation to our sexual organs. We don't even need to always feel turned on to be turned on, if that makes sense.

 

That's not to say that every straight person will have one experience where they feel attracted to the same sex, or every gay person will have at least one instance of being attracted to the opposite sex. It's just that I genuinely think our sexualities are way more fluid that we realize.

 

Body will respond to physical contact, however there won't be much pleasure involved or climax. Basically imagine for example a gentle and sensual rape ( is that the right word for this? ), where the person that you are not interested in would try their best to satisfy you. There is just a barrier that you can't really pass to enjoy the act. 

[Nightdragon8]

Here you go:

Spoiler

I rather have a good lighting not some shadowy dark pic. Honestly Lighting can seriously effect the way 3d models, look, i mean case and point, ME3, the model for Allers was decent however the lighting made her cheeks look bigger than they are. So I rather have better lighting than this to make a decision on, Tho I have to say, the hat? hair? "Must be an Orlisian thing"

[Ryzaki]

Edit: Mes has a much better non gross example *

Modifié par Ryzaki, 13 mai 2014 - 10:46 .

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I rather have a good lighting not some shadowy dark pic. Honestly Lighting can seriously effect the way 3d models, look, i mean case and point, ME3, the model for Allers was decent however the lighting made her cheeks look bigger than they are. So I rather have better lighting than this to make a decision on, Tho I have to say, the hat? hair? "Must be an Orlisian thing"

But at least now you have ingame versions of them to at least get a good estimate.