12496 réponses à ce sujet

[CuriousArtemis]

He's just hurting himself by playing into stereotypes. 

 

Well I didn't say he was particularly clever!  

[Melca36]

I had a male Hawke manage to bed pretty much every single person.

 

I had a Hawke like that. I figured he did that in Lothering too because it got boring there.  

[jlb524]

My Lavellan just stabbed you

 

Imma just fall into this magic mirror behind me...

 

Good luck next time!

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

If I were a bi person I could see how "playersexual" might offend me. But from a writer's standpoint, all my characters are pretty much "playersexual," or, "whatever-I-want-you-to-be-sexual." Playersexual meant the player could envision Merril as gay, straight, bi, pan, asexual, whatever. I think it was quite nice, really.

As a openly bisexual person, the player-sexual term doesn't offend me. It just bothers me when people use it as a excuse to say "bi companions are unrealistic", that bi characters need to sleep around to be "realistically bisexual" or even deny that bisexuality is a real sexuality

[Mockingword]

Honestly, I think people get far too hung up on the labels.

 

It's not enough for the character to simply be available to both genders, everybody has to know "BUT HOW DOES HE/SHE IDENTIFY"?

 

I feel just as represented by bisexuals or pansexuals as I do by characters that are just "gay". Any character that experiences same-sex attraction of any kind, I can find representation in.

 

I will never understand the need of some people to neatly compartmentalize everything.

[JadePrince]

Let me just put out there that the reason I'd like to see more bisexual LIs is NOT so I can 'bed them' all in one playthrough. It's not about 'collecting' LIs for me. It's about being about to chose ONE (not being forced into a romance because it's my only option) and then, maybe, shockingly, being able to replay the game and play through a SECOND possible romance without having to reroll a PC of a different gender/sexuality. 

 

I know some folks don't see a distinction between playersexual and bisexual, but for me, the biggest difference is: Hey you know that guy in my party? I didn't choose to romance him, but WOW turns out he's still bisexual anyway! Canonly! And me and my LI aren't the only gays in the village! Neat!

 

EDIT: To clarify, if a companion is 'playersexual', let's be honest-- what this really means is that if you aren't romancing them, 9 times out of 10, they're gonna either default to straight/hetero relationships (aka Fenris/Isabela), or the majority of players are just gonna assume they're straight by virtue of there being no evidence that they aren't.

[aTigerslunch]

Wow, gone for a few and already missed alot here.

Melca, yeah I feel its a state of mind. My sis that is eleven months younger than me says she feels like she is 90 alot of times.

Yeah, sorry I should use player sexual than bi except with Isabella and maybe Fenris though.

The replay value should also be considered outside romance part of story though too.

[Mockingword]

You have to start with Isabela/Fenris, progress through both Anders and Merrill in either order, and end on Isabela/Fenris... I think

Actually, it has to be Fenris first, and sleeping with anyone else before or after him just ends his romance without warning.

[Fiery Phoenix]

As a openly bisexual person, the player-sexual term doesn't offend me. It just bothers me when people use it as a excuse to say "bi companions are unrealistic", that bi characters need to sleep around to be "realistically bisexual" or even deny that bisexuality is a real sexuality

I think playersexual is technically the more accurate term when we have no real indication of whether a character is in fact bisexual. I can see how it might sound offending to some, but I really just can't think of those types of romances as truly bisexual. I believe even Gaider has stated as much, saying he never meant for them to be considered bisexual.

[aTigerslunch]

Ok, so call them player sexual or bi then from DA2?

I may have had it backwards. But in my games since they were left open to interpretation, I'd changed theirs to different sexualities.

I guess this is one of those type of subjects that it could be difficult not to offend someone.

[CuriousArtemis]

As a openly bisexual person, the player-sexual term doesn't offend me. It just bothers me when people use it as a excuse to say "bi companions are unrealistic", that bi characters need to sleep around to be "realistically bisexual" or even deny that bisexuality is a real sexuality

 

Yeah that's all straight-up bullsh!t, I agree.

[WildOrchid]

Oh, "Lady Trevelyan" is such a fancy title.  I wonder if family names will be used in this manner?

 

The elf Inquisitor can be "Lavellan the Knife Ear"!

 

I hope so. Lady Trevelyan sounds so good.

[Allan Schumacher]

Well.

 

I disagree with those people. Politely.

 

 

Interesting.

 

Could you elaborate?

 

 

My understanding is that bisexual people (at least those that were upset) have a history of dealing with judgment of their bisexuality meaning "they haven't picked a side yet" or, worse yet, that they are being "greedy" or a host of other pejoratives.

 

By making them ambiguous, and hence open to interpretation, it comes across as more of the same: these characters aren't truly bisexual but rather simply picking a side when Hawke comes around.

 

I actually don't entirely agree with the feelings of being outraged, but I also acknowledge that I don't care about romance content as much, nor do I have issues with representation or having my sexual orientation dismissed/erased.  The idea of representation, however, is something I feel I can empathize with and understand reasonably more.  It's easy for me to imagine "I bet I'd be disappointed if my orientation almost never came up... especially in a positive way." 

 

I wasn't always this way, but part of it was also a squicky feeling of people that feel that is able to insulate themselves from different orientations because I think being presented with positive examples of different people has a positive socializing effect.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I actually considered it a positive for myself which is in part why I now feel this way too.  Though that's my own bias which undoubtedly won't apply for everyone.

[CuriousArtemis]

EDIT: To clarify, if a companion is 'playersexual', let's be honest-- what this really means is that if you aren't romancing them, 9 times out of 10, they're gonna either default to straight/hetero relationships (aka Fenris/Isabela), or the majority of players are just gonna assume they're straight by virtue of there being no evidence that they aren't.

 

I never thought about this, but it's true Except with Isabela because she hits on a female Hawke.

 

Non-romanced Fenris will f*** Isabela (that's all it is, really).

 

Non-romanced Merrill makes comments about male qunari.

 

Non-romanced Anders canonically likes women (from DA:A).

[Ianamus]

The term "playersexual" doesn't bother me at all, but having most of the companions be ambiguous did bother me. As does that fact that people seemingly want that awful element to return.

 

I don't like the implication that the bisexual characters should hide their attraction to the other gender when in a relationship with the player in case it makes them feel uncomfortable. It reminds me of all the people who moaned about Zevran stating that he prefers women sexually.

 

Bisexual people do often have preferences and there shouldn't be a problem with bringing them up with their partner, or pointing out people they find attractive and talking about their sexuality. They shouldn't have to "play ambiguous" so that the player can pretend they are straight or gay if they want to. 

[Mockingword]

It's not "hidden" just because they choose not to mention it.

 

Have you considered that your partner's sexual identity might just not be your business?

[BubbleDncr]

It's not "hidden" just because they choose not to mention it.

 

Have you considered that your partner's sexual identity might just not be your business?

 

I actually think that it is my business. If my partner has a sexual identity they're keeping from me, it's because they don't feel comfortable being completely open with me. Which is a problem in a relationship.

[CuriousArtemis]

I don't like the implication that the bisexual characters should hide their attraction to the other gender when in a relationship with the player in case it makes them feel uncomfortable. It reminds me of all the people who moaned about Zevran stating that he prefers women sexually.

 

 

I've romanced Zev twice with a male Warden, and it just seemed to me like he was saying the Crows "turned" him bi. That's what really turned me off, but I may have misread the dialogue there.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Anders and Isabela both made it pretty clear in my playthrough that they were attracted to both men and women. I realize Anders is more of a problem when you're playing a female. But doesn't having some characters as defined bisexuals equate to representation? I don't understand why every character needs to have a very defined sexuality in order for bisexuals to feel like their sexuality is not being erased. The game made it pretty clear, I thought, that bisexuals do exist. Defined sexualities could also be represented more in non-romance related characters, which continues to be an option that seems to get ignored.  

[Allan Schumacher]

I actually think that it is my business. If my partner has a sexual identity they're keeping from me, it's because they don't feel comfortable being completely open with me. Which is a problem in a relationship.

 

What if they aren't keeping it from you, but rather just didn't think it'd be important?

[Brose]

 EDIT

[Allan Schumacher]

I think playersexual is technically the more accurate term when we have no real indication of whether a character is in fact bisexual. I can see how it might sound offending to some, but I really just can't think of those types of romances as truly bisexual.

 

And I can totally understand that if I were bisexual, you telling me that I'm not "truly bisexual" because you've no indication that I am in fact bisexual is a hugely problematic thing for me.  It is precisely why I decided to refer to the DA2 companions bisexual.

 

I guess it's safe to say that I identify more strongly with the idea "because they don't say it, doesn't mean they aren't" than the idea "because it's not made obvious, I am free to assume what I want."

[CuriousArtemis]

I feel that sexual (and romantic) orientations are one of the many things that shape the uniqueness and depth of characters.

 

I just really disagree with this I don't think a character's sexuality has anything whatsoever to do with his depth as a character. It can be used as a plot device... for example, if you're write a gay character in 1870s London, being gay is going to affect him in a variety of ways. But it's not going to affect his personality (unless, say, he was abused by his parents for being gay and developed into a cold, hard individual who rejects love, etc.). I could write that same character and make him straight or bi, and he's still the same character, just living under different circumstances.

 

And Thedas isn't 1870s London, so sexuality matters even less in terms of how it shapes the character's individual narrative.

[CuriousArtemis]

And I can totally understand that if I were bisexual, you telling me that I'm not "truly bisexual" because you've no indication that I am in fact bisexual is a hugely problematic thing for me. 

 

Allan... you're not a video game character lol And s/he didn't tell you that.