Has a writer directly come out and explained how set sexuality like this "flesh out" a companion more yet? I know Allen has offered his thoughts on the subject, but he isn't one of the writers of the series. I respect his views, but I'm still puzzled even after a couple of months now. However, the reasoning used by the DA team is just odd to me. I still wish I could ask them in person how does a character's sexuality fleshes them out more? Is it because it's truer to life to have set sexuality than just an ambiguous system?
If it's for representation I understand and support it, so I'm fine with set sexuality for those reasons. I just don't know how (for example) Sera's sexuality defines her as a more rounded character, and I'm not sure how it would. So she likes girls...okay...and?? Is there anything else that her sexuality add to her character, or is that it? I'm not trying to come down on the writers, but I really hope that this is clarified further before the game comes out.
Sorry if someone has already said this. I'm playing catchup. I think what they mean is the by not having the LIs be basically playersexual, bringing in the possibility of the hero being rejected in a romantic sense, makes not just the LI, but the protagonist feel more real. I know, "no reality in my fantasy", but do we really want everything to go perfectly for the protagonist? How boring would the story be if we knew that the hero will always get what they want? Yeah there is the combat and that you could die during it and that your choices would get others killed, but that's all life and death stuff. Adding set sexualities to the character gives them more believability as a living, breathing person. Maybe it affects how you approach that person from that moment on. Maybe it changes nothing for you. But maybe, and here is the important bit, you start to see them as more than just pixels in a video game catering to your hero. It's not just the set sexuality that does that. I'm not saying that at all. If I have read right, you can end up losing your followers because they just don't agree with what you are doing. Every piece adds a new layer and since romance is part of the game, why should that be different? Do we want a bunch of yes men all secretly pining for us or do we want characters that think for themselves and have their own lives outside of being in our party? So many are upset about Sera's set sexuality, but we are forgetting a major component of a true Romance element, personality. Sure you may find her the most attractive, but her personality in game could end up making you want to throw her at a dragon. While Cassandra on the other hand, may make you laugh, have your back, and pick you up when you are down. I point to Garrus in ME. Judging by his appearance only, you would think, like they did, "no one will want to romance a dinosaur", but his personality changed that. Female fans fell in love with his voice, his character, everything. Garrus is my favorite romance because he is the only one who asks about my spacer mother, the only one that doesn't just dump his crap on me, but also asks how I am holding, forces my Shepard out of her comfort zone by dancing the tango. Kaidan may be the more physically appealing, but think of the things he did and said. While the set sexualities may seem like a bad thing to some, think of it like this, you might be missing someone better because you were focused on the physical. Our sexuality is a part of who we are. Not all of us, but a part and does, at times, alter how people look at us. Any way that is how I see this "fleshing out" a character. It adds another layer to the onion.
Ce sujet est fermé
. and i also saw somewhere (in this trhead or the other one) that Fenris´s romance was supposedly written with a male hawke in mind? for myself i liked the female romance more with him but that´s just me...
Retour en haut
cool 
, better play a male char in jade empire then, to try it out 
