12496 réponses à ce sujet

[Hanako Ikezawa]

You mean like Aveline?

 

I don't think most here are opposed to what you say here.  I wouldn't mind if a romance goes bad b/c you do something the other doesn't agree with.

 

What myself and some others don't like is not even having the chance to pursue a romance path based on your gender choice before the game even starts.

Exactly. Using Cassandra again as an example, if she breaks off any romance because my Inquisitor becomes a blood mage, that would be great. But if she broke it off because I was the wrong gender, not so much. 

[Tommy6860]

I am not sure I agree with this.  The idea that Anders, who can freely be in a relationship with a man or a woman in DA2, is a militant gay activist comes across as unnecessary and almost inflammatory.

 

Could you explain yourself a bit more, because I met a lot of women at PAX that really loved their Anders romance arcs through DA2.

 

Well, there was no romance option in DAA, so my imagination had to make the impression that Anders felt he could express himself in an area (Kirkwall) where he wouldn't be persecuted for his sexual orientation as I played DA2, though no revelation of his SO was made in DAA.. Having said that, I do think the romance quests in DA2 was not well thought out, but that is me as I personally didn't care for the game.

[DaySeeker]

I'd like to be able to flirt with whatever character I choose and they can respond however they choose.  That seems more in line to me.  

[Ryzaki]

Exactly. Using Cassandra again as an example, if she breaks off any romance because my Inquisitor becomes a blood mage, that would be great. But if she broke it off because I was the wrong gender, not so much. 

 

Yes I would adore if the romances dumped you for doing stuff they strongly disagreed with. That would be far truer to characterization than any gender gate could ever be.

 

Edit: Also agreed DaySeeker. I'd love to be able to hit on everyone and get hilariously rejected in some ways for a multitude of reasons. But seeing as there's only a handful of LIs to begin with I'd rather my PCs actions in game be what bars/allows the romance. With other NPCs though rejecting my PC because he/she is the wrong gender, species, age works just fine for me.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Exactly. Using Cassandra again as an example, if she breaks off any romance because my Inquisitor becomes a blood mage, that would be great. But if she broke it off because I was the wrong gender, not so much. 

This is exactly how I feel, also.

 

Game choices changing your experience makes the game more interesting. It's like if you found out you couldn't complete an optional quest line you found interesting because you happened to have chosen hairstyle #3. Sure, you could make a new game and choose hairstyle #4, but you'd be changing your character design for basically no added gain except random gating. If the quest wasn't available because you happened to have killed a character earlier in the game, or supported the wrong faction, that could make things more interesting.   

[Shaen Mac Tir]

I'd like to be able to flirt with whatever character I choose and they can respond however they choose.  That seems more in line to me. 

 

Exactly. What I meant is that this "respond" may not always be positive. And that's okay with me.

Game choices changing your experience makes the game more interesting. It's like if you found out you couldn't complete an optional quest line you found interesting because you happened to have chosen hairstyle #3.

 

I can see your point here, you don't want to miss any context in the game based on what you have chosen in the character design, but it is hardly realistic. I mean, if you have chosen to play as a qunari, it would definitely affect your playthough. Or if you have chosen an elf-inquisitor, the plot may vary for you. I just don't see why people are so opposed that the plot (and the romances) might vary for PCs with different genders just as they are for PCs of different races/origins/choices/personalities.

[Darth Krytie]

I feel like I'm the only one who liked that Fenris and Merrill barely (if ever) mentioned their sexuality. It was nice to have bisexual/whateversexual characters without it being such a big freaking deal.

 

I didn't mind it at all. I always have this innate fear that when a character establishes their sexuality, it'll be done in a painfully awkward way.  I don't mind when it comes up in an offhands sort of way like if a character said: I love coming to the market...so many lovely men and women to gaze upon. Instead of some sort of 'confession' type conversation where it's tangled up in some sort of reason. Het people don't have to come up with a reason they're straight, but I think sometimes bi/gay/etc characters have to have that 'moment I realised' speech or 'this is why I'm the way I am' speech or something to 'justify' their sexuality.

 

I much prefer when it just sort of is. It exists because it exists and there's no need to make it a PSA "now you know" type moment.

[Allan Schumacher]

It's the word order, he came out hard- flirting with my gay warden and grieving over a gay lover.  And he was a militant (mage) activist.

 

I did not get close to romancing him when I played as female, so I don't know what that looked like.

 

I suppose that's part of the difficulty with bisexuality?  You seem to have assumed that he's a militant gay activist because his actions told you that he was gay. 

 

Do you still feel that way if he is actually bisexual?  Would it make him a militant bisexual activist?  Or just a militant activist?

[Allan Schumacher]

Hmm, maybe a diversity of writers (or even just ideas) from those who have different sexual orientations is needed, along with collaboration in the writing? Perspective is a wonderful thing.

 

Just to be clear, I am not one of the writers.  But otherwise yes, I think diversity can be advantageous as it can provide perspective.

[oceanicsurvivor]

Exactly. What I meant is that this "respond" may not always be positive. And that's okay with me.

I can see your point here, you don't want to miss any context in the game based on what you have chosen in the character design, but it is hardly realistic. I mean, if you have chosen to play as a qunari, it would definitely affect your playthough. Or if you have chosen an elf-inquisitor, the plot may vary for you. I just don't see why people are so opposed that the plot (and the romances) might vary for PCs with different genders just as they are for PCs of different races/origins/choices/personalities.

 

In the context of Thedas, being an elf is important, being a Qunari is important, gating or creating content based on this makes sense. With very few exceptions, MAYBE royal lineage/marriage stuff from Origins, gender is entirely arbitrary to the goings on of Thedas.

[DaySeeker]

This is exactly how I feel, also.

 

Game choices changing your experience makes the game more interesting. It's like if you found out you couldn't complete an optional quest line you found interesting because you happened to have chosen hairstyle #3. Sure, you could make a new game and choose hairstyle #4, but you'd be changing your character design for basically no added gain except random gating. If the quest wasn't available because you happened to have killed a character earlier in the game, or supported the wrong faction, that could make things more interesting.   

 

It's not quite the same though, is it?  It's not breaking something off if it never began.  It's not random, you chose a sexuality and gender for your character and the writers did the same for the NPC's.  Those were active, thoughtful decisions.

[Tommy6860]

I just mean the availability regardless of gender lol.

 

I know, and I replied in agreement, only on the basis on SO and making it simple. But I actually preferred DA:O's romance line, since it made the romance complex as we humans are IRL. No matter who you'd romance in DA2, if you ultimately chose an LI over another, it was cool by the LI you tuned down and they feel happy for you no matter; that was jarring. In DA:O you were confronted, and you lost friendship and trust over that, that feels more real. Or, you got well wishes with a bit of a loss of friendship. Hell if Morrigan confronted you (for example) and you offered to have a three-way with her with Leliana, you'd be turned down, but she was open enough to give you a chance with her still if you ended it with Leilana. DA2 was too simplistic. But, to keep things even among detractors of one flavor, making it simple is a solution.

 

Hell I may have made thing a bit more complex myself

[Maria Caliban]

Am I the only person who is okay with the possibility a character you're trying to hit on could turn you down?

I'm fine with it. I think tying romance gates to a selection on the character screen is a boring way to do it though.

Because I noticed that the majority of the players don't like that kind of option, when a romance may go sour or you can be dumped. But doesn't it make the whole thing more interesting?

No, not particularly. Morrigan's romance was not 'more interesting' to me than Leliana's even though Morrigan leaves you and Leliana stays.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

It's not quite the same though, is it?  It's not breaking something off if it never began.  It's not random, you chose a sexuality and gender for your character and the writers did the same for the NPC's.  Those were active, thoughtful decisions.

To me, it is basically the same. It doesn't change the story if the gates don't exist. They're not any more substantial in practice. 

 

Game choices changing your experience is a way to make the game feel more interesting. Making it impossible to access content because you chose the wrong option in character creation, to me, is just frustrating. 

[Tommy6860]

Just to be clear, I am not one of the writers.  But otherwise yes, I think diversity can be advantageous as it can provide perspective.

 

I personally do not mind romances and I even enjoy them if they are well written and can be included in the plot states,, but I certainly do not need them to be specific to the main plot of any given game or even included. I understand it is marketing that this aspect is added along. Sometimes, I think it detracts from the game's story and plot states making it more complex than is needed, but, that is me. If they are not relevant to the story or have any effect on it, then romances mostly seem tacked on. Again, that is me.

[Shaen Mac Tir]

In the context of Thedas, being an elf is important, being a Qunari is important, gating or creating content based on this makes sense. With very few exceptions, MAYBE royal lineage/marriage stuff from Origins, gender is entirely arbitrary to the goings on of Thedas.

 

Maybe, but why are you denying the characters to be of a set sexuality like yourself? They are not dolls to be romanced, they are people (or at least the devs try to make them that way).

Moreover, if some context varies or is closed to a specific character, it does contribute to the insterest of the game and makes second and third re-plays more alluring, imho.

[Divine Justinia V]

I know, and I replied in agreement, only on the basis on SO and making it simple. But I actually preferred DA:O's romance line, since it made the romance complex as we humans are IRL. No matter who you'd romance in DA2, if you ultimately chose an LI over another, it was cool by the LI you tuned down and they feel happy for you no matter; that was jarring. In DA:O you were confronted, and you lost friendship and trust over that, that feels more real. Or, you got well wishes with a bit of a loss of friendship. Hell if Morrigan confronted you (for example) and you offered to have a three-way with her with Leliana, you'd be turned down, but she was open enough to give you a chance with her still if you ended it with Leilana. DA2 was too simplistic. But, to keep things even among detractors of one flavor, making it simple is a solution.

 

Hell I may have made thing a bit more complex myself

 

lol I agree with the rest.

 

I just thought you thought I didn't

[Hanako Ikezawa]

To me, it is basically the same. It doesn't change the story if the gates don't exist. They're not any more substantial in practice. 

 

Game choices changing your experience is a way to make the game feel more interesting. Making it impossible to access content because you chose the wrong option in character creation, to me, is just frustrating. 

The only choice that should affect the game in any significant fashion is race, since those are treated drastically different.

[Shaen Mac Tir]

The only choice that should affect the game in any significant fashion

 

I guess it's for the devs to decide what should and what shouldn't affect the game. So far I am pleased with what I see they have done in DAI. Because DA2 seemed flawed to me. But let's just let the game developers do their job, shan't we?

[nightcobra]

The thing about anders, i can't talk on behalf on anyone else but at least for me it felt "weird, almost off-putting" not that he tried to hit on Hawke(male or female), but that he did so right after his lover died. story wise  It could be a few days, weeks even, but in gameplay terms this literally happened in the next 5 minutes. my reaction as a player was "dude, thank you for the compliment but i don't swing that way, more importantly... Karl's not even cold!, don't you need some time to sort things out first?"

 

In me3 i liked the segments with cortez, becoming a friend first, help him sort out his feelings after his husband's death and only after a while decide if he's ready to move on as a good friend or a potential LI.

[Darth Krytie]

Maybe, but why are you denying the characters to be of a set sexuality like yourself? They are not dolls to be romanced, they are people (or at least the devs try to make them that way).

Moreover, if some context varies or is closed to a specific character, it does contribute to the insterest of the game and makes second and third re-plays more alluring, imho.

 

I think that notion that having a sexuality that allows for both m an f pcs to romance a character makes them dolls is strange given then fact that there's very few times when the actions or race or appearance of a character has little to know influence. You can spend DA 2 killing all the mages and Anders will still romance you until you reach his crisis point in Act 3. Before then, it has no affect on whether or not you can be with him. Isn't that more odd than if he only would romance you if you were female? To me, it's far more jarring than having him be bi could ever be.

[Maria Caliban]

Hmm, maybe a diversity of writers (or even just ideas) from those who have different sexual orientations is needed, along with collaboration in the writing? Perspective is a wonderful thing.

That could possibly already exist.

[Tommy6860]

lol I agree with the rest.

 

I just thought you thought I didn't

 

 I do like your posts and I love your position on LIs in games though. It is really important to be open minded as for some, this can be a heated topic when it really not need be. My wife and I sometimes have a little conflict on that issue, though admittedly, she doesn't play RPGs as much as I do. Ia m adding you as a friend here

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I also don't get the "multiple replays" argument. You can already only complete one romance per playthrough. If I wanted to romance multiple characters, I was always going to have to play again. Gender gating has nothing to do with it.

 

Personally, I'm never going to play a female character. It doesn't interest me at all. Having multiple LIs available for m/m romances will encourage me to play again, since I can only pick one per play through. Having only one companion LI available for m/m romances is basically the least likely method for the romance system to encourage me to play a second time.      

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I guess it's for the devs to decide what should and what shouldn't affect the game. So far I am pleased with what I see they have done in DAI. Because DA2 seemed flawed to me. But let's just let the game developers do their job, shan't we?

Of course. I was just expressing my opinion on the matter.