Ce sujet est fermé
It's an assumption based on what David Gaider said about wanted an equal set
Can you find a link to him saying this? Because multiple people looked earlier in the romance thread and nobody could. All he said was that he wanted people to have "options". As in, more than one, unlike DA:O. Not necessarily equal options.
First off, I do think you bring up a decent point. I may not entirely agree, but thank you for elaborating on your point.
Does bisexuality "need to make sense?" Plenty of folks that are bi or pansexual might prefer one gender over the other, but that doesn't change who we are.
The only reason why a sexuality "needs to make sense" as far as I can tell. Oh yeah. Realism™.
See, this is where the ice gets a bit thin and the time to tread carefully arises. In the example I gave, Vivienne would technically be "power-sexual," but to others would appear bisexual for the sake of simplicity. Similar to how qunari is a catch-all term for the race, though if you got into specifics, there are Vashoth, Tal-Vashoth, Qunari, and (of course) Kossith. Vivienne's case is the easiest example I could think of off of the top of my head. Bisexuality doesn't need to make sense, but if she is attracted to power instead physical integrity or perhaps moral integrity, it would make less sense to limit her to only being attracted to one sex. After all, someone doesn't become less powerful because they are a man or a woman.
You didn't expect this? Really? You of all people?
Well, I had to say something. 
Agreed. I don't want a situation like ME3 where the guys have way more options than the girls do.
And women had better have the same number of straight options as men do, unlike Mass Effect and Jade Empire.
Can you find a link to him saying this? Because multiple people looked earlier in the romance thread and nobody could. All he said was that he wanted people to have "options". As in, more than one, unlike DA:O. Not necessarily equal options.
It was a post he made on the old BSN, I can try to find it but no promises
Not a big deal for you =/= not a big deal for everyone, you know. And my point was more that any past experience shapes an individual, sexuality and relationships being part of said experiences. Throwing that into the wind and going ''meh, doesn't matter, s/he's hot so shag away'' seems more shallow to me. Plus, it may be that the scenarios you mention are stuff they want to avoid.
I mean, personally I found absolutely none of the romanceable characters in DA2 interesting. So for my play experience, playersexual or set sexuality would not have changed anything.
Ultimately, the only ones who have any say in the matter are Bioware, and the ones they need to satisfy is themselves. They are under no obligation whatsoever to bend over to a subset of fans over the other. If they decide it's like that, it's like that. Whenever people like it or not is a different issue. But I'd wait until we see details before going ballistic over them not letting us love this amalgam of pixels over that one.
Ballistic? If I came across that way, that wasn't my intent. Frustrated? Oh yeah. Feeling like Cameron needs to explain his wording a little better? Yes.
It's not about, "I want to bang them." I don't think that about the companions in Origins and as a PC user, I could download the mods to do it. It wasn't meant to be played that way for my taste, so I haven't installed them. I do feel like the game would have been better served if all the romances where available to all players regardless of gender. I hit skip on the sex scenes in Origins, since that doesn't appeal to me. It's the emotions behind the companions, the mix of love and friendship that I want to experience.
If it's so realistic to have dragons, magic, sentient races other than human, no racism about skin color among humans (saving that for the non human races,) real powerful beings that are called Old Gods, devastating Blights that nearly destroyed the world several times over, two Wardens uniting an army, one refugee from Ferelden triggering a war, Inquisitors breaking the established lore rules (they are walking out of the Fade. What.) then what in Hades is so unrealistic about pansexuality and/or romance being available to all?
In light of that, I have yet to hear a good explanation as to why sexuality is one of the few places where the line is being drawn. Instead of taking a chance, they are going backwards.
You seem to be ignoring the ones from ME2 that carried over.
I'm guessing it throws your tally off, which is why you chose to omit them.
Straight: Jack, Miranda,
Kelly(Unavailable after 2), Diana,Samara, MorinthGay: NONE (0)
"Lesbian": Kelly, Samara, Morinth
Straight:Jacob(cheats on you)Thane(dies)
Giving straight male and gay female shep 3 additional ones to end up with... and 0 for Straight fem shep and gay male shep. So 6, 2, 5, 2 to be exact.
That is NOT balanced.
Nah, I did say indept with love scenes. In the vanilla game, the main focus were the ones I stated. I also stated that it's horribly unbalance, but in term of distribution, the main focus in for each sexual orientation is almost equal.
I'm fine with this, no biggie.
Behavior (the part of personality we experience through interactions) can be strongly affected by the person's sexuality. As in, the same person can act differently towards different people, depending on whether they find the other person sexually attractive.
I understand what you are saying, but lets say we take a person that is homosexual and would respond a particular way to another man. If we then make that person not a homosexual, would it be fair to say that they would respond to an equivalent woman without the influence of any societal expectations?
I can agree that it's trivial that if I were gay, I wouldn't see a woman the same way than if I were heterosexual and attracted to her. Barring the sex of who receives my affection, why would I behave any differently if my experiences in life were not different up until that point?*
*Yes, I understand that people's experiences wouldn't be the same. But I see that as an issue because if I were heterosexual I have an implicit acceptance most places I go, while if I were gay I would not and that would impose social influences on my behaviour. I'll readily concede that social influences can affect my personality... where I'm confused is whether or not one's personality would be innately different based on their sexual orientation rather than the social influences that are a consequence of having that orientation.
It was a post he made on the old BSN, I can try to find it but no promises
Thanks for trying, at least. lol
Not only am I not happy with this decision, the way it was stated and presented to us.. the argument of "realism" leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
I'm glad I didn't preorder.
Until I hear that there is an equal amount of choice for every gender and every orientation (of which there probably will not be) then I'm going to sit in my "unrealistic" bisexual corner.
Omg my sexuality is fluid. SO UNREALISTIC. NEED MUCH IMPROVEMENT. WOW. 
CE too poor to go to the peace conference?
Bad guess I know. D:
I see them being at a Peace conference more likely than Dalish. Ignoring things like being a servant, both sides do have Elves in their ranks.
I see them being at a Peace conference more likely than Dalish. Ignoring things like being a servant, both sides do have Elves in their ranks.
Good point. Why woudl the dalish even care about some mage/templar or Orlesian War summit....
Curse you I'm mad there's no CEs all over again 
Didn't BW make all the companions bi to satisfy the base whims of the gay community ?
OR Bioware wrote all bisexual companions to keep them all available to their straight fanbase. 
'Forcing' people to engage in a LGB romance to experience content still seems a lot more (generally) taboo then asking LGB gamers to play straight...even if that is arguably more messed up.
anyways....
I'm trying not to let the way ME3 handled things dictate my feelings on this but its difficult. I know many people thought Traynor was cute and all, but personally, she was lacking. And the general treatment of Sam and Steve in that game just really felt like they were lesser characters then the companions. So, while I AM excited by the idea of seeing gay/lesbian companion characters for the first time, I'm very nervous about how the content will be handled (especially since there will be NPC romances it seems-if Scribbles is female only I will be suuuper skeptical is all I'm saying)
Regardless of who ANYONE chooses to romance, we will have 2 LGB companions (maybe more depending on if the NPC's are both bisexual), and no one will be able to say 'such and such wasn't gay in my playthrough' and have a leg to stand on. This is nice and important in its own respect even if it is potentially disappointing in terms of LI options on any given playthrough.
I would also love if one of the non romanceable companions let us know they were LGB (and then ya know, gay people populated the world). If people are upset about the 'realism' of the all bisexual LI approach it would be nice to see more open support for stuff like this (and not just a quick comment in response to it being brought up, actively bringing it up and supporting it on ones own).
But that was a badly written announcement, and a disappointing way for all this news to officially come out.
Also... this feels like it created this weird/awful mentality of some people trying/hoping to shove the romantic partners they don't like off onto other sexualities(Keep him, take her, I don't want that one)....which is just...uncomfortable...
Good point. Why woudl the dalish even care about some mage/templar or Orlesian War summit....
Curse you I'm mad there's no CEs all over again
Sorry about that.
While I'm not jumping to conclusions, I will be extremely disappointed if:
A. There are not equal options for all sexual orientations
B. The choices for certain sexual orientations are stereotypically categorized (ie. feminine gay options, butch lesbian options)
Hoping for the best, but expecting the worst.
Omg my sexuality is fluid. SO UNREALISTIC. NEED MUCH IMPROVEMENT. WOW.
Ballistic? If I came across that way, that wasn't my intent. Frustrated? Oh yeah. Feeling like Cameron needs to explain his wording a little better? Yes.
It's not about, "I want to bang them." I don't think that about the companions in Origins and as a PC user, I could download the mods to do it. It wasn't meant to be played that way for my taste, so I haven't installed them. I do feel like the game would have been better served if all the romances where available to all players regardless of gender. I hit skip on the sex scenes in Origins, since that doesn't appeal to me. It's the emotions behind the companions, the mix of love and friendship that I want to experience.
If it's so realistic to have dragons, magic, sentient races other than human, no racism about skin color among humans (saving that for the non human races,) real powerful beings that are called Old Gods, devastating Blights that nearly destroyed the world several times over, two Wardens uniting an army, one refugee from Ferelden triggering a war, Inquisitors breaking the established lore rules (they are walking out of the Fade. What.) then what in Hades is so unrealistic about pansexuality and/or romance being available to all?
In light of that, I have yet to hear a good explanation as to why sexuality is one of the few places where the line is being drawn. Instead of taking a chance, they are going backwards.
It's already been explained. Magic and all the assorted hocus-pocus is part of the setting. People changing their sexuality on a whim because the player character wants them to is not. This is not going backwards, this is prefering a way to implement gameplay mechanics (which what romances are in the end) over another. Anyone can freely like or not like any mechanic, but this talk of ''going backward'' is silly. It's not like Bioware is reversing a bill legalising gay marriage or something.
If butch means Cassandra's f/f I'll gladly take it she's my backup if DHMG is unavailable. D:
Nah, I did say indept with love scenes. In the vanilla game, the main focus were the ones I stated. I also stated that it's horribly unbalance, but in term of distribution, the main focus in for each sexual orientation is almost equal.
I guess I'll agree to disagree then. I consider "main focus" = paramour achievement
All of which (except for Diana) can be done with any of the 6 options for straight males.
I'd find it destroyed if no-one interacts with the fact that my character is doing something which would be questionable for their position. I've argued this for countless times but I've always wanted the playersexual option to exist with the fact that the world reacts to your choices--although not financially feasible due to the fact that you'd need to develop twice the content.
I find the issues with things like Blood Magic and so forth to be significantly more world destroying than the romances playing out in similar ways for men and women.
As for wanting different reactions, that's an ask for more content, and it's an ask that I'd always expect people to make. People always want more content.
Okay here's a question, and one that has been posed by others but not answered as far as I can tell:
If we want to run with the REALISM non-argument, then why not limit romance options to race as opposed to gender? Wouldn't it be MUCH more realistic, in the Dragon Age universe, to limit the number of companions a Qunari PC can romance, for instance? Have the 2/2/2 split but for races instead of gender?
If someone were to do that and say "because realism," then I could swallow that much easier. That WOULD be realistic in the DA universe. The whole sexualities thing is not.
Thanks for trying, at least. lol
I think I found it:
http://social.biowar...x/11724520&lf=8
Here's a couple of the quotes. These are from David Gaider:
While I rather like the idea of a character with a set sexuality getting to mention it more specifically in their conversations, I hardly think the lack of such a discussion of their sexuality dilutes their character. Ideally we'd have the resources to include a range of options across the party, but if that's not the case then I'm going to lean towards providing as many options as I can... the "selfishness" of those players wanting the same number of romance options as other players notwithstanding.
I've always said that ideally we'd have a spread of characters that covered different sexualities, if we had the resources to do so. I can't help but roll my eyes at the thought that, should we ever do so, some of you would assume we did it to appease the people who make the "everyone is bisexual" complaint. Frankly, the more I read of this conversation, the more I'm leaning towards never doing that even if we had the resources.
Okay here's a question, and one that has been posed by others but not answered as far as I can tell:
If we want to run with the REALISM non-argument, then why not limit romance options to race as opposed to gender? Wouldn't it be MUCH more realistic, in the Dragon Age universe, to limit the number of companions a Qunari PC can romance, for instance? Have the 2/2/2 split but for races instead of gender?
If someone were to do that and say "because realism," then I could swallow that much easier. That WOULD be realistic in the DA universe. The whole sexualities thing is not.
Ugh imagine if we get both? Poor dwarf players. =/
I was left feeling they indirectly stated that bisexual/pansexual companions (and people for that matter) don't have 3 dimensional personalities if they all happen to be in the same group.
Interesting. I didn't see this at all, but I have my own biases (and loads of context people don't have). Care to elaborate further?
Retour en haut
