1323 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

Exactly so. And removing ambiguity will prevent years long arguments over the topic.

 

Cleaning up the forum... Ohhhhh Yeahhhh

People can then go on to more sensible arguments like: why isn't X character romanceable?

 

[upsettingshorts]

why isn't X character romanceable?

 

Because [WRITER] hates [COMPLAINER] and wants them to suffer?

[Darth Krytie]

Because [WRITER] hates [COMPLAINER] and wants them to suffer?

 

Precisely. How would this forum survive without one half of it demanding something and the other half yelling about pandering.

[Dobyk]

It's excellent news, thank you Bioware!

[Han Shot First]

This is good news. It makes the characters feel more realistic if they're not all available to your Inquisitor. Also I like that some characters are heterosexual and some are homosexual and some are into both genders, just like the real world. 

[Mes]

*snip*

 

... You've got a lot of catching up to do with this thread.  

[Zehealingman]

I am hoping that, if she even is an LI, Viviene can be romanced by a male Inquisitor.

[wright1978]

Personally, the last time BioWare had a game with more than four love interests, I thought the companion content/romances suffered.

That's the logical conclusion i come to too. Really hope it turns out not to be the case though.

[Maria Caliban]

Speaking as someone who is literally only interested in romancing Cassandra at this point, I think this is a horrible idea. Limiting it to four LI's at least gives us some options. Two? Cass/Cullen or nothing.

The idea doesn't bother me.

Either way, I am pointing out that assuming six love interests, whether companions or non-companions, is an assumption, not a fact. That can get lost in the conversation.

[jellobell]

Wow. 

 

I want an Inquisition romance like that.

 

*sigh* Me too. I'd love a romance that's about really coming to believe in and trust the other person. *shakes fist at Anders* And which preferably doesn't take a whole game's worth of "but can I really trust you?" to achieve. They've only got one game, so I understand that they won't be able to take it quite as slow or include as much character development as Garrus's does. Also, "supportive" doesn't have to mean boring, either. One of the best things about Garrus's romance was all the snarky banter that he and Shepard had. After all, they were buddies first. I also favour snark over innuendo-laden flirting. Maybe that's just me, but I find that going straight to the flirting after only knowing the other person for a day at most to be weird. You can have stimulating banter without making me want to report my Player Character for sexual harassment *shakes fist at Jacob romance*. 

 

Also, because they only have one game, I really want there to be a lot of interaction and down-to-earth moments with you and your LI. Maybe after a difficult decision your LI puts their hand on your shoulder and asks if you're ok. Or says that they're worried about you. An example off the top of my head is that time when Zevran recited terrible terrible sex poetry to my Warden in an effort to make her laugh. That endeared me to him more than anything else (and made me like him better than Alistair who broke my poor elf mage's heart). 

 

Oh! Another thing I liked about Garrus's romance (last thing, I promise) was how much esteem he obviously had for Shepard. Most of the awkward was the result of him desperately trying to not screw things up, because he valued Shepard's opinion so highly. I just found that amazingly sweet and funny.

[Former_Fiend]

The idea doesn't bother me.

Either way, I am pointing out that assuming six love interests, whether companions or non-companions, is an assumption, not a fact. That can get lost in the conversation.

 

 

True enough, but going down to two LI's is a huge step backwards. It's 2014, not 2004.

[Mockingword]

Eer, sexuality is not a thing of the 21st century. It has existed since the dawn of mankind, and since the Dragon Age universe is more or less a medieval setting, I don't see how it is not "realistic".  I understand why some players would want as much diversity and option as possible, but personally, having all romancable people being Bi is just.... not realistic. Actually makes me a bit depressed because A) They just flirt with you when you are simply being polite (DA2 scenario) and B )What is the likelihood of meeting 4 or 5 bisexual/homosexual people at once in the real world? Like, seriously, I'm gay and unless I go to some steamy gay bar or join a frickin LGBTQ community, chances are I won't just randomly bump into a gay lad on the street. I don't know what it is like in the US, but in the UK at least it's not like it's raining gays, you actually need to put yourself out there and seek out. In Dragon Age you are not really seeking the love of your life, you are recruiting for a frickin organization that has to save the world.

Not to mention the importance of identity - while I have a couple of bi friends, the majority of people I know (like 90% of them) identify as either heterosexual or homosexual, and this is part of their identity. It is not necessarily the most dominant or important part of someone's life and ego, but it is there. I think having some characters actually stick to a frickin' preference does more justice both to their personality and the game as a whole. If you want to experience all the romances, do several playthroughs, it's really not that hard.... I always play as a female, I've never felt compelled to fantasize a gay relationship in the game, and when I want to get some "gay action" I do it in real life. Sometimes for fun I do go through bi or gay relations in the game, but it's mostly to explore, my choice of cannon character is not affected by my decisions who to bang or befriend. Just roll with it, and judging from Cameron's explanations, they are going for a much more complex system of friendship and romance. For me, this is some of the best news so far, apart from having the Knight Enchanter spec

If they were genuinely interested in "reflecting the reality" of any time period, they should have started by cutting the damn dragons.

 

Since ambiguous sexuality is, you know, a thing that actually exists.

 

And "realism/believeability/verisimilitude" arguments are complete BS in any context. By seeking out and purchasing a work of Fantasy fiction, I've willingly chosen to be "lied to" for my own entertainment. 

 

If I ever want a reflection of reality, I can take my hall mirror outside, and it won't cost me $100 AUS.

 

Also, what does the identity of your real-life friends have to do with anything, and where the hell do you get off, assuming that the only reason people care about this is because they can't get laid?

[Dobyk]

Ummm... I'm not a fan.

 

Particularly because he uses the word "realism" and "real world" as the motivation for doing this.

 

May as well add automobiles and taxes and toilets and mortgages. This makes me think that he really doesn't know why they're making characters set sexualities, he's just randomly using the "realism" excuse.

 

Edit: This isn't a huge deal to me, mind you, it's just irritating.

 

Eer, sexuality is not a thing of the 21st century. It has existed since the dawn of mankind, and since the Dragon Age universe is more or less a medieval setting, I don't see how it is not "realistic".  I understand why some players would want as much diversity and option as possible, but personally, having all romancable people being Bi is just.... not realistic. Actually makes me a bit depressed because A) They just flirt with you when you are simply being polite (DA2 scenario) and B )What is the likelihood of meeting 4 or 5 bisexual/homosexual people at once in the real world? Like, seriously, I'm gay and unless I go to some steamy gay bar or join a frickin LGBTQ community, chances are I won't just randomly bump into a gay lad on the street. I don't know what it is like in the US, but in the UK at least it's not like it's raining gays, you actually need to put yourself out there and seek out. In Dragon Age you are not really seeking the love of your life, you are recruiting for a frickin organization that has to save the world.

Not to mention the importance of identity - while I have a couple of bi friends, the majority of people I know (like 90% of them) identify as either heterosexual or homosexual, and this is part of their identity. It is not necessarily the most dominant or important aspect of someone's life and ego, but it is there. I think having some characters actually stick to a frickin' preference does more justice both to their personality and the game as a whole. If you want to experience all the romances, do several playthroughs, it's really not that hard.... I always play as a female, I've never felt compelled to fantasize a gay relationship in the game, and when I want to get some "gay action" I do it in real life. Sometimes for fun I do go through bi or gay relations in the game, but it's mostly to explore, my choice of cannon character is never affected by my decisions to bang the same sex. Just roll with it, and judging from Cameron's explanations, they are going for a much more complex system of friendship and romance. For me, this is some of the best news so far, apart from having the Knight Enchanter spec

 

[Mes]

*sigh* Me too. I'd love a romance that's about really coming to believe in and trust the other person. *shakes fist at Anders* And which preferably doesn't take a whole game's worth of "but can I really trust you?" to achieve. They've only got one game, so I understand that they won't be able to take it quite as slow or include as much character development as Garrus's does. Also, "supportive" doesn't have to mean boring, either. One of the best things about Garrus's romance was all the snarky banter that he and Shepard had. After all, they were buddies first. I also favour snark over innuendo-laden flirting. Maybe that's just me, but I find that going straight to the flirting after only knowing the other person for a day at most to be weird. You can have stimulating banter without making me want to report my Player Character for sexual harassment *shakes fist at Jacob romance*. 

 

Also, because they only have one game, I really want there to be a lot of interaction and down-to-earth moments with you and your LI. Maybe after a difficult decision your LI puts their hand on your shoulder and asks if you're ok. Or says that they're worried about you. An example off the top of my head is that time when Zevran recited terrible terrible sex poetry to my Warden in an effort to make her laugh. That endeared me to him more than anything else (and made me like him better than Alistair who broke my poor elf mage's heart). 

 

Oh! Another thing I liked about Garrus's romance (last thing, I promise) was how much esteem he obviously had for Shepard. Most of the awkward was a result of him desperately trying to not screw things up, because he valued Shepard's opinion so highly. I just found that amazingly sweet and funny.

 

WHAT how have I run out of likes again?? Umm.... *LIKE*

 

Yeah I do vividly remember the respect that Garrus had for Shepard. Even though I didn't romance him as a female Shepard, I still felt like he was my absolute best buddy and my equal. 

 

I too prefer the friendship route over the immediate flirting route. Probably just because the latter seems... sweeter. Which is why I'm a HUGE fan of the male Shepard and Kaidan romance, because they basically had no choice but to be friends for two games (or... one game, depending on how you look at it), and the romance option was only available in ME3. I love slow builds like that, and built on the right foundations as well.

 

I can't imagine who might be like that in Inquisition, of the companions we currently know about.  But here's hoping!

[Mockingword]

This is good news. It makes the characters feel more realistic if they're not all available to your Inquisitor. Also I like that some characters are heterosexual and some are homosexual and some are into both genders, just like the real world. 

The characters were never all available to the player character ever, only the four that Bioware allowed, out of the hundred+ that exist in the world.

[tmp7704]

I can concede that a person not attracted to a woman may not behave the same way towards a woman that I am attracted to.  But is that really a "personality difference?"  In the lines of, will someone's sexuality make someone innately more aggressive, more passive, argumentative, demure, seductive, and so forth.

I believe there's some base at the core of the person that determines how aggressive, passive etc they are 'on average' so to speak, when compared to others, and i'll readily agree that the 'levels' of these traits aren't linked to the person's sexual orientation, i.e. a gay man for example isn't going to be more argumentative in general than the same man if he was heterosexual instead. In my opinion sexual orientation doesn't affect these.

It's just the way I see it, "acts (relatively) friendly towards women", "acts cold(er) towards men" etc, these are also aspect of someone's personality, and that is something sexual orientation is likely to affect. So in the end depending on that orientation we may get (slightly) different "versions" of the same person, and your /impression/ of that person can wind up very different depending on your own gender, because this impression will be in no small part formed by how they acted towards you, specifically.

[Wulfram]

Operating on that assumption, which again is just an assumption, protagonists would have 4 options regardless of gender:

1 of the straight characters

2 of the bi characters

1 of the gay/lesbian characters

= 2 men and 2 women per protagonist, exactly as many as DA2 (Sebastian notwithstanding)

 

That is of course making the further assumption of an equal number of male and female romance options, something Dragon Age has consistently provided (again, Sebastian notwithstanding). So given those assumptions DAI's "set sexualities" could not be reasonably described as less inclusive, in the sense of the term used above. It would be equally inclusive, with the further inclusion of two additional characters who don't want to bang you the protagonist.

 

And straight women would end up with just one romance option yet again.  Because we know that's not going to happen to straight men

 

edit:  I fail at reading comprehension, sorry.

[Dobyk]

If they were genuinely interested in "reflecting the reality" of any time period, they should have started by cutting the damn dragons.

 

Since ambiguous sexuality is, you know, a thing that actually exists.

 

And "realism/believeability/verisimilitude" arguments are complete BS in any context. By seeking out and purchasing a work of Fantasy fiction, I've willingly chosen to be "lied to" for my own entertainment.

 

If I ever want a reflection of reality, I'll take my hall mirror outside.

 

Just because it exists doesn't mean it is prevalent
If we go by that logic, then we should scrap a lot of things from the real world "just because it is fiction". A Song of Ice and Fire is also fiction, but we can relate to the characters and the story because it borrows so much realism from European history, and in general, human experience. They have dragons too, but the setting is (largely) realistic. Realistic doesn't necessarily mean it has to be borrowed directly from the real world. To make the player's experience in a roleplaying game meaningful and relatable, you need to hit a couple of references from the real world. I feel like making everyone bisexual is just satisfying the fans who can't get over that hot, virtual stud not wanting to cuddle with their male warden, or that enigmatic witch not wanting to kiss your female elf. Also remember that the system is going to change quite a bit (apparently), so romance and friendship will develop somewhat differently than either DA:O and DA2

[Darth Krytie]

And straight women would end up with just one romance option yet again.  Because we know that's not going to happen to straight men

 

If it goes like this: 1 straight male, 1 straight female, 1 bi male, 1 bi female, 1 gay male, 1 gay female, then there are two options for a straight female.

[Wulfram]

If it goes like this: 1 straight male, 1 straight female, 1 bi male, 1 bi female, 1 gay male, 1 gay female, then there are two options for a straight female.

 

You're right, sorry, I read that totally wrong

[Allan Schumacher]

I believe there's some base at the core of the person that determines how aggressive, passive etc they are 'on average' so to speak, when compared to others, and i'll readily agree that the 'levels' of these traits aren't linked to the person's sexual orientation, i.e. a gay man for example isn't going to be more argumentative in general than the same man if he was heterosexual instead. In my opinion sexual orientation doesn't affect these.

It's just the way I see it, "acts (relatively) friendly towards women", "acts cold(er) towards men" etc, these are also aspect of someone's personality, and that is something sexual orientation is likely to affect. So in the end depending on that orientation we may get (slightly) different "versions" of the same person, and your /impression/ of that person can wind up very different depending on your own gender, because this impression will be in no small part formed by how they acted towards you, specifically.

 

Fair enough.  I don't really see anything that I think would have me challenge it.  Cheers!

 

 

And straight women would end up with just one romance option yet again.  Because we know that's not going to happen to straight men

 

Sorry, I'm not sure how this follows from what Upsettingshorts said.

 

EDIT: Nevermind!

[Darth Krytie]

You're right, sorry, I read that totally wrong

 

Sokay. It's easy to miss.

 

Though, I won't argue that having the romanceable party break down in to sexualities that way seems any more or less "realistic" than having four bisexual romances, but that's neither here nor there.

[Maria Caliban]

It's just the way I see it, "acts (relatively) friendly towards women", "acts cold(er) towards men" etc, these are also aspect of someone's personality, and that is something sexual orientation is likely to affect. So in the end depending on that orientation we may get (slightly) different "versions" of the same person, and your /impression/ of that person can wind up very different depending on your own gender, because this impression will be in no small part formed by how they acted towards you, specifically.

I tend to like women more than men. I know lesbians, however, who have mostly male friends and don't get along with many women. Likewise, there seems quite a number of straight men who don't like women. There are people of all sorts of genders and sexual orientations who like (or dislike) men and women equally.

While it's natural to assume that my liking women in general is because of my attraction to women, or vice versa, those could easily be unrelated.

[Allan Schumacher]

Just because it exists doesn't mean it is prevalent
If we go by that logic, then we should scrap a lot of things from the real world "just because it is fiction". A Song of Ice and Fire is also fiction, but we can relate to the characters and the story because it borrows so much realism from European history, and in general, human experience. They have dragons too, but the setting is (largely) realistic. Realistic doesn't necessarily mean it has to be borrowed directly from the real world. To make the player's experience in a roleplaying game meaningful and relatable, you need to hit a couple of references from the real world. I feel like making everyone bisexual is just satisfying the fans who can't get over that hot, virtual stud not wanting to cuddle with their male warden, or that enigmatic witch not wanting to kiss your female elf. Also remember that the system is going to change quite a bit (apparently), so romance and friendship will develop somewhat differently than either DA:O and DA2

 

I don't think history/reality is a very good predictor of Thedas.  I dislike the premise because people often use it to mean "we shouldn't have 4 bisexuals, because that's not realistic."  When, in reality, it's actually possible to hang out with 4 people and they all happen to be bisexual.  Even if it's unlikely it doesn't mean impossible and as I tried to break down in a boring, mathy post, any permutation that we give you will not be "likely" anyways.

 

Especially given that the "reality" of the game is that you can only romance whom we allow....  Which in and of itself isn't very "realistic."

 

Much the same way that my DNA falling into alignment to create me, specifically as I am, is not very likely... it doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

[upsettingshorts]

 

Since ambiguous sexuality is, you know, a thing that actually exists.

 

Not Dragon Age 2's version of it. For Dragon Age 2's version of ambiguous sexuality to exist in the real world, it would demand an alternate universe in which I was into dudes. My DA2-style ambiguous sexuality would then only be known to multidimensional beings capable of viewing both universes. It would also demand that neither I nor any of the people in this universe to which I belong have any concept of this alternate reality. It would also demand, as a consequence, that I have no role in determining which universe I'm in. Obviously this doesn't make any sense at all, because DA2's ambiguous sexuality isn't about fluid sexuality, but about being a cost-effective way of providing a variety of romance options in a video game.

 

Ambiguous sexuality is real, and sexuality is fluid and dynamic. Sure. I'm no expert on the subject, but I don't need to be to accept the premise. But for that to be reflected in something like a video game, the character's sexuality would have to be set to fluid.  And for a couple characters in DA2, it is. But since it isn't for others, it's hardly inherent in the approach. Beyond that it's all meta. And like I said, that's enough for some people and not enough for others.

 

This is perhaps overstating the case, but the problem I have with some of the arguments that insist on the superiority of the playersexual/ambiguous approach, is that it cripples the characters' agency in favor of the player's. Their sexuality is reduced to merely the consequence of your preferences. For players like Sylvius the Mad, probably nodding vigorously while endeavoring to articulate the most emphatic "duh" in the history of the universe in response, this is no problem at all. But I don't see much merit in arguing that characters with no agency with regards to their sexual preference can really be described as genuine representations of characters with fluid sexuality.