1323 réponses à ce sujet

[Mad Cassidy]

I think Cullen and Scribbles are straight

Solas and Cassandra are bi

Sera and DHMG are gay. 

 

I could live with this, I think.

 

Still sucks for people who don't share my tastes, though.

[Moirin]

I'm preparing for the worst, where the only options for the gay male Inq are both unconventionally attractive. Paranoid maybe, but I would not be surprised if we get Nicholas Cage and Mr Moustache, while Cullen is the straight option =/

 

Considering Cullen's fanbase (which is why I assume he was included as a romance) I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Cullen is the Bi male character.

[Mes]

So, it's realistic to fight dragons now?  Or do to know Qunari, or heck, any other race besides human?  It's now realistic to romance elves, and other races. It's realistic to walk out of the Fade as a non-mage.

 

But having bisexual companions?  Nope, that's where they draw the line.  That's why some folks are upset.  Poor wording or not, their intent was made quite clear.

 

And that's my last words on this subject.

 

Agreed.

 

And this is along the lines of what Darth Krytie said as well (sorry can't quote ya, thread moving soooo fast! ).

 

"Realism" as an argument becomes ridiculous because it is only applied to sexualities these days. When was the last time a dev quoted "realism" for weapon design, abilities, or anything like that?

 

These games are supposed to be fun. Would you have fun if "realism" reduced your character's range of abilities to mediocre sword fighting and using pots and pans as weapons?

[Vandicus]

Because the guy that was quoted in the OP said "realism" was why they were doing this.

 

Anyway I get now that your issue is mostly with playersexual characters rather than bisexual. I don't have a strong opinion on which of those two is better. I'm just irritated that now my favorite character might not be romanceable with the PC that I want to create.

Yeah, I interpret the article as using realism to refer to the immersive factors.

 

Because otherwise its very contradictory with what they've said and done in the past. Nothing Bioware's ever done has come off as remotely probable.

 

I've always been personally impressed by the existence of characters that I sought to romance(and would've been able to romance in most games with romances), but was unable to romance. Juhani was like that in KoTOR because she was lesbian, and Aveline because she wasn't interested in Hawke, but both made me enjoy their characters more strongly.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I love how people now are complaining about the lack of choice. Hey at least now we have quality and not quantity. /irony

Let's not assume that. 

[Darth Krytie]

That was just as biased towards straight female players as it was straight male players....

 

 

Bully for straight people, then.

 

It doesn't matter. Point is, I don't want to be railroaded into one romance because it's the only one available based on sexuality/gender of my Inquisitor. I liked being able to choose.

 

If it turns out that I Lady Inquisitors get just as many choices as Dude Inquisitors, and furthermore have an even split amongst sexualities, I won't be bothered. But, if Lady Inquisitors have fewer options than a Dude Inquisitor, and only one lesbian option, I will be displeased.

[ShadyKat]

Good.

I thought everyone being bi sexual/player sexual, was kind of lazy and a bit of a cop out.

[Seboist]

While I have no problem with the current setup, I don't think having all bis would affect the gameply or decent story, and if it's only 1%, it shouldn't matter if everyone has a set sexuality or all bis since it's so insignificant. 

 

This is a narrative focused game that wants to be taken seriously, it is significant.

[I SOLD MY SOUL TO BIOWARE]

Can't say I care overly much, but I guess this is a good approach.

[Allan Schumacher]

Thoughts?  Personally, I cool with this.  It gives me more incentive to play different characters and classes.  I will never understand why some people refuse to play anything other that their gender choice.  You AREN'T the Inqusitior, you're just playing as him/her.

 

Just as a note, it IS possible that your failure to understand is something that may not be the other person's problem.  We all have our preferences and whatnot (since you've actually stated that you can't understand how I play games, since I have a heavy bias to play my own gender as well), and it's perfectly fine for someone to have that.

 

 

(Also attaching myself to this thread as I read it.  I've already removed some posts that come across as little more than incredulity at the mere prospect that someone may be disappointed).

 

 

EDIT: Because horribad English

[Lebanese Dude]

So, it's realistic to fight dragons now?  Or do to know Qunari, or heck, any other race besides human?  It's now realistic to romance elves, and other races. It's realistic to walk out of the Fade as a non-mage.
 
But having bisexual companions?  Nope, that's where they draw the line.  That's why some folks are upset.  Poor wording or not, their intent was made quite clear.
 
And that's my last words on this subject.

Its 6 AM here and I just finished my paper, so I think that's why I'm not really being myself too irritated by their bad wordings. Lol.

Time to pass out.

[PsychoBlonde]

 

Thoughts?  Personally, I cool with this.  It gives me more incentive to play different characters and classes.  I will never understand why some people refuse to play anything other that their gender choice.  You AREN'T the Inqusitior, you're just playing as him/her.

 

I play females when available (the game has to be AWESOME for me to be willing to play as a male character), but it doesn't bother me if some romances aren't "available" due to my choice to play exclusively female characters.  And I don't play "as" the PC.  The PC represents me in game.  It's the one chance I have in life to be represented by someone badass.  Also hot.  So, yeah, I'm not them. They're me.  Subtle, but it works for me.

 

Oddly enough I'm not much bothered by the complaint that the PC does stuff I wouldn't do--as long as I CAN pick from some options I at least have the agency of deciding which one I like BETTER.  It's usually only after the fact that I'm all "you know, that whole situation was dumb".  It's the same with romances--if I have SOME choice it doesn't have to be the Bestest Romance Evarr to make me happy.  That and "no romance for me, thanks" counts as an option in my book, so even with ONE I'm still usually pretty happy.

 

I'm kind of hoping they do 6 possible romances, although that seems like a LOT.  Maybe 5--one each M/F straight, one each M/F gay, one bi.  That'd mean that every character would have 3 potential options, which is a pretty good number IMO.  And that's assuming the only real restriction is sexuality.  Some of the characters may not be so open-minded about interracial romances.

[Mr.House]

Bully for straight people, then.

 

It doesn't matter. Point is, I don't want to be railroaded into one romance because it's the only one available based on sexuality/gender of my Inquisitor. I liked being able to choose.

 

If it turns out that I Lady Inquisitors get just as many choices as Dude Inquisitors, and furthermore have an even split amongst sexualities, I won't be bothered. But, if Lady Inquisitors have fewer options than a Dude Inquisitor, and only one lesbian option, I will be displeased.

And that better not happen, ME3 still gives me the shutters.

[Mes]

That's a fair question and I understand why you would ask that.  Many writers or directors will tell you that the key to a good fantasy is a realistic foundation.  It's a narrative idea akin to taking a hot shower and slowly lowering the temperature until it's cold, instead of suddenly changing the temperature.  The former is comfortable and easy, but the latter can be shockingly jarring.  With fantasy, you take a familiar foundation and lay bricks made of impossible ideas as you build your story, but you fill in the cracks with realism and reasoning.  It's similar logic to blending truth into a lie to make it more believable.

 

Realistic romances aren't all too important to me, but immersion is.  Having everyone be bisexual, or "player-sexual" as some prefer to call it, reminded me that I was playing a game because it was unrealistic.  Everyone was attracted to me (sans Varric and Aveline) and that reminded me that I was the player instead of just another person.

 

 

Thanks for that response, I think you actually phrased that very eloquently.

 

Then I ask - why do they apply the realism argument only to romances? I'd like to understand where this line is between realism and fantasy, so these kinds of arguments can hold more weight. As far as I can tell there is no line, it's more a squiggly mess.

[Zu Long]

When I compare the lists of "female protagonist games" and "male protagonist games" on Giant Bomb, they both have twenty-eight pages (and they go back to the eighties, too). So, games that allow you to play a female protagonist are not as few as Anita Sarkeesian would have you believe.

As for not all love interests being playersexual, I'm not a fan. Afterall, a game is made for the player and limiting his or her options seems counter-intuitive. It's not really important though. Morrigan was male only and for good reason, so it's hard to be upset at the decision.

PS GiantBomb links:
Female Protagonist Games

Male Protagonist Games

 

You realize both of your links go to the female protagonist page, right?

[Mr.House]

This is a narrative focused game that wants to be taken seriously, it is significant.

Stop backtracking Seb.

[Allan Schumacher]

Though this will upset some players, it is more realistic.  Period.  I'm not against any sexual orientation, but not everyone you meet is going to be attracted to you.  I've been attracted to girls who turned out to be lesbians and I've had gay guys hit on me only to be disappointed when they learned that I was straight.  Not everyone swings both ways and the idea of "player-sexual" is incredibly unrealistic.  By that I mean, not everyone will be attracted to you just because you are attracted to them.

 

I don't consider this a valid complaint within the context of Dragon Age.  There were people that were not attracted to you in DA2 and turn you down (Varric and Aveline), yet most who support something like what Cameron suggests point to DA2 as being "the problem."

 

I notice Cameron's quote stutters when he says "realistic."  I have a feeling that it may not have been the word he was necessarily looking for, but while talking with someone may not have the easiest time determining the correct word (part of the reason why you likely won't see me doing in person interviews )

 

The reality is that romance in our games is inherently "unrealistic" because you're confined to what "Word of Writer" allows you to romance.  Really like that other person?  Tough, not an option.  That single person that is homosexual strike your fancy?  Well you better hope that the writers wrote romance content for them.

[Jynxed_]

You're a little out of the loop, aren't you?

The curly dramatic loop

[daveliam]

But no-one wants Dorion...

 

Factually incorrect statement.

[Shadow Fox]

That would very unlikely to happen consider one is a companion and one is a LI. I'm pretty sure both NPC LIs would likely to be of the same sexual orientation to avoid unfairness and complains.

Cass and Cullen were the first announced LIs.

 

Cullen*thus far* has only been portrayed as straight and Cass seems to be the poster girl of Inquisition like Morrigan and Isabella so I'm assuming she'll be romancable by males like those before her.

[leadintea]

Good.

I thought everyone being bi sexual/player sexual, was kind of lazy and a bit of a cop out.

 

Really. Everyone pretty much complains about all the other lazy things in DA2 like the infamous cave, but when it comes to sex, apparently it's A-OK.

[Chari]

I may be mistaken, but I believe Juhani of KoTOR was F/F only.

...That is not Dragon Age game...

 

I don't give a **** about how the characters label themselves. That is information that I never needed or wanted.\

 

A character may label them as potatio, it doesn't matter, since they still will be human/elf/qunari/dwarf. As for sexual orientations, Bioware is all for equality and diversity, right? Well, having the same number of straight, bi and gay romances is diversity and equality

[Isaidlunch]

At least the same-sex only options won't be as bad as in ME3, where they were pretty much defined by their same-sex attractions (bringing it up in like 75% of their conversations). That was far shallower than anything the DA team has ever done in regards to romance.