546 réponses à ce sujet

[phantomrachie]

No it is not, he says Cassandra has a crush on the male or hero worship on the female. You have to ask yourself why the different dialogs. Why not have a crush on the male and female.

 

I remembered it differently but a one word difference is not much to go on.

 

List of reasons why that one word was different:

1. Varric, assumed Cassandra wouldn't have a crush on LadyHawke.
2. To add replay value because the conversation is slightly different 
3. The fact that writers hadn't made up their mind about Cassandra's sexuality.
4. An oversite due to our heteronormative society

I'm not saying she is not straight, I'm just saying you're assuming a lot based on one word.

[Eterna]

Sexuality could have alot of impact on how you interact with other people. If you are sexually interested in them or not, etc.

 

So what? Who I decide to flirt with has no bearing on my personality or character. I thought we were trying to move away from defining ourselves by our sexuality? 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Indeed, if you have an incredibly restrictive view on what "matters" in a narrative. If, however, you don't think a player should be able to "create" a character's sexuality, then set sexualities do serve a purpose, because they mold a character into someone more independent and defined.

Independent from what?

 

They can still be defined when they're defined by the player.  The PC is often defined, even though the writers have little or no input into the definition.

 

And they'll be as independent from the PC as the player wants them to be.

[Maria Caliban]

All of them would be NPCs, just for the record. Anyone except the inquisitor is an NPC.

Agreed.

[MrMrPendragon]

Most people don't have a problem with the 2/2/2 format. People might have a problem though, on which character gets designated as straight, gay, and bi.

Obviously Cullen will most likely be bi, just to play it safe.

I myself don't have a problem if I can't romance the character I find appealing as I learn to like most of my companions anyway.

[pmac_tk421]

I approve of this. Making everyone bi made the characters feel a little less realistic. In ME3, I found the scenes where shep would hit on a character who wasn't interested enjoyable made the character seem more real. By the way, be nice everyone. This is an interesting topic, but it could get out of hand.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Subjective opinion: I felt like Hawke was some sexual Mary-Sue in DA2, because of how the romances were handled.

That's only perceptible from outside the game.  When I'm roleplaying, I'm only perceiving events from inside the game, and as such these issues disappear.

 

I would like to maximise the number of different ways I can play through the game.  Herosexual companions does this.  Fixed sexualities does not.

[CronoDragoon]

Independent from what?

 

The player's wishes.

 

They can still be defined when they're defined by the player.  The PC is often defined, even though the writers have little or no input into the definition.

 

That's why they are the PC.

 

And they'll be as independent from the PC as the player wants them to be.

 

That's not what independent means.

[KaiserShep]

No it is not, he says Cassandra has a crush on the male or hero worship on the female. You have to ask yourself why the different dialogs. Why not have a crush on the male and female.

 

I would say that the difference is largely inconsequential, partly because Cassandra's reaction is exactly the same, with the only difference being the reference to the Champion either being a man or woman, but also because this isn't the only instance where the lines from another character may differ between genders, without actually being totally gender specific. An example is Isabela. In her romance scene in the Hawke estate, when she's getting dressed, her lines after getting up are not the same. The entire romance plays out no differently, yet the dialogue is unique to the gender beyond pronouns.

[Sylvius the Mad]

2/2/2 sounds perfect. Everyone gets equal options.

Something that was already achieved by having herosexual romances.  So that's hardly a win.  That's a push.

[Rawgrim]

So what? Who I decide to flirt with has no bearing on my personality or character. I thought we were trying to move away from defining ourselves by our sexuality? 

 

The same thing applies to the NPCs as well. If someone is sexually interested, or romantically interested, in the PC, they will treat him\her differently. So sexual orientation can have an impact on behavior towards this and that person. That was the point I was trying to make.

[Allan Schumacher]

This is a restart of a locked thread.

It may also be locked.

I hope they tell us if Cullen and Cassandra will be available for same-gender romance. It gets a bit annoying when people who want to romance them with the opposite gender know immediately while I have to wait for someone to hack a demo or leak a guidebook.

 

MODALLAN
It may be locked indeed.  I *strongly* urge people to see the discussions that happened in that thread, because while I'm okay for people to discuss or vent, I have much less tolerance to people trolling or derailing the topic.  Best to see if something has already been discussed before regurgitating the same posts, because it's just going to cause ire in me.

 

 

EDIT: In fact: I am adding this to the OP

[CronoDragoon]

So what? Who I decide to flirt with has no bearing on my personality or character. I thought we were trying to move away from defining ourselves by our sexuality? 

 

Sexuality is always going to be a part of someone's identity. It doesn't mean you treat them differently than you would otherwise, but it becomes pronounced when considering a story. A story where, to use a Game of Thrones example, Loras and Renly are just bros is a different story than where they are lovers. In turn, it gives different meaning to an event like Joffrey conducting a farce with a dwarf Renly exposing his butt and being slayed while Loras watches.

[Rawgrim]

Something that was already achieved by having herosexual romances.  So that's hardly a win.  That's a push.

 

Well I think it is better. Herosexual felt too simplified, and almost forced. It is a matter of opinion, though.

[IC-07]

The same thing applies to the NPCs as well. If someone is sexually interested, or romantically interested, in the PC, they will treat him\her differently. So sexual orientation can have an impact on behavior towards this and that person. That was the point I was trying to make.

Stop using logic, it makes you look good.

[Mes]

Subjective opinion: I felt like Hawke was some sexual Mary-Sue in DA2, because of how the romances were handled. It pretty much felt like one more short-cut in the game production, really. Abit like how the cave was handled. It felt like simplified writing, to be honest.

 

I don't think the lack of depth to the romances in DA2 had anything to do with them all being bi or playersexual.

 

I still don't get how a group consisting of a couple straight people, a couple gay people, and a couple bi people will have more depth and be more "fleshed out" than a group of all bi people.

[IC-07]

MODALLAN
It may be locked indeed.  I *strongly* urge people to see the discussions that happened in that thread, because while I'm okay for people to discuss or vent, I have much less tolerance to people trolling or derailing the topic.  Best to see if something has already been discussed before regurgitating the same posts, because it's just going to cause ire in me.

 

 

EDIT: In fact: I am adding this to the OP

Yo, I checked the thread, but it seemed kind of civil. Any particular page we should check?

[Eterna]

The same thing applies to the NPCs as well. If someone is sexually interested, or romantically interested, in the PC, they will treat him\her differently. So sexual orientation can have an impact on behavior towards this and that person. That was the point I was trying to make.

 

Behaviour is not the same as a persons character. Especially when the only variable is the gender of the person they are flirting with. 

 

If I say "I like you" to another man what have you learned about me? That I like guys? So what? What does that have to do with my character besides highlighting that I'm gay? The only way you could assume something about my character from that is if you've stereotyped me. 

 

Saying that some characters suit being gay or bisexual more than others is simply stereotyping. 

[WildOrchid]

 An example is Isabela. In her romance scene in the Hawke estate, when she's getting dressed, her lines after getting up are not the same. The entire romance plays out no differently, yet the dialogue is unique to the gender beyond pronouns.

 

Curious: what does Isabela say in this scene, what's the difference between 2 genders? Asking because i've never romanced Izzy with mHawke.

[Ryzaki]

Well I think it is better. Herosexual felt too simplified, and almost forced. It is a matter of opinion, though.

 

And having a convenient equal amount of gay, straight and bisexual LIs isn't forced?

[Sylvius the Mad]

The player's wishes.

How is that valuable?

[Grieving Natashina]

Yo, I checked the thread, but it seemed kind of civil. Any particular page we should check?

I'd read it over as a whole.  It went pretty downhill in some areas fast, and that's even after Allan's dedicated pruning he tried to do last night.

[Rawgrim]

I don't think the lack of depth to the romances in DA2 had anything to do with them all being bi or playersexual.

 

I still don't get how a group consisting of a couple straight people, a couple gay people, and a couple bi people will have more depth and be more "fleshed out" than a group of all bi people.

 

I didn`t mean the romanced lacked depth. I meant the execution felt simplified. The depth and quality of each romance is down to the writing, of course.

[Rawgrim]

And having a convenient equal amount of gay, straight and bisexual LIs isn't forced?

 

I don`t think equality is something that ever should be considered forced, no.

[Ryzaki]

I don`t think equality is something that ever should be considered forced, no.

 

...really? You don't see how a convenient amount of LIs equally balancing out to each sexuality a wee bit forced? As for playersexuality that was equality as well. You believe that was forced. What exactly is the difference?