546 réponses à ce sujet

[grumpymooselion]

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

 

I don't know how much you're able to talk about, but discontent one way or another might be settled if someone could give people an idea of the effect this will have within the more solid orientations? I like the idea if it means each character, and thus romance, has more layers, depth and general intricacies. I think that would be great for multiple play through with different types of Inquisitor. Each character feeling more focused and fleshed out, if that's indeed the benefit this is going for, is exciting to me . . . and I'd like to think everyone here would really enjoy each character just feeling more like a well represented and written person, even if that meant less romance options total.

 

I suppose I can only speak for myself though. I won't pretend otherwise. For what it's worth, it sounds like the decision to go this route with romances was made with the best intentions.

[KaiserShep]

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

 

For female Hawke, Isabela says "That was...", but stops mid-sentence, giggles to herself and says "Thank you. I should go before I take advantage of your...hospitality."

 

For male Hawke, she will say "I should go. That was an...interesting diversion."

 

To me, this kind of bolsters her inclination toward women over men.

[Allan Schumacher]

.... That is exactly what I said in my original post. I'm going to miss out. Again. Because every straight male LI is always far more appealing to me than the same sex ones bioware releases. 

 

Then it's up to us to prove that wrong.  More information will come between now and release.  Speaking personally, it can just as easily be "challenge accepted."

 

I won't dispute that in the past there's been aspects that are suboptimal.

[Mes]

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.

 

Oh, I see. I wonder then if a lot of the flack the whole playersexual thing got was more due to the overall execution of the romances, not their sexual orientations.

[WildOrchid]

Thanks Kaiser.

[Rawgrim]

...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?

 

No I said it felt "forced". Simplified. Much like that one cave in the game, and the lack of custimizable companions. A short cut.

[tmp7704]

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.

Our interpretation/understanding of person's character is based on their behaviour, though. If you tell that man "I like you" and act friendly towards him, he's going to be inclined to think you're an amiable person.

[AcidRelic]

Last I checked, sexuality has absolutely zero to do with someones character. If you're judging someones character based on their orientation then that's your own failing. 

 

Maybe I should have used another word. I meant character as James Vega is a character in a game ie - this definition "a person in a novel, play, or movie." not his "character" as the definition "the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual." 

 

James's character in game is straight and absolutely not gay, he even states it. I meant just think what a discontinuity it would be if both genders could romance him.

 

 

pmac states what I was trying to say also.

 

pmac_tk421, on 23 Apr 2014 - 5:20 PM, said:

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.

[Allan Schumacher]

Well at least you are getting an equal amount of options as everyone else.

 

NOte that this doesn't mitigate concerns if there's a belief that "the options I typically get tend to be the crap ones."

So that's on BioWare.

[Ryzaki]

No I said it felt "forced". Simplified. Much like that one cave in the game, and the lack of custimizable companions. A short cut.

 

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

 

Fair enough you said almost forced.

 

How is 2/2/2 any less almost forced than playersexuality?
 

[MrMrPendragon]

I'm not exactly sure what's wrong with 2/2/2

Is it because some people are afraid that a certain character will only be romanceable by a gay or straight (not gay AND straight) Inquisitors?

[Grieving Natashina]

NOte that this doesn't mitigate concerns if there's a belief that "the options I typically get tend to be the crap ones."

So that's on BioWare.

<checks the time of your last post>

<checks the current time>

 

Thanks for keeping an eye on us again, but dear gods man...do you ever sleep?  I hope you do, otherwise you really are a masochist. 

[Rawgrim]

Fair enough you said almost forced.

 

How is 2/2/2 any less almost forced than playersexuality?
 

 

Because its an equal amount of 3 sexualities. Everyone is included, and it seems to be the right step to do. Some years go straight players got more options than everyone else. That wasn`t fair, was it? So I don`t see this being something forced. I see it as being a solid step in the right direction for equality.

[Ryzaki]

I'm not exactly sure what's wrong with 2/2/2

Is it because some people are afraid that a certain character will only be romanceable by a gay or straight (not gay AND straight) Inquisitors?

 

I just haven't seen BW do six LIs well. Not in ME2 (so much for friendship dialogue and GTFO if you're not romancing X), not in ME3.

 

Maybe BW'll prove me wrong but that many LIs to me at least feels like content will be skimped. (and honestly if my choices are more romances or decent friendship paths I'll always pick the latter.)

 

Even Seb misses out on some romance exclusive scenes you get, the love scene for one, the comfort after Leandra's murder for another.

[Ryzaki]

Because its an equal amount of 3 sexualities. Everyone is included, and it seems to be the right step to do. Some years go straight players got more options than everyone else. That wasn`t fair, was it? So I don`t see this being something forced. I see it as being a solid step in the right direction for equality.

 

So what made playersexual LIs almost forced then? Everyone still got the same amount of options.

[Rawgrim]

NOte that this doesn't mitigate concerns if there's a belief that "the options I typically get tend to be the crap ones."

So that's on BioWare.

 

Quite right. I was trying to point out a positive, for the fellow.

[Former_Fiend]

NOte that this doesn't mitigate concerns if there's a belief that "the options I typically get tend to be the crap ones."

So that's on BioWare.

 

Indeed, and it's not a baseless concern.

 

I hope that all romances are equal in quality, and that that quality is rather high, in addition to having an equal spread for all orientations.

[Mes]

I'm not exactly sure what's wrong with 2/2/2

Is it because some people are afraid that a certain character will only be romanceable by a gay or straight (not gay AND straight) Inquisitors?

 

For me it's essentially because it limits my choices. If I want to romance a certain character, I'd have to create a certain gender for my PC, which I might not be as comfortable with or excited about as the opposite gender. If that makes sense.

 

With Cullen (who I assume will be like DAI's Alistair) likely being an NPC and stuck at the keep, it limits my "fleshed out" romance choices even more.

[WildOrchid]

Is it because some people are afraid that a certain character will only be romanceable by a gay or straight (not gay AND straight) Inquisitors?

 

Yep, that's the main thing with many posters (including me)

[Rawgrim]

So what made playersexual LIs almost forced then? Everyone still got the same amount of options.

 

That makes them all bisexual. Not Gay or straight or bisexual.

[Bekkael]

I dislike set sexualities in games. I used to really think it was a great idea, but then I played ME3 and it completely stunk in practice. When I played Skyrim and Dragon's Dogma, the characters I romanced/married didn't care what gender of PC I rolled, and I think that is a great thing for the person playing the game. I don't want to be forced to play a different gender PC than the one I prefer, just to have access to romance content that IMHO, should be available to everyone. I think playersexuality works best in games and is the most inclusive if you are going to bother to have romance content. Why lock anyone out???

 

DA2 already gave us this and I loved it, just like Skyrim and Dragon's Dogma (and lots of other games, I'm sure), and it feels like a step back that they are taking that away. To me, it seems like just another example of the Dragon Age team taking bad ideas from the Mass Effect franchise and shoving them into DA. It makes me a very sad panda. :'(

[Ryzaki]

That makes them all bisexual. Not Gay or straight or bisexual.

 

So what you wanted to see was a different spread of sexualities?
 

Couldn't that be solved by having non romance options gay and straight?

[Iakus]

For me it's essentially because it limits my choices. If I want to romance a certain character, I'd have to create a certain gender for my PC, which I might not be as comfortable with or excited about as the opposite gender. If that makes sense.

 

With Cullen (who I assume will be like DAI's Alistair) likely being an NPC and stuck at the keep, it limits my "fleshed out" romance choices even more.

 

Choices will always be limited unless Bioware gets enough zots to make everyone romanceable by everyone.

But I find 6 romanceable characters (assuming that's what we get) that not every character can romance is less limiting than 4 available to all. 

[Welsh Inferno]

Huh. I'm surprised they actually decided to take this route with the LI's. As long as it is 2/2/2 then I'm happy, much prefer it over them all being playersexual personally. 

[Maria Caliban]

For female Hawke, Isabela says "That was...", but stops mid-sentence, giggles to herself and says "Thank you. I should go before I take advantage of your...hospitality."

 

For male Hawke, she will say "I should go. That was an...interesting diversion."

 

To me, this kind of bolsters her inclination toward women over men.

 

Maybe. It might simply be Isabela knowing to use a softer touch with another woman.

 

Even in a casual, no-strings-attached sexual encounter, I think many women would see being referred to as 'an interesting diversion' as a negative.