Ce sujet est fermé
I think his point is that you, as a pansexual woman, couldn't date a heterosexual woman because she simply wouldn't be interested in you, as an example.
I'm not entirely sure that's what he actually said as I got turned around a bit in there, myself, but I do believe that was the gist of it.
Yes. Thank you.
You might think differently if the remaining female characters aren't nearly as interesting or have as much content as Cass. That's basically one of the main concerns.
I get what you're saying but also that is part of the character being interesting. If Cass is straight she is straight, if she's Bi or Lesbian that's how she is, take it or leave it. When you play your Inquisitor multiple times I think it breaks immersion if they are all the "same" romance wise.
What I mean is: A gay man wouldn`t romance a bisexual woman. Because he is into guys. And so forth. Its about what the non-bi would do.
What is pansexual, anyway? Language barrier moment (English isn`t my first language).
Thanks for clearing that up. 
Pansexual means that the person is what matters, not the body that they are in. The main difference between that and bisexuality is that there are bisexuals that will not date folks that are transgender or gender queer.
Yes. Thank you.
And I think it's a fair point that there are, and should be, people who just aren't interested in the PC.
I just think those people shouldn't be LI's at all.
Well looks like romances aren't as important to you as they are to others. That's fine, too. Personally I'd be pretty gutted if DAI didn't have anyone I found worthy of romancing.
Want and Need. Two very different things. I want to romance someone, if there is someone among them that piques my interest high enough. Usually someone tied to the plot a little. But. I do not NEED to romance someone, anyone! As if its an absolute essential part of the game. It isn't.
Personally, as someone who's pretty sure he is going to get what he wants as far as romances go, I don't find what amounts to "suck it up and be happy with what they give you" to be a satisfactory answer to those who are afraid they aren't going to get what they want.
At this point I think it's safe to assume that the romances are set in stone, so nothing we say here is going to change what's in DAI and we're going to have to be happy with what we get, but I think everyone here has the right to voice their opinion on this issue in the hopes that their preferred system will be used in the next game.
True enough. Everyone can voice their opinion. No ones saying they can't.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Pansexual means that the person is what matters, not the body that they are in. The main difference between that and bisexuality is that there are bisexuals that will not date folks that are transgender or gender queer.
Ok. Cool. Thanks for the explanation.
And I think it's a fair point that there are, and should be, people who just aren't interested in the PC.
I just think those people shouldn't be LI's at all.
I agree, but I still think NPCs that are love interests should have their own prefferances.
Things like that are also part of why I'm against limiting options in favor of "realism", because that opens a flood gate. Where do you stop? Where do you draw that line? Because the reasons people will refuse to sleep with someone are much more numerous than what's between their legs.
Right. We've already accepted that the romanceable NPCs will be attracted to a very broad range of possible PCs. I'm not sure I'm a fan of writing them this way myself, but it seems funny that we're making a fuss over sexual orientation but none over, say, Fenris staying in a relationship with a mage Hawke who's talking about rebelling against the Chantry.
I agree, but I still think NPCs that are love interests should have their own prefferances.
And I see bisexuality and pansexuality as being valid preferences.
It may not be the most inclusive in regards to the representation of sexuality, and it may not be the most realistic(though I think how unrealistic it is is often strongly overstated in these debates), but it provides us, the players, with the most options without excluded any of us from having the romances we want. That's why I support it.
This news severely disappoints me. I have a strong, gut feeling that Dorian (DHMG) is going to be gay, and he was the one male companion I was really excited about romancing with my female Inquisitor. I mean, I'm sure the other romances for femInquisitor are great and well-written, but I just had my heart set, y'know? Kind of my own fault then. 
Right. We've already accepted that the romanceable NPCs will be attracted to a very broad range of possible PCs. I'm not sure I'm a fan of writing them this way myself, but it seems funny that we're making a fuss over sexual orientation but none over, say, Fenris staying in a relationship with a mage Hawke who's talking about rebelling against the Chantry.
Short cuts got taken in DA2. Happened with the romances too. Valid point, by all means. But I suspect it stems from the same problem most issues with the game comes from. Lack of development time.
Right. We've already accepted that the romanceable NPCs will be attracted to a very broad range of possible PCs. I'm not sure I'm a fan of writing them this way myself, but it seems funny that we're making a fuss over sexual orientation but none over, say, Fenris staying in a relationship with a mage Hawke who's talking about rebelling against the Chantry.
Exactly; if you want to talk about the companions having defined characters, things like this are, in my opinion, much more important.
As much as I doubt this is the case because of Cullen, I really hope that this means that all six romanceable characters are companions if it's a 2/2/2 split. I hate the idea of everyone being limited to one companion romance and one non-companion romance only - it sucked for same-sex romances in ME3 and I had hoped that we wouldn't have to experience the same thing in a DA game.
And I see bisexuality and pansexuality as being valid preferences.
It may not be the most inclusive in regards to the representation of sexuality, and it may not be the most realistic(though I think how unrealistic it is is often strongly overstated in these debates), but it provides us, the players, with the most options without excluded any of us from having the romances we want. That's why I support it.
Ohh I support bisexuality and pansexuality, by all means. I just don`t support the idea of making every love interest that way. I think it adds more spice to the dish if its not "all the same".
Exactly; if you want to talk about the companions having defined characters, things like this are, in my opinion, much more important.
Having companions that actually react to things like that will be interesting. You could be a straight male, but will Cassandra romance you if you ignore injustice and seek power only for yourself? Probably not, from what Cameron said. I look forward to it.
I don't think you read all of my posts. I even stated earlier that a comment by Varric about Cassandra getting a case "Hero Worship" for a female Hawke and the goofy look on Cassandra's face told me nothing about her sexual orientation. I also never mentioned retconning, nor got into Isabela's reasons for making that comment. It just didn't seem like something either gender would find all that flattering, that's all.
Yeah, sorry about that. I just was adding an additional explanation about the Izzy's lines, and in fact, I agree with you. Actually I should have quoted the post you quoted, which stated the opposite. So yeah, a mess 
Ohh I support bisexuality and pansexuality, by all means. I just don`t support the idea of making every love interest that way. I think it adds more spice to the dish if its not "all the same".
Thing is, I don't think they are all the same even if they can all be romanced by both genders.
Cassandra's personality is what it is. Her preference for men or women doesn't impact that. The same goes with Sera and Cullen and whoever else is/may be a love interest. What's going to separate these characters is their personality, not which set of genitals they prefer.
Exactly; if you want to talk about the companions having defined characters, things like this are, in my opinion, much more important.
Truth be told, nobody really reacted to anythng in DA2. I used blood magic infront of Carver and various templar abit, and they never noticed either.
I am 99 percent sure this won`t be the case in DA:I, though.
I don't know how anyone has their heart set on one character yet anyway. We barely even know these people.
You know the saying about books and their covers.
While I do think a few people have their hearts prematurely set, I think the bigger issue is this lingering fear that they'll be so unlucky as to have the one LI they'll actually be interested in be the one they can't have.
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?
No, to me, it should be both. In our party and in Thedas.
Thing is, I don't think they are all the same even if they can all be romanced by both genders.
Cassandra's personality is what it is. Her preference for men or women doesn't impact that. The same goes with Sera and Cullen and whoever else is/may be a love interest. What's going to separate these characters is their personality, not which set of genitals they prefer.
Yes, but I would argue that sexuality does affect how you interact with others. If you are into someone sexually, you will behave abit differently towards them than vs someone you have zero interest in. Not in any extreme way, of course, but still.
I see your point, though.
I don't know how anyone has their heart set on one character yet anyway. We barely even know these people.
You know the saying about books and their covers.
I agree with this but I think most of the fears are about no having a flesh out romance because the important LI for the story are only straight and the bi or gay Li are npcs or not an important companion. Do not forget that there are only three female companions which I doubt all would be a LI.
So that leaves some people with NPCs which I find unfair.
Want and Need. Two very different things. I want to romance someone, if there is someone among them that piques my interest high enough. Usually someone tied to the plot a little. But. I do not NEED to romance someone, anyone! As if its an absolute essential part of the game. It isn't. True enough. Everyone can voice their opinion. No ones saying they can't.
Yeah, sorry about that. I just was adding an additional explanation about the Izzy's lines, and in fact, I agree with you. I should have quote the post you quoted, which stated the opposite. So yeah, a mess
Haha, no problem. It tends to happen in such fast moving threads like this. <hug>
Retour en haut
