546 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

I've known a few people like that, truth be told. Friend of mine is bisexual but identifies as a lesbian because of the political climate where she lives, the lesbian community discriminates against bisexuals. Sees them as afraid of commitment or some such.

 

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.

 

True. Why don't people refuse to romance some of the atrocious (intentionally) made characters in the CC?

[Former_Fiend]

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.

 

To an extent, I can agree with that. 

 

Still, I think the trade-off of more choices(if there has to be a trade off at all; I think there might be ways to work around that) is worth it.

[Rawgrim]

To an extent, I can agree with that. 

 

Still, I think the trade-off of more choices(if there has to be a trade off at all; I think there might be ways to work around that) is worth it.

 

Who knows. At least all options are covered equally this time, though.

[Zu Long]

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 and not companions. 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.  

 

What if they went with straight and gay options in the party, and Scribbles and Cullen are both Bi? That would seem to address fairness, though not necessarily the issue of more than one choice of traveling romance.

 

I really like Samantha's romance in ME3 though, so I'm not too worried about it.

 

One other thing: I find it interesting that we've all jumped on 2/2/2 as the most likely answer. No one has said anything that would nix 2/4/2, and that still fits with the number of companions.

[Ryzaki]

No, to me, it should be both. In our party and in Thedas.

 

You can have that with bisexual LIs. Say for instance Sera, Cassandra, DHMG, and Solas are LIs. Maybe if you don't romance him DMHG gets with Iron Bull (or he and the GW get together). And Vivienne talks about a male she's interested in. That's differing sexualities in the group without the LIs being restricted.

[Mihura]

True. Why don't people refuse to romance some of the atrocious (intentionally) made characters in the CC?

 

Because it is what inside that counts. 

[Welsh Inferno]

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.  

 

On the other side of the coin. What if the one of the important LI's for the story was gay and the other straight? You would then have the two lead characters in the story only being interested in one gender.(Because there is always one male & one female lead)  This might seem somewhat problematic. Is it fair to either gender? I don't know.

 

I wouldn't have a problem with that, but others will. 

 

There is no perfect solution to this.

[Ryzaki]

Because it is what inside that counts. 

 

HAHAHAHAHA oh that's funny.

[CronoDragoon]

Exactly. I will also never understand why so many players want to take choices away from other gamers just to please their own preferences. It's baffling.

 

I'd like to point out that all players, in this case, are getting an equal amount of "choice" taken away, assuming an equal split between straight, gay, and bi.

 

Those in favor of this change probably feel that a character's sexuality should be independent of the player's desires, which isn't really an argument in favor or against any particular sexual orientation. It's simply a statement about to what degree the PC should dictate facts about a character, which most likely extend beyond sexual orientation into other aspects of the character.

[Former_Fiend]

True. Why don't people refuse to romance some of the atrocious (intentionally) made characters in the CC?

 

That's another thing; we can make our characters look like they ran through the forest where the ugly sticks grow and it doesn't make a bit of difference. I imagine the actual reason is that programming parameters for what is and isn't "too ugly" is both too tricky and too subjective, but still.

 

A lot of people have, in other threads, mentioned race as another factor that might limit romances, and that's not an invalid suggestion(though I do strongly disagree with it). The counter is that there are also people who fetishize other races and the concept of interracial relationships so if we're going to include someone who won't have anything to do with them, shouldn't we include someone who's all about them, as well?

 

I estimated in the other thread that you'd need somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 li's to cover all the basis. That's never going to happen, so with the group we have, whether it's four, six, or eight, I think they should just try to be as inclusive to the players as they can and not go further subdividing it out of any pretense of realism.

[jellobell]

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.

 

This. So much. I'd be more okay with 2/2/2 if everyone actually gets two viable companion options. That way, it'd be the same as we got in DA2.

 

My ideal would be: Solas (bi)/ Mr. Dramatic Hands (gay)/ Varric (straight) and Cass (bi)/ Viv (gay)/ Sera (straight)

[Mihura]

What if they went with straight and gay options in the party, and Scribbles and Cullen are both Bi? That would seem to address fairness, though not necessarily the issue of more than one choice of traveling romance.

 

I really like Samantha's romance in ME3 though, so I'm not too worried about it.

 

One other thing: I find it interesting that we've all jumped on 2/2/2 as the most likely answer. No one has said anything that would nix 2/4/2, and that still fits with the number of companions.

 

That would be unfair to the people who want to romance the bi NPCs and unfair to the representation of that sexuality, my whole problem with this, is the npc romances that I despise since ME 3. I love Liara and Kaidan romance but I dislike Sam approach, it seems forced and with a lot less content, it was like "here have some bread crumbs".

[Mes]

This. So much. I'd be more okay with 2/2/2 if everyone actually gets two viable companion options. That way, it'd be the same as we got in DA2.

 

My ideal would be: Solas (bi)/ Mr. Dramatic Hands (gay)/ Varric (straight) and Cass (bi)/ Viv (gay)/ Sera (straight)

 

Yeah I agree with this. Bad enough that a (largely female) fan favorite is not going to be a companion, but now he's also potentially going to have romance restrictions.

[Ryzaki]

That's another thing; we can make our characters look like they ran through the forest where the ugly sticks grow and it doesn't make a bit of difference. I imagine the actual reason is that programming parameters for what is and isn't "too ugly" is both too tricky and too subjective, but still.

 

A lot of people have, in other threads, mentioned race as another factor that might limit romances, and that's not an invalid suggestion(though I do strongly disagree with it). The counter is that there are also people who fetishize other races and the concept of interracial relationships so if we're going to include someone who won't have anything to do with them, shouldn't we include someone who's all about them, as well?

 

I estimated in the other thread that you'd need somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 li's to cover all the basis. That's never going to happen, so with the group we have, whether it's four, six, or eight, I think they should just try to be as inclusive to the players as they can and not go further subdividing it out of any pretense of realism.

 

Especially since the more LIs it seems the less they all get =/

 

Man I'm bummed. Can the devs just say who's for who so I can get over it >_>

[Rawgrim]

It could well be 1-4-1 as well. Not 2-2-2. We don`t know. Or maybe we get more than 6 too.

[CronoDragoon]

I think they should just try to be as inclusive to the players as they can and not go further subdividing it out of any pretense of realism.

 

Does inclusivity mean maximizing romances for a sexual orientation, or equal representation? To me, a game that has equal representation for all sexual orientations is inclusive.

[Boisterous Bob]

 

I'd like to point out that all players, in this case, are getting an equal amount of "choice" taken away, assuming an equal split between straight, gay, and bi.

 

Those in favor of this change probably feel that a character's sexuality should be independent of the player's desires, which isn't really an argument in favor or against any particular sexual orientation. It's simply a statement about to what degree the PC should dictate facts about a character, which most likely extend beyond sexual orientation into other aspects of the character.

(Emphasis mine.)

Assuming a 2/2/2 distribution, wouldn't bisexual PCs actually have 6 options compared to gays' and straights' 2 options each? Or have I misunderstood you?

I can't tell for sure, but the way you phrased that second paragraph makes it seem (to me) that you don't personally hold that view. If that is the case, then thank you very much for stating that position with fair-mindedness

 

True. Why don't people refuse to romance some of the atrocious (intentionally) made characters in the CC?

Ahem. Someone would like to have words with you...

Spoiler

 

 

ETA: That gorgeous lady is not mine, unfortunately. Probably should mention that.

[Former_Fiend]

Especially since the more LIs it seems the less they all get =/

 

Man I'm bummed. Can the devs just say who's for who so I can get over it >_>

 

They like watching us squirm too much.

[Mes]

Especially since the more LIs it seems the less they all get =/

 

Man I'm bummed. Can the devs just say who's for who so I can get over it >_>

 

Um yeah I second this. Just put us out of our misery....

[Ryzaki]

 

Ahem. Someone would like to have words with you...

 

 

 

ETA: That gorgeous lady is not mine, unfortunately. Probably should mention that.

 

 

XD

 

It's beautiful.

[cartographer]

It could well be 1-4-1 as well. Not 2-2-2. We don`t know. Or maybe we get more than 6 too.

This is something I wonder about and honestly would affect my opinion of the situation. 

[Former_Fiend]

 

 

(Emphasis mine.)

Assuming a 2/2/2 distribution, wouldn't bisexual PCs actually have 6 options compared to gays' and straights' 2 options each? Or have I misunderstood you?

I can't tell for sure, but the way you phrased that second paragraph makes it seem (to me) that you don't personally hold that view. If that is the case, then thank you very much for stating that position with fair-mindedness

 

 

Bisexual pc's would still be limited; a lesbian LI wouldn't be interested in a bisexual male pc, nor would the straight male Li. Bisexual pc's get more options, but under the 2/2/2 model, they don't get everyone.

[Ryzaki]

They like watching us squirm too much.

 

 

Um yeah I second this. Just put us out of our misery....

 

Yep. So at least I won't be all near release.

[jellobell]

It could well be 1-4-1 as well. Not 2-2-2. We don`t know. Or maybe we get more than 6 too.

 

But who would be who in a 1-4-1 scenario? Also, that'd mean that one orientation wouldn't be there (gay or lesbian character).

 

Maybe it'd go like this:

 

Straight: Cullen

Bi: Cass, Sera, Solas, DHMG

Gay: Scribe Girl

 

Hmmm, I'd be alright with that. But it'd suck for people who wanted to romance Cullen as a guy.

[Rawgrim]

This is something I wonder about and honestly would affect my opinion of the situation. 

 

I would rather have just 1 straight option, and the rest be bi or gay, than the DA2 route, to be honest. I don`t want that playersexual feel again.