Ce sujet est fermé
By initiating a romance with pretty much anyone (video games or real life) you're almost certainly breaking up some other, hypothetical relationship that that person would have otherwise had.
This.
Its not like they were in a relationship already. Neither Tali nor Garrus come crying to you and say they are upset that you disrupted their thing.
You were there first. Simple as that.
The reason Citadel felt odd to me was that to get the most out of it (as in every possible companion shows up) you have to play it right before the endgame, where (story-wise) things felt most bleak. Thessia has just fallen, Liara is in bits. Shepard is crushed due to the defeat by Cerberus. They managed to rescue Oreana, but things are decidedly bleak.
Yet you'd never know any of that playing through citadel. It's full of cheesy one-liners, friendly banter and just overall positivity. It definitely feels like it's in a bubble, seperated from the story at large.
I think as far as love interests go - as in characters the player can choose to romance - having them open to all genders seems like the best solution to me. I can understand wanting homosexual love interests, though, for the sake of representation. I should note though that in the case of an all bisexual love interest cast, you can still have non-romanceable characters of various sexual orientations.
My only issue with the "representation" argument is that it: a.) assumes that the representation has to be LI's and not NPCs or non-romanceable companions; and b.) with such a small amount of LGBT characters, pretty much ensures that any gay or lesbian companions will be romanceable.
Personally, I'd be just as happy with all bisexual LI's and for there to be non-romanceable gay companions. If, for example, Cullen and Iron Bull were both bi love interests and Dorian was happily married to another male magister, I'd be perfectly happy.
I acknowledge that set sexualities have value in the realm of representation; I personally don't think that value is worth the loss in choice, but I recognize the value.
I don't recognize the value in having race gating. Having that adds the same amount as adding the character who only likes fat people - not that there's anything wrong with that, just that character doesn't add anything to the game.
I agree, race gating is arbitrary. And realism is not the reason there are set sexualities. As far as value of choice? You get the same number of options. 2. The difference is they are making more options for there to be sexualities. In fact there would be LESS options since at least 2 of them would not even be an option if not for set sexualities. So actually it Adds choice for them to have set sexualities.
on the other hand, straight people have choice, literally almost any medium they have the ability to be represented.
I agree, race gating is arbitrary. And realism is not the reason there are set sexualities. As far as value of choice? You get the same number of options. 2. The difference is they are making more options for there to be sexualities. In fact there would be LESS options since at least 2 of them would not even be an option if not for set sexualities. So actually it Adds choice for them to have set sexualities.
on the other hand, straight people have choice, literally almost any medium they have the ability to be represented.
I find it odd discussing realism in a game where you close holes in reality using the power of your left hand.
I think it had more to do with the fact they were the obvious options.
Doesn't Bioware have their own marketing team?
I'm not. It's more realistic and encourages playing with different races.
BIoware has said NO DLC COMPANIONS. And I don't see why people are so worried about Advisor romances, I'm sure they'll be great.
Exactly. And DG added many times "no new PERMANENT companions. It does not mean "no companions ever"". And since Advisers already exist - they CAN be used as companions in DLC, they are not new, BW does not have to add it - they are here and have their role in the game already.
And I said, I was probably the only one that didn't like the citadel dlc, so I'm aware it was popular.
I think as far as love interests go - as in characters the player can choose to romance - having them open to all genders seems like the best solution to me. I can understand wanting homosexual love interests, though, for the sake of representation. I should note though that in the case of an all bisexual love interest cast, you can still have non-romanceable characters of various sexual orientations.
I agree, race gating is arbitrary. And realism is not the reason there are set sexualities. As far as value of choice? You get the same number of options. 2. The difference is they are making more options for there to be sexualities. In fact there would be LESS options since at least 2 of them would not even be an option if not for set sexualities. So actually it Adds choice for them to have set sexualities.
on the other hand, straight people have choice, literally almost any medium they have the ability to be represented.
The reason I support the "all LI's are bisexual" model is to maximize choice. I got two options in DAO, but lesbian players had Leliana or nothing.
Now, set sexualities and a minimum of 6 LI's guarantees that myself and the lesbian player get the same number of choices. I've got(hypothetically) Cassandra and Scribbles, they've got Scribbles and Sera.
But, take the same number of LI's and have them all be BI, then me and the lesbian player have the same number of options and a hell of a lot of them. That's the system I want.
i know, its just in Bioware games the Bisexual ladies seemed geared towards guys...
If anything I felt Leliana was more geared towards women, but maybe I'm biased because I only ever romanced her as a woman.
If anything I felt Leliana was more geared towards women, but maybe I'm biased because I only ever romanced her as a woman.
I romanced her with both genders and even though she doesn't say she has a preference like Zevran does I also felt she leaned more towards ladies not sure why it came off that way to me but it did.
I saw the Citadel DLC as a sweet and sappy goodbye to the fans. It was really just one last time to hang out and talk with all the companions you spent three games with. It might be a bit out of context with all the bad stuff happening in the main game, but as a "so long and thanks for all the fun," it worked for me.
I find it odd discussing realism in a game where you close holes in reality using the power of your left hand.
Whatever other arguments people can make about "realism" in a video game where you do some decidedly unrealistic stuff, it's valid to still want companions that are realistic. If they are one-dimensional and not people in their own (fictional) right, they would be pretty damn boring to haul around for 100 hours. Giving them depth with a backstory, personal beliefs, sexuality, or whatever is what makes them worth clicking on to chat with at camp, or listening to their views or arguments in dialogue and banter.
But the devs said there wouldn't be as much LI if they'd keep the DA2 system, because there would be no need to add more.The reason I support the "all LI's are bisexual" model is to maximize choice. I got two options in DAO, but lesbian players had Leliana or nothing.
Now, set sexualities and a minimum of 6 LI's guarantees that myself and the lesbian player get the same number of choices. I've got(hypothetically) Cassandra and Scribbles, they've got Scribbles and Sera.
But, take the same number of LI's and have them all be BI, then me and the lesbian player have the same number of options and a hell of a lot of them. That's the system I want.
By initiating a romance with pretty much anyone (video games or real life) you're almost certainly breaking up some other, hypothetical relationship that that person would have otherwise had.
This does not make me feel any better. In fact, a little the opposite. 
But the devs said there wouldn't be as much LI if they'd keep the DA2 system, because there would be no need to add more.
I'm just saying it's the way I'd like to do it.
Also they got a lot of flack from fans about it, so if they're going to receive hate either way, might as well go with the choice that they enjoy more creatively.
Which is fair enough. I'm just voicing my opinion on how I'd like it to be done.
Well now I feel even worse.
To be fair, player characters nullify far more potential relationships through the killing all the mooks sent their way.
My memory is a bit hazy but didn't the Citadel DLC come out after the backlash regarding the ending of ME3? I have to admit the Citadel DLC was enjoyable enough not perfect perhaps. A better way to end than what we got even with the extended cut which I might care about playing through one of these days. Or not.
To be fair, player characters nullify far more potential relationships through the killing all the mooks sent their way.
They probably had a family too 
The reason I support the "all LI's are bisexual" model is to maximize choice. I got two options in DAO, but lesbian players had Leliana or nothing.
Now, set sexualities and a minimum of 6 LI's guarantees that myself and the lesbian player get the same number of choices. I've got(hypothetically) Cassandra and Scribbles, they've got Scribbles and Sera.
But, take the same number of LI's and have them all be BI, then me and the lesbian player have the same number of options and a hell of a lot of them. That's the system I want.
Regardless there will be less choice with all Bi. they said speciffically there are more romance options because of set sexualities. 6 LIs compared to 4 is MORE choice not less, so all Bi companions equals less choice as it isnt even an option on any playthrough.
I didn't get the impression at all that Leliana was geared towards male players, I don't understand the reasoning at all behind thinking so.
I am sure there were some lesbian and bisexual women who did not like Leliana much, but it's not like you can please everyone with just one love interest.
I felt Zevran was the only m/m relationship that Bioware has done that felt more geared towards women. I did not get that feeling at all from the other m/m romances. I just let that one slide because they were so new at it. I totally trust them to write bisexual males. I thought Anders, Fenris and Kaidan were all good examples on the m/m side.
I felt Zevran was the only m/m relationship that Bioware has done that felt more geared towards women. I did not get that feeling at all from the other m/m romances. I just let that one slide because they were so new at it. I totally trust them to write bisexual males. I thought Anders, Fenris and Kaidan were all good examples on the m/m side.
I think Sky was arguably geared towards women in the sense that you really had to go out of your way to romance him as a man.
I think Sky was arguably geared towards women in the sense that you really had to go out of your way to romance him as a man.
I didn't get into Bioware until the ME1/Origins era, so I'll have to take your word on that one.
Retour en haut