Ce sujet est fermé
Maybe Vivi just isn't into people with eerily glowing green hands. 
Anyone else want to share their preferences?
I do not play DudePC/LadyLI hetero romances since that is from the standard POV and standard relationship type that is saturated across our media. I find it boring. It has been explored extensively. When I do do hetero, it is FemPC/DudeLI, but I prefer sticking to gay men and lesbians, and bi/pan PCs in same-sex relationships.
"she's just not that into you." Is a lot better than saying "she's too busy for romance". The latter is a bit shallow. It's difficult to imagine a character like Vivienne saying that. I don't believe she's emotionless in the love department.
"Shallow" is subjective though. I find "She's just not into elves" to be extremely shallow, personally. I'd rather her be making a decision based on her own personal story than just be told she doesn't find dwarves attractive, so they are gated. That's just me though. I think it's going to be interesting to see what "reasons" they come up with for those characters. I suspect that, regardless of how they proceed, some people will be unhappy with it. My thoughts, however, are that we're all getting at least two options, so it's win/win for everyone this time around.
So, your point is that since they already failed at gender equality issue due to incredibly skewed representation, it wouldn't be a problem if they failed too when it comes to treatment of lesbian players?
If those 2 remaining LIs were both bisexual male, even if race-gated, it would mean that gay men and straight women would potentially get 4 options, while lesbians (and straight men) only 2. I bet they would be praised for their "egalitarian" approach.
Uh, no. I'm not saying that at all. I specifically said that I want an even choice. My point was that saying "It would be even" isn't terribly strong "evidence" to suggest that Vivienne must be an LI though. She probably is, but I'm just keeping myself open to the possibility that she's not so that I don't get disappointed if they are also skewed in this distribution as well.
As long as everyone has a choice, regardless of race, orientation, and gender, I think everyone is being treated fairly.
f/f
Sera and Josephine
f/m
Cullen and IB
m/m
Dorian and IB
m/f
Cass and Josephine
s/s only
Sera and Dorian
hetero only
Cass and Cullen
If one of the previously announced LIs turns out to be race-gated, I'm sure that inquisitor will be presented with an option of the same gender, if not preference. In other words, If you're heart is set on romancing Cass and she turns out to be gated for humans only (which I don't want to be around for the fallout for if ti happens) Vivienne is certain to be the unannounced one, though she may not be gated for gender as well.
As long as everyone has a choice, regardless of race, orientation, and gender, I think everyone is being treated fairly.
Twice as much options for some (4 vs 2) is not being treated fairly. By that reasoning, we were apparently already treated fairly in DAO.
Twice as much options for some (4 vs 2) is not being treated fairly. By that reasoning, we were apparently already treated fairly in DAO.
Factually incorrect. Gay and lesbians players' only "choice" in DA: O was whether to do the single romance or not. There was no choice about options.
Yeah, I guess if there are two other males who are both bisexual and race-gated, then IB would be moot. However, if Vivienne is a LI and race-gated, then the remaining has to be open to dwarves, otherwise (prior to IB's "fix") straight lady and gay male dwarves wouldn't have had two options.
I've been thinking about that, and I'm actually not so sure any more. It's possible to David's relatively blunt "Not all race/gender combinations will have equal options" and stance that getting less options based on race choice didn't matter as much as gender/sexuality to mean that gay male/straight female dwarves originally only had one option. They've said that everyone has at least two choices now, but we don't know if that was always the case before Iron bull's cinematics were expanded.
I was wondering if people's preferred gender/sexuality combo (outside of there own) was tied at all to positions of privilege/oppression. Like since games with romances almost always only allow one to play as a male PC/female LI, people not want to play that way anymore, or since gay/lesbian folks have been historically oppressed by straight people, both in gaming and in life, they might not want to play as the oppressor. Same as men/women. Crimson didn't follow my theory.I do not play DudePC/LadyLI hetero romances since that is from the standard POV and standard relationship type that is saturated across our media. I find it boring. It has been explored extensively. When I do do hetero, it is FemPC/DudeLI, but I prefer sticking to gay men and lesbians, and bi/pan PCs in same-sex relationships.
It made a lot of sense though that for a straight playthrough, she still wanted to romance a woman more than play as one.
I think the only way Vivienne wouldn't be an option is if males were double gated for the same race. Something like;
Iron Bull - no elves/dwarves
Solas - no dwarves
Varric - no qunari/humans
Or just as on the hetero side;
Cullen (hetero only) - no dwarves/qunari
Iron Bull - no dwarves
Solas - no gating, available to all
Varric (hetero only) - no qunari/humans
But it seems unlikely to me that they would feel it necessary. To me, it seems more likely that one male will be gated and Vivienne will also be in as a gated female.
I've been thinking about that, and I'm actually not so sure any more. It's possible to David's relatively blunt "Not all race/gender combinations will have equal options" and stance that getting less options based on race choice didn't matter as much as gender/sexuality to mean that gay male/straight female dwarves originally only had one option. They've said that everyone has at least two choices now, but we don't know if that was always the case before Iron bull's cinematics were expanded.
Yeah, I've wondered about that as well, but I think that some of their comments about "choices" being important dated prior to IB being "fixed". I might be wrong about that though. I think I remember seeing some of his comments about the importance of choice for everyone based on "real world" demographics, which happened back before (or around the same time) as the "IB will sleep with anyone who won't break" comment, which they've apparently acknowledged was a buffer in case they couldn't work out the IB stuff.
Factually incorrect. Gay and lesbians players' only "choice" in DA: O was whether to do the single romance or not. There was no choice about options.
It was choice - that or nothing. So, how 2 options instead of 1 suddenly makes it all OK and fair and nothing more is ever needed again, even while others get significantly more options?
Like I already said. The DA team talked a lot about equality/ fairness around the romances ( unlike the MA team), they had the opportunity to do such thing with 2/2/2, it would be weird and a bit absurd if they decided to add 2 raced romances with only males, unequal options giving 5/3. Or two more straight options, or Varric only for ladies. It wasn't really necessary. Giving at least two options to everyone ( but more for some ) is a good goal, but it isn't what I would consider equality or fairness. 
I think there's a huge psychological difference between one group having three options while another group has two vs one group having one choice and another having two.
But with this gender ratio and this many romances, someone is going to get annoyed.
Actually, in this theoretical case, one group would have 4 options (just affordable in 2 different playthroughs, but it would still be for that very group) and another - only 2.
It was choice - that or nothing. So, how 2 options instead of 1 suddenly makes it all OK and fair and nothing more is ever needed again, even while others get significantly more options?
Are you serious with this? You can't possibly be arguing that one group getting only one option and another group getting two options (i.e. a choice) is the same as every group getting multiple options, but some groups getting more than others.
I agree with you that it would be great to have even options across the board this time around, but it's not going to happen. If it's even by gender, it will still be uneven by race, so someone's getting less options. Just call it like it is: You want more options for you. That's fine, but your current line of argument that DA: O's options were equivalent to what we're getting this time around is just not going to fly. It's a false equivalency and we all know it.
BioWare are as inclusive a game producer as you will find.
Romances are driven by story.
With two LIs still to reveal which I suspect will largely level things up,
is there really anything here to complain about?
"Shallow" is subjective though. I find "She's just not into elves" to be extremely shallow, personally. I'd rather her be making a decision based on her own personal story than just be told she doesn't find dwarves attractive, so they are gated. That's just me though. I think it's going to be interesting to see what "reasons" they come up with for those characters. I suspect that, regardless of how they proceed, some people will be unhappy with it. My thoughts, however, are that we're all getting at least two options, so it's win/win for everyone this time around.
It was choice - that or nothing. So, how 2 options instead of 1 suddenly makes it all OK and fair and nothing more is ever needed again, even while others get significantly more options?
Who is getting more options? The only ones who get more are bisexual players and they'll always get more options.
Completely missed my point. Saying she doesn't have time insinuates that she needs to specifically make time for romance. That does not have to be the case for something to develop.
Forgive me, I hadn't realized there was a point to miss. Speaking of missing points, I did say that she could simply be uninterested in romance.
So no, it doesn't have to be the case that for something to develop she needs to make time, but can it be? I think so.
Anyway those dscussions around the romances convinced me that except some people, everyone is selfish and only cares about fairness when he/ she or his / her demograhic is affected. ( I've seen too many folks calling for fairness when they were concerned but not so much for the others ) And that only one good solution, one pragmatic could solve the matter. Always give the same number for everyone in the future.
At 15.39 Gaider talks about "THE CHART" and how they used it to make sure everyone had at least 2 romance options. IB was only accessible by everyone very recently, so it doesn't make sense that they would have planned for him to be available when they were writing the romances. How could they have known he would be finished on time and everyone would get two choices?
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=rHJceORMYPo
is there really anything here to complain about?
Oh yes. People have always and will always complain when it comes to some groups of players getting more options than others, or even when that's not the case will find issues with the perceived quality of those options. Some will go as far as to cast aspersions on the motivations behind who gets what. That's nothing new.
From our perspective, every gender and preference of player gets at least two options from which to choose--as many as DA2. That's as far as our obligation takes us. If someone wishes to take issue with that, they are free to do so.
I was wondering if people's preferred gender/sexuality combo (outside of there own) was tied at all to positions of privilege/oppression. Like since games with romances almost always only allow one to play as a male PC/female LI, people not want to play that way anymore, or since gay/lesbian folks have been historically oppressed by straight people, both in gaming and in life, they might not want to play as the oppressor. Same as men/women. Crimson didn't follow my theory.
I'm a simple woman, with simple tastes, just let me create a harem, that's all I ask!
I never tried a female playthrough where I romanced a guy, I sense I would lose interest pretty quick if I tried. Old habits die hard and all that. 
BioWare are as inclusive a game producer as you will find.
Romances are driven by story.
With two LIs still to reveal which I suspect will largely level things up,
is there really anything here to complain about?
The day I find something I can't complain about, I'm going to complain about not being able to complain about it.
Anyway those dscussions around the romances convinced me that except some people, everyone is selfish and only cares about fairness when he/ she or his / her demograhic is affected. ( I've seen too many folks calling for fairness when they were concerned but not so much for the others ) And that only one good solution, one pragmatic could solve the matter. Always give the same number for everyone in the future.
I agree that equal numbers with relative content is the only real solution. Giving a choice doesn't mean you gave a fair choice. If someone has 2 options and someone else has 4 options, that's not fair just because nobody had only 1. I can't wrap my head around this kind of thinking. In what other context has 2 ever been equal to more than 2? It makes no sense.
After the statement saying DAI has the most LI in a DA game, a player who had 2 love interests in Say in DA2 would suddenly believe that he / she would be getting even more this time round.Oh yes. People have always and will always complain when it comes to some groups of players getting more options than others, or even when that's not the case will find issues with the perceived quality of those options. Some will go as far as to cast aspersions on the motivations behind who gets what. That's nothing new.
From our perspective, every gender and preference of player gets at least two options from which to choose--as many as DA2. That's as far as our obligation takes us. If someone wishes to take issue with that, they are free to do so.
Retour en haut