476 réponses à ce sujet

[Baerdface]

Yes, let's make everyone bisexual because that's how diversity works. Lol.

[scyme]

I thought I'd be happy with the more "realistic" gender restrictions. Turns out that for me personally it doesn't add as much NPC character depth as I thought it would, go figure. 

[Voragoras]

Yes, let's make everyone bisexual because that's how diversity works. Lol.

 

It's not about diversity for me. It's about player choice and constructing a good narrative.

[Fandango]

Anyway, I guess I’m done with these topics because it’s so heartbreaking to see how tightly people cling to the notion that orientation should be defining. It’s never going to go anywhere, and just makes me sad.

 
To be clear, I'm not saying that Sera's orientation defines her Efvie. I mean, it's certainly part of who she is to me - but defining? No way! That said, I do understand that my point about the importance of having gay party members in the game may have given the wrong impression. My bad.

[Baerdface]

It's not about diversity for me. It's about player choice and constructing a good narrative.

 

You have a choice to pick whatever gender the romance option is interested in

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

isnt this game about saving the world?..when did Bioware start makeing dateing sims?

[RINNZ]

isnt this game about saving the world?..when did Bioware start makeing dateing sims?

Shhhhhhhhhh

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

Sh*t i forgot EA was listening. 

[Baerdface]

isnt this game about saving the world?..when did Bioware start makeing dateing sims?

 

They want Dragon Age to be the gateway drug to Sims 4

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

no you fool its Vitamin X all over again.

[Voragoras]

You have a choice to pick whatever gender the romance option is interested in

 

But then I'm not roleplaying as the character I've depicted in my mind, and so you've only limited player choice even further by taking that action.

[Grieving Natashina]

 

Look, I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, so I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.  So, the companions having set sexuality, and that unfortunately conflicts with your head canon.    It sounds like you want the DA team to change their intended plans and visions for the characters to match your head canon.  Am I reading this correctly?

[DaemionMoadrin]

I don't understand why people outright -demand- that they can romance anyone they want. Don't you get that you cheapen the experience that way? That you turn the characters into something less?

 

Are you that selfish that you'd accept a flat story just to boink with the NPC of your choice?

 

It's time you come to grips with the fact that DA:I is -not- an open world RPG, it is very defined by the story it wants to tell and it doesn't allow you to change that story at all. Those characters you lust after? Part of the story and thus not subject to change at your whim.

 

I understand where you are coming from but I see no compelling reason for you to get your wish.

 

If none of the love interests available to your Inquisitor match your preferences, then you have the option to remain single. Having a romance is by no means mandatory and one could even argue that having one distracts from the mission at hand.

 

We can talk about some unfortunate decisions BioWare has made. To me both Cassandra and Cullen read as bi ... to some degree anyway. Josephine is very much straight, except for one comment about Leliana she makes in the beginning but clears up much later. Her f/f romance doesn't feel ... believeable. BioWare needs to work on that, to make things clearer and more complete.

 

Everything has been said already in this thread and I don't feel like repeating myself or others. Dead horse and all that.

[Namea]

I don't understand why people outright -demand- that they can romance anyone they want. Don't you get that you cheapen the experience that way? That you turn the characters into something less?

 

Are you that selfish that you'd accept a flat story just to boink with the NPC of your choice?

 

It's time you come to grips with the fact that DA:I is -not- an open world RPG, it is very defined by the story it wants to tell and it doesn't allow you to change that story at all. Those characters you lust after? Part of the story and thus not subject to change at your whim.

 

I understand where you are coming from but I see no compelling reason for you to get your wish.

 

If none of the love interests available to your Inquisitor match your preferences, then you have the option to remain single. Having a romance is by no means mandatory and one could even argue that having one distracts from the mission at hand.

 

We can talk about some unfortunate decisions BioWare has made. To me both Cassandra and Cullen read as bi ... to some degree anyway. Josephine is very much straight, except for one comment about Leliana she makes in the beginning but clears up much later. Her f/f romance doesn't feel ... believeable. BioWare needs to work on that, to make things clearer and more complete.

 

Everything has been said already in this thread and I don't feel like repeating myself or others. Dead horse and all that.

 

But they want skyrim silly. You know, a game in which you can marry pretty much anyone while being any gender or race and all you need is a necklace and sometimes a fetch quest. It really doesn't matter since almost none of them have a personality anyway. They're just "Voice Number 5 character face 3." Then you take them straight to marriage with no further interaction and they open a store for you! Whooo! Then forever after you can use them for their wares without any sort of deep or meaningful interaction having ever taken place. 

 

These people don't want characters, they want pixelized blow up dolls. 

[Tayah]

We can talk about some unfortunate decisions BioWare has made. To me both Cassandra and Cullen read as bi ... to some degree anyway. Josephine is very much straight, except for one comment about Leliana she makes in the beginning but clears up much later. Her f/f romance doesn't feel ... believeable. BioWare needs to work on that, to make things clearer and more complete.

This is what I feel is the issue for me, the characterisation needs to work. If they decide Cass is straight then she's straight and much as I might wish otherwise, fine. Until her rejection scene she doesn't read as straight though and that's... unfortunate. Worse for me is that Josephine is bi but very much feels like she was intended as a straight romance so really I think that if you're making a character of any orientation be that straight, gay/lesbian, bi or whatever it helps for their romance to be consistent with the setting and if they're bi (or any orientation actually) you need to account for lore variations that would apply to romancing different genders and races otherwise the romance doesn't feel believable. 

[King Dragonlord]

I don't understand why people outright -demand- that they can romance anyone they want. Don't you get that you cheapen the experience that way? That you turn the characters into something less?

 

Are you that selfish that you'd accept a flat story just to boink with the NPC of your choice?

 

It's time you come to grips with the fact that DA:I is -not- an open world RPG, it is very defined by the story it wants to tell and it doesn't allow you to change that story at all. Those characters you lust after? Part of the story and thus not subject to change at your whim.

 

I understand where you are coming from but I see no compelling reason for you to get your wish.

 

If none of the love interests available to your Inquisitor match your preferences, then you have the option to remain single. Having a romance is by no means mandatory and one could even argue that having one distracts from the mission at hand.

 

We can talk about some unfortunate decisions BioWare has made. To me both Cassandra and Cullen read as bi ... to some degree anyway. Josephine is very much straight, except for one comment about Leliana she makes in the beginning but clears up much later. Her f/f romance doesn't feel ... believeable. BioWare needs to work on that, to make things clearer and more complete.

 

Everything has been said already in this thread and I don't feel like repeating myself or others. Dead horse and all that.

 

I played Fallout New Vegas before this game and am playing KOTOR 2 now that I'm done with DAI. And both of them have stories less flat than this one is. Far less flat. And neither game has romances. You can flirt a bit but there are no full on romances. 

 

If you think romance and sexuality are needed for vital and vibrant stories, you have a limited view of what makes a good story.

 

All the time they did spend on that stuff could have been used to develop a powerful central theme they kept bringing up but never doing anything with. When you're given power in a time of crisis, what do you do when the crisis has passed? What if there are still things you feel need fixing? How many things do you fix before you lay down that power. 

 

That is powerful stuff and far more relevant in light of the events of the last several years than anything they did with sexuality in this game. But all they did was ask the question, they never really explored that theme.

[Voragoras]

 

Look, I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, so I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.  So, the companions having set sexuality, and that unfortunately conflicts with your head canon.    It sounds like you want the DA team to change their intended plans and visions for the characters to match your head canon.  Am I reading this correctly?

 

Presuming you're talking to me, it's nothing to do with headcanon. I would merely prefer that romanceable companions were all bisexual to allow for more player choice, and I feel the counter-arguments for not doing so are rather weak. I don't actually care either way, but if I were asked, I'd vote for omnisexuality. I'm not on some ardent crusade to convert all video game characters into bisexuals in some kind of wish-fulfilling virtual harem yes i am.

 

tbh I feel the romances in this game were handled clunkily anyway. I, and other posters, have already mentioned Josephine's and Sera's romances as lacking, and Dorian's path is the only one where his sexuality actually feels like a real tangible addition to his character, however I might feel about that implementation. The rest of the romance restrictions feel superfluous and arbitrary, especially Solas'. There's absolutely no reason why, given that he's essentially an immortal God with tangential connections to humanity anyway, his romance is gender-locked, as opposed to his very logical race-lock.

[AresKeith]

There are no gender restrictions

The characters are heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual

[AlexisR]

I still don't get the it's more realistic! argument.

Okay, so character X only likes men, for example. Realistic preferences, sure-- but somehow they'd still romance any male protagonist, no matter the race or the culture or the face or even the personality. ???

Because Square-jawed blond zealous templar guy who has a shrill laugh and is devoted to the Maker
is the same thing as
big-nosed burly Carta dwarf with massive brown beard who lies and cheats and blackmails their way through life
is the same thing as
slender effeminate dark-haired human bloodmage who likes to crack bad jokes and is all about that mage freedom
is the same thing as
giant stoic qunari - or, hey, how about a human-hating Dalish elf? -
is the same thing as
etc

How is this realistic. How.

So we already have to accept suspension of disbelief, right? Because it's a game and you can't have Cass only liking male protags of a certain background who pick certain choices and have face codes of XY? That'd be too restrictive? ...but somehow extending the same suspension of disbelief to gender is too unrealistic?? That makes zero sense to me.

 

It's already unrealistic. It has to be. This here is just a matter of picking some arbitrary restrictions over others.

 

 

That said, at least the restrictions allowed Bioware to specifically have representation in the game (i.e. Dorian, haven't tried Sera yet) which is a good thing. I support this. Still not a fan of the restriction in general though.

[Voragoras]

^ You should've seen some of the characters I've made in the sake of hilarity exploring my genius. Some of them are so grotesque it's almost art, and yet every romanceable character still wants to jump their malformed bones.

 

I think if you're going to include any restrictions on player choice in game, it should be for a narrative reason. otherwise it's going to seem very arbitrary. This applies to heterosexual romances as well as homosexual ones - perhaps an heir to a prestigious family can't entertain the thought of homosexuality for practical reasons, or perhaps a city elf has had it drummed out of them for the sake of marriage exchanges, and thus they are only available to the opposite sex. I don't know, but I think the poster above me has made an excellent point in how romances are already sacrificing believability for player choice anyway.

[DetcelferVisionary]

I still don't get the it's more realistic! argument.

Okay, so character X only likes men, for example. Realistic preferences, sure-- but somehow they'd still romance any male protagonist, no matter the race or the culture or the face or even the personality. ???

Because Square-jawed blond zealous templar guy who has a shrill laugh and is devoted to the Maker
is the same thing as
big-nosed burly Carta dwarf with massive brown beard who lies and cheats and blackmails their way through life
is the same thing as
slender effeminate dark-haired human bloodmage who likes to crack bad jokes and is all about that mage freedom
is the same thing as
giant stoic qunari - or, hey, how about a human-hating Dalish elf? -
is the same thing as
etc

How is this realistic. How.

So we already have to accept suspension of disbelief, right? Because it's a game and you can't have Cass only liking male protags of a certain background who pick certain choices and have face codes of XY? That'd be too restrictive? ...but somehow extending the same suspension of disbelief to gender is too unrealistic?? That makes zero sense to me.

 

It's already unrealistic. It has to be. This here is just a matter of picking some arbitrary restrictions over others.

 

 

That said, at least the restrictions allowed Bioware to specifically have representation in the game (i.e. Dorian, haven't tried Sera yet) which is a good thing. I support this. Still not a fan of the restriction in general though.

 

Flawed logic by generalizing sexual orientation to physical attraction and disposition in an attempt to make it a wash.  That is a completely separate argument and one I would gladly take up elsewhere.  Suffice to say (for me at least), the topic Bioware is trying to cover is interaction between orientations and all it's complexity.  

 

What of Solas and Cullen who have racial preference?  Approval rating still matters last  I checked.  There has always been a balance between realism and gameplay.  That is because...  it's a game.  If the story didn't have a level of believability...  then we all wouldn't be here.  Bioware's goal has always been to blend those two concepts.

[Voragoras]

Flawed logic by generalizing sexual orientation to physical attraction and disposition in an attempt to make it a wash.  That is a completely separate argument and one I would gladly take up elsewhere.  Suffice to say (for me at least), the topic Bioware is trying to cover is interaction between orientations and all it's complexity.  

 

What of Solas and Cullen who have racial preference?  Approval rating still matters last  I checked.  There has always been a balance between realism and gameplay.  That is because...  it's a game.  If the story didn't have a level of believability...  then we all wouldn't be here.  Bioware's goal has always been to blend those two concepts.

 

Sexual orientation is physical/emotional attraction. The latter defines the former: straight people are attracted to the opposite sex, gay people are attracted to the same sex, bisexual people are attracted to both sexes, asexual people aren't physically attracted to anybody, etc. What even is this bizarre attempt at a counter argument?

 

Solas' race-gate makes sense due to his personality and his backstory. Cullen's makes less sense and isn't explored within the narrative, so I disagree with that as well. However, race-gating implies a clash of culture or simple isolationism, and is therefore more acceptable to me as a concept, as long as it's made clear within the context of the story.

[s-jay2676]

If none of the love interests available to your Inquisitor match your preferences, then you have the option to remain single. Having a romance is by no means mandatory and one could even argue that having one distracts from the mission at hand.

If your character remains single then the game loses uniqueness, I think. It lacks a personal touch.

 

I haven't finished the game yet (finished Arbor Wilds) but my impressions of the romances so far are quite negative. No variety at all. To be honest, I haven't gained anything from the change between DAII and Inquisition.

[Boobasaurus]

 

Look, I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, so I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.  So, the companions having set sexuality, and that unfortunately conflicts with your head canon.    It sounds like you want the DA team to change their intended plans and visions for the characters to match your head canon.  Am I reading this correctly?

 

Isn't that what the whole discussion about romances comes down to in the end?