426 réponses à ce sujet

[DirkJake]

Maybe Hanar "This one deeply cares about you."

 

So..many...tentacles...

[Zobert]

(to Zobert) Wait, you still get the full value of your game. The player is not denied the content, they simply have to play the game a certain way to unlock. It is still avaliable to every player who purchased a copy of the game.

 

OH, I have to be told what character I should play to get the value out of the game now?  Well, tell gay people they have all the options, too, they just have to play straight...right?  I'm sure they'll love that.

 

 

[Zobert]

So back to playersexual...what's wrong with it?  Everyone gets to date who they want--it's a fantasy game, I'm told so why not?

[Zobert]

The player gets access to all eight romances, if they're willing to make a character that meets the requirements for them. I know many players like to play characters that share their sexuality, but not everybody does.

 

I see, so you also told gay players to suck it up and just play straight so they can get a LI? 

[robokorean]

Maybe Hanar "This one deeply cares about you."

Imagine the dialogue :-D 'Want me to come over there and... Enkindle you?'

[DirkJake]

So back to playersexual...what's wrong with it?  Everyone gets to date who they want--it's a fantasy game, I'm told so why not?

 

Although he is no longer the lead writer for DA, David Gaider has described a problem with "playersexual" that I agree with him for the most part:

 

 

 

Every time I said that if we had the resources, if we had enough romances to go around, I would prefer to have set sexualities. And that making all of them bisexual is a compromise of sorts - not one I really like, because bisexuality itself is not a compromise - it's a distinct sexuality. But, I didn't want to tell four bisexual stories so it even varied in DA2. Isabela, for instance, is very open about her sexuality. She talks about romancing either sex. Then you go all the way to Merrill, who doesn't mention it at all, and the idea was to leave room for ambiguity, but where we ultimately ended up on is that ambiguity wasn't necessarily helpful. I know some people like it, some people really hated it, some people diluted their characters and that led to...that sort of ran down a road of where people called player-sexuality, which isn't a term I really like. Because it implies the player's perception of their sexuality dictates their sexuality.. dictates the reality of their sexuality. So, that if you're a man romancing Merrill, because she never talks about her sexuality, that lets to pretend that she's straight if you like? But you seeing her as straight does not make her straight. She is bisexual, even if you're not exposed to that. That's the same as a bisexual person - a bisexual woman could be in a current romance in a man. That doesn't make her straight - that makes her bisexual. Us changing that wasn't that we didn't want to deal with that - it's that... okay, getting away from that ambiguity with that - okay, we like to have set sexualities so we can tell different stories. We can have actual representation. We can tell stories so that they are bisexual stories adjacent to gay stories and straight stories, as well. It's about having all types of people and not needing the ambiguity means we can include having that part of their character.

[ThreeF]

So back to playersexual...what's wrong with it?  Everyone gets to date who they want--it's a fantasy game, I'm told so why not?

To put it short: It makes the game a dating sim. I want to play a game that tell story about people, not story that caters to my sexual fantasies.

[Panda]

So..many...tentacles...

 

I'm pretty sure some of players might have thing for that..

 

So back to playersexual...what's wrong with it?  Everyone gets to date who they want--it's a fantasy game, I'm told so why not?

 

The problem is that the LI's are not just only LI's, they are first characters in the game and sexuality is part of character building and sometimes their stories. Writes also have expressed that they don't want playersexuality.

 

Imagine the dialogue :-D 'Want me to come over there and... Enkindle you?'

[Shechinah]

(to Zobert) I commented on your post because I felt it was incorrect to say the full value of the game was not avaliable to the person who purchased it. It really had nothing to do with the topic. If you've said you weren't getting the full value of the game because you could not access a zone before unlocking it through a quest I'd have answered it the same way.

[phantomrachie]

I see, so you also told gay players to suck it up and just play straight so they can get a LI? 

 

This statement is assuming that everyone starts out is on an equal footing.

 

In most games gay players do just have to suck it up & play straight to get even 1 LI.

 

Telling straight gamers that maybe this one time, they could compromise and play a gay character if they don't like the straight LIs, is not discriminating against them.

 

It's saying - hi this once, why not play a different type of character?

 

It's called compromise, those who are in the majority are not used to doing it I know, but being asked to do it, is not the same as being discriminated against. 

[Ash Wind]

Woah is this thread extremely rude!  You know, not everyone frickin lives on this forum with a million and a half posts.  Some people play the game instead.  People are allowed to be new and have an opinion you have heard a million times over.  Also, in complete and total irony, the people telling him to get over it, play someone else, blah and blahhabity blah can also "get over it" and choose a different thread to post in.

 

I don't see anyone cracking a whip to make people post on this one.

 

Newbies are also game players, they are also people who spent money on the game, and they are allowed to have opinions you may have heard a million times over and no they are not required to do a search before posting.

This. Seriously, there are far too many forum snobs that lurk about. The thread was clearly and accurately titled, seen it before...? Great... don't enter it. Nobody puts a gun to your head and forces you into a thread. So go off, and read the dozen upon dozen of threads that bring up thoughts and ideas NO ONE has ever posted before. Oh wait, I think there are about 5 of those. 

[Grieving Natashina]

Besides, few people have been harping about looks this time.  I know that there is several players that play straight male PCs that wish they'd had a romance option not pro-Chantry.  I see nothing wrong with the thread so long as it remains constructive.  

 

Straight male PC doesn't equal straight male player.  I like to play straight men sometimes.  Except in ME.  I couldn't handle that gorilla stomp.  

[o Ventus]

 

Besides, few people have been harping about looks this time.

 

Heh, good one.

[Grieving Natashina]

Heh, good one.

I've read the entire thread so far, as is my wont for topics like this.  Honestly, there has only been a few posts about looks in the thread.   So long as folks don't make that the subject of their debate, I don't think this thread is that destructive.  You and I have seen and participated in far worse about this topic.

 

Stating preferences or ideas is fine by me.  I encourage it, actually.  Starting off by stating that, "They are ugly," doesn't lead anywhere good.  This thread has been really decent about that so far.  I'd love to see it kept up.

[Zobert]

To put it short: It makes the game a dating sim. I want to play a game that tell story about people, not story that caters to my sexual fantasies.

 

Skyrim has zero sexual fantasies fulfilled, was also GOTY, and has a rabid fanbase, and I still play it.  I could care less if I have a single sexual fantasy fulfilled by this game because I have a RL person that fulfills me.

 

If they removed romances 100% and just like fixed the hair situation or made the bears not respawn so much I'd be good. 

[o Ventus]

I've read the entire thread so far, as is my wont for topics like this.  Honestly, there has only been a few posts about looks in the thread.   So long as folks don't make that the subject of their debate, I don't think this thread is that destructive.  You and I have seen and participated in far worse about this topic.

 

Stating preferences or ideas is fine by me.  I encourage it, actually.  Starting off by stating that, "They are ugly," doesn't lead anywhere good.  This thread has been really decent about that so far.  I'd love to see it kept up.

Maybe they haven't been doing it in this thread, but there's no denying the amount of people going on about "Cassandra looks like a guy" and "Josephine is ugly" and "Sera has a weird face".

[Zobert]

This statement is assuming that everyone starts out is on an equal footing.

 

In most games gay players do just have to suck it up & play straight to get even 1 LI.

 

Telling straight gamers that maybe this one time, they could compromise and play a gay character if they don't like the straight LIs, is not discriminating against them.

 

It's saying - hi this once, why not play a different type of character?

 

It's called compromise, those who are in the majority are not used to doing it I know, but being asked to do it, is not the same as being discriminated against. 

 

 

It is no more or less discriminating than telling gay players to suck it up and play straight characters.  People pay the same money for a product they should get a product that equally responds to what they want in the product or they won't continue to buy it.  Gay people should be able to pick up a game and be happy, straight people, too.  That's how a company makes money--by making a product that is loved equally.

 

If you are the type that has to be your sex in the game, and to have the type of romance you want based on your orientation then you won't be pleased by the product and people can't expect you to.

 

It's like telling someone that everyone else loves cheese on their burger so you have to eat it on yours.  No, you can choose to not eat the burger, you can choose to go to another restaurant, etc.  You don't have to eat the burger if you are paying for it.

 

As a female who has played games since I was a kid 95% of the time I never got to play a female and still ended up enjoying the games because its just brain candy.  I don't feel like it's "my turn".  It's nice that I'm being included and seeing strong female characters and also being able to play strong female characters, but at the same time I don't have to buy a game or give a company my money if the product isn't suited for me.

 

Playersexual means everyone is some level of happy except the writers who want to be artistic and fully use their creativity, and that's nice but they are getting paid to write while we pay to own the product. 

 

I don't care if I have to "share Cullen" with others.  You like him?  Play a romance with him.  You like Solas?  Romance the heck out of him.  Everyone should be somewhat happy with their choices.  I don't require exclusive romantic choices to my gender or orientation.

 

Of course, people will disagree...hence this being a forum.

[Nomen Mendax]

Skyrim has zero sexual fantasies fulfilled, was also GOTY, and has a rabid fanbase, and I still play it.  I could care less if I have a single sexual fantasy fulfilled by this game because I have a RL person that fulfills me.

 

If they removed romances 100% and just like fixed the hair situation or made the bears not respawn so much I'd be good. 

I like the romances, I'm also generally happy with the options that are given to me (though can understand it if people are not). I'm of the opinion that any RPG that takes place over a long period of (in game) time should have a romance*. Otherwise we are giving up romances for more combat which most of these games really don't need.

 

*I'm sure I could come up with exceptions to this.

[Zobert]

Also I disagree that playersexual is bisexual.  We still contribute to the fantasy by including our own motivations, our own backstory, etc.  The bits of code that represent the people in the game can be anything.  If you are bisexual and want them to be bisexual or even not bisexual but gay or straight...they can be.  If you're gay and you want them to be gay...they can be. 

 

Or you can choose an orientation like hair color and that triggers an algorithm that gives you choices.  With ALL the time they spent on shard and rift quests they could cut 30% of those and then add some extra dialogue that meets gay, straight, bi, pan...whatever.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Although he is no longer the lead writer for DA, David Gaider has described a problem with "playersexual" that I agree with him for the most part:

 

 

 

Every time I said that if we had the resources, if we had enough romances to go around, I would prefer to have set sexualities. And that making all of them bisexual is a compromise of sorts - not one I really like, because bisexuality itself is not a compromise - it's a distinct sexuality. But, I didn't want to tell four bisexual stories so it even varied in DA2. Isabela, for instance, is very open about her sexuality. She talks about romancing either sex. Then you go all the way to Merrill, who doesn't mention it at all, and the idea was to leave room for ambiguity, but where we ultimately ended up on is that ambiguity wasn't necessarily helpful. I know some people like it, some people really hated it, some people diluted their characters and that led to...that sort of ran down a road of where people called player-sexuality, which isn't a term I really like. Because it implies the player's perception of their sexuality dictates their sexuality.. dictates the reality of their sexuality. So, that if you're a man romancing Merrill, because she never talks about her sexuality, that lets to pretend that she's straight if you like? But you seeing her as straight does not make her straight. She is bisexual, even if you're not exposed to that. That's the same as a bisexual person - a bisexual woman could be in a current romance in a man. That doesn't make her straight - that makes her bisexual. Us changing that wasn't that we didn't want to deal with that - it's that... okay, getting away from that ambiguity with that - okay, we like to have set sexualities so we can tell different stories. We can have actual representation. We can tell stories so that they are bisexual stories adjacent to gay stories and straight stories, as well. It's about having all types of people and not needing the ambiguity means we can include having that part of their character.

Take it away, cats.

[Draining Dragon]

Evil companions only make sense in a game with a karma scale. Like Dark & Light in KoTOR, open & close palm in Jade Empire or Good, Evil & Neutral Karma in Fallout 3.
 
In games without a karma scale like in DA, there is nothing to indicate that a companion or protagonist is evil or good.
 
Besides 'evil' & 'good' aren't really definable terms and a persons actions don't necessarily indicate whether they are evil or good.
 
For example, spoiling the Sacred Urn could be seen as an evil act, but depending on your point of view, it could also been seen as a step towards lessening the stranglehold that the Chantry has on the people of Thedas, which could be a good thing.

Good and evil are definable terms when you're discussing RPGs. You can use the definitions created by the granddaddy of RPGs. Especially with an RPG franchise so heavily based on D&D.

Morrigan is neutral evil in DAO, for example.

[Zobert]

Good and evil are definable terms when you're discussing RPGs. You can use the definitions created by the granddaddy of RPGs. Especially with an RPG franchise so heavily based on D&D.

Morrigan is neutral evil in DAO, for example.

 

What?  No.  She's true neutral.  How is she evil?

[Draining Dragon]

What?  No.  She's true neutral.  How is she evil?

She reforms into true neutral when you're nice to her, just like Viconia in Baldur's Gate.

In fact, Morrigan is basically Viconia.

[Zobert]

She reforms into true neutral when you're nice to her, just like Viconia in Baldur's Gate.

In fact, Morrigan is basically Viconia.

 

I don't know.  She is a survival of the fittest type, but not evil.  She likes "you" as the warden right off because you're stronger than Alastair.  She thinks you should release Sten because he's a noble warrior.  I think she's sort of chaotic neutral/true neutral all the way.  Even neutral characters can have friends.

[Draining Dragon]

I don't know.  She is a survival of the fittest type, but not evil.  She likes "you" as the warden right off because you're stronger than Alastair.  She thinks you should release Sten because he's a noble warrior.  I think she's sort of chaotic neutral/true neutral all the way.  Even neutral characters can have friends.

Evil characters can also have friends.

I mainly consider her to be neutral evil because she approves of actively harming other for personal gain, and frequently condemns altruism. True neutral characters have more of a "live and let live" attitude, and neither approve of nor condemn altruism.

Though she develops into true neutral over the course of the game, if you have high approval.