201 réponses à ce sujet

[marcelo caldas]

Incorrect

Sure felt like it.

[The Elder King]

1 batarian infiltrator (barbed armor, nets, spear thrower , shoulder cannon, tactical cloack, male ex slaver-predator like caracter)
1 human (Miranda like tech)
1 krogan (claw hammer, shotgun soldier)
1 newcomer (new race, maybe new class?)
1 turian (female sentinel)
1 salarian (tech)
1 asari
Less same sex LI options (DAI had more same sex options than strait ones - after all someone had to have babies on the new colonies)

Solas, Cullen, Blackwall, Cassandra: heterosexual.
Dorian, Sera: homosexual.
Bull, Josie: pansexual/bisexual.

Maths isn't your strong point, I see.

[daveliam]

Sure felt like it.

 

Well, that's a shame for you, then.  Two options for guys and two for ladies (one of each who is also available for straight guys and gals) is about what you should be expecting going forward, so brace for it.  It's the same amount that was in ME3, too. 

 

But that's not really the point of this thread. 

[The Elder King]

Sure felt like it.

How ?

[marcelo caldas]

Well I hope they return to player-sexual LI. It's simply practical and create less issues with players who want to romance a specific character. More freedom is the best option.

I just hope to have very few humans in my roster one max. I want more aliens.

Actually I like it more if they do have a fixed option, of course one could be bissexual, but not all. By the way, that's the asari role in the game.

[Wulfram]

It was straight women who got the extra options in DAI. But then they got rather few options in ME3

[marcelo caldas]

How ?

Maybe because we had only 2 options each, back in ME2 we had at least 4 I think.
I miss the space pimp I guess.

[Dr. Rush]

Not too many squadmates. I'd rather have a core group that has great depth, than ME2-like that features 12 companions who have too little depth. I think 6 companions would be ideal. 

[Sanunes]

Well I hope they return to player-sexual LI. It's simply practical and create less issues with players who want to romance a specific character. More freedom is the best option.

 

I just hope to have very few humans in my roster one max. I want more aliens.

 

With how people reacted to the romance options in Dragon Age II, I just can't see that happening.

[The Elder King]

Maybe because we had only 2 options each, back in ME2 we had at least 4 I think.
I miss the space pimp I guess.

Including Kelly, yes. Though in DA you always had two female LI available for straight male PC.

Regardless, it seems Bioware in General adopted a stance of giving everyone a choice, so if they'll follow it'd mean heterosexual and homosexual should expect at least two options.
I don't know if they'll follow It, and if they did how they manage it.

[SolNebula]

With how people reacted to the romance options in Dragon Age II, I just can't see that happening.

 

Well as far as I've seen in the forum loads of people realized in DA:I that orientation-locked romances aren't good either because people wanted to do a specific romance and now they can't because the writers decided the preferences of said character. That was quite frustrating. Player-sexual romaces while being unrealistic from a real-life perspective are very useful in a gameplay perspective because BW can save resources while letting everyone (almost) romance the character they want, the way they intended. Sure some romances would still be locked but not the majority of them. I also do not believe that having a bi-sexual romance diminish the quality of said romance. Suffice to say ALL my romances in both ME and DA are with bisexual characters.

[blahblahblah]

Well as far as I've seen in the forum loads of people realized in DA:I that orientation-locked romances aren't good either because people wanted to do a specific romance and now they can't because the writers decided the preferences of said character. That was quite frustrating. Player-sexual romaces while being unrealistic from a real-life perspective are very useful in a gameplay perspective because BW can save resources while letting everyone (almost) romance the character they want, the way they intended. Sure some romances would still be locked but not the majority of them. I also do not believe that having a bi-sexual romance diminish the quality of said romance. Suffice to say ALL my romances in both ME and DA are with bisexual characters.

Player sexual is just terrible, imo. It destroys gender diversity in the game.

[SolNebula]

Player sexual is just terrible, imo. It destroys gender diversity in the game.

 

I don't think so because their diversity would be in relation with your character preferences. You are gay? That character is too. You are straight? That same one can be too. While it's not realistic it is convenient and efficient way to deal with romances and pleasing everyone.

Even in DAI you had people complaining on how Cassandra or Cullen weren't interested in same-sex romances.....this is the only do-able way to make everyone happy.

[Steppenwolf]

Well as far as I've seen in the forum loads of people realized in DA:I that orientation-locked romances aren't good either because people wanted to do a specific romance and now they can't because the writers decided the preferences of said character. That was quite frustrating. Player-sexual romaces while being unrealistic from a real-life perspective are very useful in a gameplay perspective because BW can save resources while letting everyone (almost) romance the character they want, the way they intended. Sure some romances would still be locked but not the majority of them. I also do not believe that having a bi-sexual romance diminish the quality of said romance. Suffice to say ALL my romances in both ME and DA are with bisexual characters.

Several Inquisition characters are somewhat defined by their sexuality. Dorian, for instance. He's a gay man from a society that's all about passing down power and wealth to maintain familial legacies, putting him at odds with his family and culture. Take away his homosexuality and you take away a large part of who he is.

[Steppenwolf]

I don't think so because their diversity would be in relation with your character preferences. You are gay? That character is too. You are straight? That same one can be too. While it's not realistic it is convenient and efficient way to deal with romances and pleasing everyone.
Even in DAI you had people complaining on how Cassandra or Cullen weren't interested in same-sex romances.....this is the only do-able way to make everyone happy.

But it doesn't make everyone happy because it puts limits on elements of every romanceable character. If it had made everyone happy they would have kept doing it.

[SolNebula]

Several Inquisition characters are somewhat defined by their sexuality. Dorian, for instance. He's a gay man from a society that's all about passing down power and wealth to maintain familial legacies, putting him at odds with his family and culture. Take away his homosexuality and you take away a large part of who he is.

 

IMO although I like Dorian I think that is bad writing, a character should not be defined by his/her sexual orientation.

 

 

But it doesn't make everyone happy because it puts limits on elements of every romanceable character. If it had made everyone happy they would have kept doing it.

 

Please explain..which limits? You actually put limits if you lock said character because of his/her sexual orientation. Game should please a greater number of fans

[Steppenwolf]

IMO although I like Dorian I think that is bad writing, a character should not be defined by his/her sexual orientation.

His sexual orientation led to conflicts in his life that played a role in defining who he is and what he wants. That's incredibly realistic writing. I know several gay men who have been shaped, in part, by the tensions their sexuality caused with their families.

[Steppenwolf]

Please explain..which limits? You actually put limits if you lock said character because of his/her sexual orientation. Game should please a greater number of fans

A character's sexuality can't play a role in who that person is and their sexual experiences can't be utilized to give insight into what that character may or may not be like. Sexuality is a large part of who we are.

[ZoliCs]

Not too many squadmates. I'd rather have a core group that has great depth, than ME2-like that features 12 companions who have too little depth. I think 6 companions would be ideal. 

Funnily enough ME2 had a lot of great characters.

[ZoliCs]

I don't think so because their diversity would be in relation with your character preferences. You are gay? That character is too. You are straight? That same one can be too. While it's not realistic it is convenient and efficient way to deal with romances and pleasing everyone.

Even in DAI you had people complaining on how Cassandra or Cullen weren't interested in same-sex romances.....this is the only do-able way to make everyone happy.

Player-sexual characters are bad in 2 fronts. One of them you pointed it out that it's unrealistic. The other is that sexuality is part of being a person. Being player-sexual cheapens the character.

 

IMO although I like Dorian I think that is bad writing, a character should not be defined by his/her sexual orientation.

Aren't you?

[Steppenwolf]

Funnily enough ME2 had a lot of great characters.

And Jacob.

[Heimdall]

Well as far as I've seen in the forum loads of people realized in DA:I that orientation-locked romances aren't good either because people wanted to do a specific romance and now they can't because the writers decided the preferences of said character. That was quite frustrating. Player-sexual romaces while being unrealistic from a real-life perspective are very useful in a gameplay perspective because BW can save resources while letting everyone (almost) romance the character they want, the way they intended. Sure some romances would still be locked but not the majority of them. I also do not believe that having a bi-sexual romance diminish the quality of said romance. Suffice to say ALL my romances in both ME and DA are with bisexual characters.

My issue has been more with race locked romances than orientation locked ones.  Sure, Solas' made sense, but Cullen's was annoying to me.  When I was deciding whether to make my Qunari or my Elf my "canon", the decision was made easy by the realization that my Qunari would only have IB or BW to choose from (Both of which are very meh to me) so my elf became my favorite and my QunQuisitor had fun with Sera instead ("Woof").  I've observed that to be a bigger complaint than orientation restrictions.

 

However, I will say that making all characters bisexual limits the variety of characters you can make.  No, I'm not saying being bisexual diminishes the characters, but take a character like Dorian.  His orientation has played a major part in his life and defining who he is today.  Then there's Cassandra, who has an (Embarrassing to her) highly specific fantasy of a traditional romance, being swept off her feet by a handsome man that reads poetry to her.  Maybe you could rework Cassandra into a playersexual character, but not Dorian.

[Sanunes]

Well as far as I've seen in the forum loads of people realized in DA:I that orientation-locked romances aren't good either because people wanted to do a specific romance and now they can't because the writers decided the preferences of said character. That was quite frustrating. Player-sexual romaces while being unrealistic from a real-life perspective are very useful in a gameplay perspective because BW can save resources while letting everyone (almost) romance the character they want, the way they intended. Sure some romances would still be locked but not the majority of them. I also do not believe that having a bi-sexual romance diminish the quality of said romance. Suffice to say ALL my romances in both ME and DA are with bisexual characters.

 

That might be the case, but from my experiences there was a much larger backlash against how the romance options in Dragon Age II versus the locked romances in Dragon Age: Inquisition. There might be the complaints you have seen about the locked sexuality of characters, but then there was the complaints that there wasn't enough straight romances. I think even though not everyone is happy with how Inquisition did it, I think there are more people that are happy with it then how Dragon Age II handled it.

Modifié par Sanunes, 26 avril 2015 - 05:03 .

[SolNebula]

 

Aren't you?

 

No I'm not.

Player-sexual characters are bad in 2 fronts. One of them you pointed it out that it's unrealistic. The other is that sexuality is part of being a person. Being player-sexual cheapens the character.

 

 

To me to define an entire character story arc and attitude by his gayness cheapens said character much more. It

 

 

 

However, I will say that making all characters bisexual limits the variety of characters you can make.  No, I'm not saying being bisexual diminishes the characters, but take a character like Dorian.  His orientation has played a major part in his life and defining who he is today.  Then there's Cassandra, who has an (Embarrassing to her) highly specific fantasy of a traditional romance, being swept off her feet by a handsome man that reads poetry to her.  Maybe you could rework Cassandra into a playersexual character, but not Dorian.

 

Well I said before that not ALL characters should be playersexual however if they write it better not make the entire story arc based on his/her orientation it would have been much better. To me player-sexual characters free the writers from the burdens of sexuality and let them focus on the personality and how said character relates with the others. Plus you cannot do something like Dorian in ME....by that time homosexuality is normally accepted in human society.

 

 

That might be the case, but from my experiences there was a much larger backlash against how the romance options in Dragon Age II versus the locked romances in Dragon Age: Inquisition. There might be the complaints you have seen about the locked sexuality of characters, but then there was the complaints that there wasn't enough straight romances. I think even though not everyone is happy with how Inquisition did it, I think there are more people that are happy with it then how Dragon Age II handled it.

 

Of course this is your opinion and I respect it. I disagree though.

[ZoliCs]

To me to define an entire character story arc and attitude by his gayness cheapens said character much more. It

How being defined by sexuality is so incomprehensible to you, but not stuff like dead parents, rough childhood or whatever? It's just as legit as the rest of them.