1472 réponses à ce sujet

[Battlebloodmage]

It's stupid. It's so, so stupid to make these romances like: "we need 2 of everyone". It's not a game about romances and stop pushing this agenda of political correctness. If BW wants to include romances at all, fine, whatever, but really do we need this soooo much? I'm getting sick of all these threads about it. 

ME2 has 6 options, as if it would require any more or less resource than before. You know what I do tho threads I don't like? I ignore it. "We" don't need it, but me and a bunch of others like it. This is a request thread, and people here talk about what they may like to see in the next game.

 

You're a bit too late to complain about Politically Correct when they have already confirmed gay romance in the game. This is basically just about what we may like to see what that gay romance is. 

[Zazzerka]

You're a bit too late to complain about Politically Correct when they have already confirmed gay romance in the game.

 

That's pretty gay.

[Jedi Comedian]

I'm arachnophobic, and Batarian reminds me so much of a spider with the dark multiple eyes. I hope not, but that's just me though since spiders creep the Hell out of me.

What races do you favor Battlebloodmage?

[Battlebloodmage]

That's pretty gay.

Yeah, a lot of people are pretty gay about it since we may get a gay companion this time like in DAI. 

[Battlebloodmage]

What races do you favor Battlebloodmage?

Turian. I just find the whole race fascinating. They look like armored knights, and their race is pretty militaristic. They are also very honorable and all about personal accountability. I've always wanted a Knight in Shining Armor type of character, and Turian is about about the military culture and honor. Garrus already shows that Turians can be very romantic, like with the dance. krogan is ultra aggressive, and I like more romance in general. Gay characters tend to lack romantic moments like embracing and just hugging or kissing. That's one of the problems I have with Dorian and Iron Bull, their romance lacks the deep romantic moments. 

 

I wouldn't mind a Drell. They have similar lifespan like humans, and they look very similar to humans. I don't see the dynamic of relationship would change that much between a human or a drell.

 

My favorite ME2 romance is Tali, so I wouldn't mind a male Quarian.

[GaroTD]

ME2 has 6 options, as if it would require any more or less resource than before. You know what I do tho threads I don't like? I ignore it. "We" don't need it, but me and a bunch of others like it. This is a request thread, and people here talk about what they may like to see in the next game.

 

You're a bit too late to complain about Politically Correct when they have already confirmed gay romance in the game. This is basically just about what we may like to see what that gay romance is. 

I just wanted to point out this 2/2/2 in one team trend. I just don't like it. Seems forced. Just my opinion. Not everyone needs to praise this idea. 

[Battlebloodmage]

I just wanted to point out this 2/2/2 in one team trend. I just don't like it. Seems forced. Just my opinion. Not everyone needs to praise this idea. 

I agree, it should be 4 gay options and 2 straight options.

 

They never had 2/2/2 before, so it's not really a trend. There were 8 options in DAI. Rest assure though, I doubt they would ever give more options for gay romances, so at most, it would just be equal. If romance options are either equal or less then, there really is no need to complain about unequal numbers.

[Panda]

It's stupid. It's so, so stupid to make these romances like: "we need 2 of everyone". It's not a game about romances and stop pushing this agenda of political correctness. If BW wants to include romances at all, fine, whatever, but really do we need this soooo much? I'm getting sick of all these threads about it. 

 

In general in games I don't think the numbers should necessarily go same for everyone always, but in other hand I know what outrage it would be if this time there was more gay or lesbian romances than other romances, I think same number is best option to make it fair and try to avoid people getting mad ^^;

[Draining Dragon]

With regards to the number of romances, I thought that DA2 had a good system. It guaranteed that everyone had at least two options, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, and (presumably) required fewer resources to make than the number of options in, say, DAI.

[Jedi Comedian]

With regards to the number of romances, I thought that DA2 had a good system. It guaranteed that everyone had at least two options, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, and (presumably) required fewer resources to make than the number of options in, say, DAI.

Would like to see that system in ME:A, a human male, a human female, an Asari and a male Drell would do the trick IMO.

[Battlebloodmage]

With regards to the number of romances, I thought that DA2 had a good system. It guaranteed that everyone had at least two options, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, and (presumably) required fewer resources to make than the number of options in, say, DAI.

If they make the romances as in-depth as Witcher 3, they had 2 romances but make it really significant. They even become jealous and break up with you if they find out you were cheated on them. I'm fine with 4 options. Bioware has never done bisexual correctly. If we're just focusing on crafting romance story instead of how many people we can get with, the quality is always better than quantity. It doesn't have to always be that way of course, in some games with more than 4 options, they could use set sexuality, but if they decide to just have 4, and instead decide to focusing on the LI and how it affects the story, then making them all bisexual would allow more intricate story telling. Out of 6 options for the guys in DAI, most of the attentions were on Cullen and Solas. Solas, especially, since how his story is pretty integrated into the main storyline. 

[Battlebloodmage]

Would like to see that system in ME:A, a human male, a human female, an Asari and a male Turian would do the trick IMO.

I agree, and if it's a trilogy, it would easier to add maybe another option in the next game. ME3 has so many LIs carried over that most of the LIs get ignored 

[GaroTD]

Volus romance plox. Always wanted to know how they look under the suit 

[Jedi Comedian]

I agree, and if it's a trilogy, it would easier to add maybe another option in the next game. ME3 has so many LIs carried over that most of the LIs get ignored

I accept trading the Drell for a Turian if said Turian is a Vanguard.

[feainn]

I don't like it when people are like "ugh why does it have to be politically correct!" or use that argument.

It shouldn't be about being politically correct (though it's important to start adding diversity which is sorely needed), I think it's more about being realistic. There are LGBT+ people in this world so why not incorporate it into games too? I actually like the set up DA:I did, although I know some people weren't happy that Cassandra and Cullen weren't available for same sex romances, it was nice that there were characters that were gay/lesbian/bi but it didn't define them. They just were.

As for having gayliens, I want them. We only had Liara as an option for same sex romance with an alien but the Asari don't do it for me. I want the option to have a gay Turian/Quarian/Drell/new race etc. They don't even have to necessarily be gay or lesbian and I'd be happy if they were bi because then it allows us who WANT to have the option to have same sex romances with an alien.

[Battlebloodmage]

I accept trading the Drell for a Turian if said Turian is a Vanguard.

We're in agreement there. Vanguard Turian who is a badass or hot headed. I like strong and hot headed male characters. We already have Garrus as a yes man sniper, a closed combat biotic soilder Turian would distinguish him from Garrus in both function and personality.

[Prince Enigmatic]

I'm sure I've posted it before somewhere here on this thread, but my personal ideal, knowing full well the likelihood of it bring nil, is a drell in the same vein as Feron or that other drell Liara befriends in her Homeworld issue.

Rebellious, witty, sarcastic, cynical. Yes that may all sound very cliche and archetypal, but the mysticism and fascination I have with the drell both in appearance and in their culture, and loving Garrus' personality, id love to see those two sort of blend, while trying to make them their own character.

A lot to hope for, which is why I'm not optimistic about it. But then it is my own ultimate Mass Effect romance option, and I generally don't play ME for the romances. If there is one romanceable male alien for my male protagonist, Squadmate or Cortez/Traynoresque NPC, then id be happy.

Now, on to saving the galaxy...

[Gothfather]

I honestly don't see why they have to justify whenever they give a gay pairing or a lesbian pairing. There are ways more fanservice straight pairings out there. I personally like Mako and Korra, but if the character progression lead to Korrasami, then that's what we have in the end. Garrus and Tali are fanservice characters, they weren't supposed to be romanceable until the fans demand it and they're both straight. The same thing goes for Cullen who was made available during the extra time they have during their development. If they really wanted to do fanservice for everyone, Cullen would have made bisexual since there are a lot of guys who would want to romance him as well. I'm not sure what you would define as fanservice in ME4. I'm hoping for at least DAI approach with 2/2/2 where everyone would at least have 2 options to choose from, then I'm good. 

 

I agree i pretty much hate 'fan service' but it seems that any LGBT character has to automatically be branded as force progressiveness or tokenism or fan service or all three. And when there are relatively poorly one dimensional characters that happen to be gay that 'gayness' can get so over inflated that people actually believe it is the character's sexuality that is the one dimensional part of the character, namely Cortez.

 

Here is a guy that is a living breathing billboard for family loss due to the war who never actually says "I'm gay Shepard." At least if you don't romance him. (Never explored the romance of the character maybe he mentions his sexuality then.) But goes on and on about the loss of his family namely his husband and people are saying how in your face gay he is. yet you only infer (obviously correctly) that he is gay because husband is a gender specific title and he only uses that title because it is the subject of his loss. He isn't making a statement about his sexuality he is making a statement about the tragedy of loss. So there very much is a double standard.

 

It appears that any LGBT character has to be twice as well written as a straight character to get labelled "legitimate" vs some fan service, SJW campaign appeasement or tokenism. 

[Gothfather]

I just wanted to point out this 2/2/2 in one team trend. I just don't like it. Seems forced. Just my opinion. Not everyone needs to praise this idea. 

 

 

I agree, it should be 4 gay options and 2 straight options.

 

They never had 2/2/2 before, so it's not really a trend. There were 8 options in DAI. Rest assure though, I doubt they would ever give more options for gay romances, so at most, it would just be equal. If romance options are either equal or less then, there really is no need to complain about unequal numbers.

 

And lets be clear the over abundance of 'straight' romance options in DA:I only helped one gender and that was the ladies. There were numerous QQing threads by hetro men complaining that their two options where not sexy enough.

 

yes 2/2/2 is a "forced" ratio but you need to create this forced ratio to curb the word budget of the game. Romances take up a whole hell of a lot of the word budget and with the nature of romances MOST of us won't be exploring all of this content so it is pretty much gated content. Gated content is by its very nature expensive because while it costs the same to make it isn't something everyone will experience so you need more non gated content to make up for it. One of the problems i feel that DA:I suffered from was that there were too many companions/advisors 12 and too many of them where romanceable. So you had to divide the word budget for them too thinly. Which is why you get WTF moments with the Iron bull and Cassandra. They both have life changing crisis of faith/philosophy and it is resolved in the very conversation that they confide in you how devastating this was to them? How does that work? There just wasn't enough word budget to go around to explore these issues with the companions with any depth.

 

I think it is unreasonable to expect more and we should for all orientations be prepared for one option i doubt we will ever see as many romance options and companion choices in a Bioware game again as we saw in DA:I. As bioware goes to larger and more open environments the cost to fill these environments will i believe make huge casts of companions a thing of the past. Granted this is all conjecture.

[Battlebloodmage]

And lets be clear the over abundance of 'straight' romance options in DA:I only helped one gender and that was the ladies. There were numerous QQing threads by hetro men complaining that their two options where not sexy enough.

 

yes 2/2/2 is a "forced" ratio but you need to create this forced ratio to curb the word budget of the game. Romances take up a whole hell of a lot of the word budget and with the nature of romances MOST of us won't be exploring all of this content so it is pretty much gated content. Gated content is by its very nature expensive because while it costs the same to make it isn't something everyone will experience so you need more non gated content to make up for it. One of the problems i feel that DA:I suffered from was that there were too many companions/advisors 12 and too many of them where romanceable. So you had to divide the word budget for them too thinly. Which is why you get WTF moments with the Iron bull and Cassandra. They both have life changing crisis of faith/philosophy and it is resolved in the very conversation that they confide in you how devastating this was to them? How does that work? There just wasn't enough word budget to go around to explore these issues with the companions with any depth.

 

I think it is unreasonable to expect more and we should for all orientations be prepared for one option i doubt we will ever see as many romance options and companion choices in a Bioware game again as we saw in DA:I. As bioware goes to larger and more open environments the cost to fill these environments will i believe make huge casts of companions a thing of the past. Granted this is all conjecture.

I would be for 1 option each for each orientation if there's like only 1 male and 1 female option, they could even make that character really integrated into the plot. If they have 2 options for each gender, they should really make them bisexual. I'm sure a big part of the audience, gay or straight, would wish that they could romance the one that they don't have, assuming that it's one gay and one straight each. Realistically, if they decide to to set sexuality with it, it would just be a straight and a bi option like DAO. It's not a coincidence that gay options are always the lowest number, but it's understandable since gay audience is not as high as the straight audience. 6 options are the minimum number if they're really wanted to do set sexuality correctly since everyone would have at least 2 options to choose from. 6 are the originally number, the extra 2 options were created during the extra time, so maybe they have more word budget and romance budget during that time. 

[daveliam]

I agree i pretty much hate 'fan service' but it seems that any LGBT character has to automatically be branded as force progressiveness or tokenism or fan service or all three. And when there are relatively poorly one dimensional characters that happen to be gay that 'gayness' can get so over inflated that people actually believe it is the character's sexuality that is the one dimensional part of the character, namely Cortez.

Here is a guy that is a living breathing billboard for family loss due to the war who never actually says "I'm gay Shepard." At least if you don't romance him. (Never explored the romance of the character maybe he mentions his sexuality then.) But goes on and on about the loss of his family namely his husband and people are saying how in your face gay he is. yet you only infer (obviously correctly) that he is gay because husband is a gender specific title and he only uses that title because it is the subject of his loss. He isn't making a statement about his sexuality he is making a statement about the tragedy of loss. So there very much is a double standard.

It appears that any LGBT character has to be twice as well written as a straight character to get labelled "legitimate" vs some fan service, SJW campaign appeasement or tokenism.

****** brilliant post. I couldn't have said it any better myself.

[Prince Enigmatic]

Plus these days with LGBT characters, unless the character EXPLICITLY says they are either gay or bisexual, there are all sorts of "lol to all those who think Character A is gay" comments etc much like the response to Jacob Frye's sexuality in AC: Syndicate (now confirmed twice as bisexual).

Headcanons and arrogance are still forever plaguing the inclusion of LGBt characters in games, that it is a difficult thing to broach, do well, as well as pleasing everyone (I'm not counting those that just go "ew gay", nor those who stubbornly refuse that LGBT is a real life thing and thus a legitimate thing to include in games)

And it upsets me the reception Cortez got from some people, including LGBT people.

As someone who is gay and has been playing video games since I was six, Cortez was the first gay male character I encountered in a video game. And I thought he was great for being written and treated as equally were it a woman mourning their husband, or a man mourning their wife.

[Gothfather]

I would be for 1 option each for each orientation if there's like only 1 male and 1 female option, they could even make that character really integrated into the plot. If they have 2 options for each gender, they should really make them bisexual. I'm sure a big part of the audience, gay or straight, would wish that they could romance the one that they don't have, assuming that it's one gay and one straight each. Realistically, if they decide to to set sexuality with it, it would just be a straight and a bi option like DAO. It's not a coincidence that gay options are always the lowest number, but it's understandable since gay audience is not as high as the straight audience. 6 options are the minimum number if they're really wanted to do set sexuality correctly since everyone would have at least 2 options to choose from. 6 are the originally number, the extra 2 options were created during the extra time, so maybe they have more word budget and romance budget during that time. 

 

I bring this up because after seeing how stretched the word budget was for DA:I with so many companions and so many romance options I have come the preference of, that i would rather have fewer companions with deeper stories than lots of companions with very shallow stories. Yet fewer companions has obvious issues.

 

One of the issues is that romances, specifically LGBT romances have to serve two functions. One they have to be representation and provide the ability for people to romance the gender they want. This creates a dynamic that can cause problems within the LGBT community. First if you use any kind of representation formula you need a lot of characters that are romanceable because lets face it the world is diverse in who likes inny bits and who likes dangly bits. The more characters you add or the more romances you add the more development cost. And companies always try to reduce costs, Bioware tried to do the no set sexuality in DA2 and that created a huge backlash as people claimed it implied that was making a statement that sexuality isn't fixed. Or people got mad because it made every companion bisexual. So while it gave people the ability to snog the gender they wanted it upset people who wanted games to be more representative of the world.

 

Perhaps the problem was trying to use romance options to do both duties. What if you had people that are part of the LGBT community but they are not romance options like your second in command, the engineer, or whomever. They just members of the crew who happen to be non straight and you only know about their sexuality because of conversations about loved ones. When someone talks about their wife or husband by using these gender specific titles you have just identified their sexuality without saying...

 

"Hey Protagonist just wanted to let you know I'm [blank]."

 

"Err.. thanks... I guess? I didn't ask and don't really care so why did you need to just out of the blue tell me your sexuality?"

 

If games just had LGBT characters to do the representation heavy lifting and then had 4 romance options all "bi" two women and two men to give players choice on what gender they snog. Would that be a workable model? It would allow the protagonist to be whatever they wanted in terms of sexuality and because non romanceable characters would have set sexualities of Lesbian, Gay, Bi and/or Trans we would see the game's space populated by divergent peoples without having to create so many romance options.

 

Just a thought. i mean it is really easy for me to say this ideas works as a straight man because lets face it in terms of representation and romance options I am not under represented so maybe i just miss something obvious because of my frame of reference. So from the LGBT perspective, not that you are the lone spokesperson for the LGBT community, does this work? Is it a viable solution to lower costs while still giving everyone the option to snog who they want yet also providing a more realistic representation of the variety of sexualities that people have?

[SKAR]

Sexy new Andromeda race I hope.

[Jedi Comedian]

I bring this up because after seeing how stretched the word budget was for DA:I with so many companions and so many romance options I have come the preference of, that i would rather have fewer companions with deeper stories than lots of companions with very shallow stories. Yet fewer companions has obvious issues.

One of the issues is that romances, specifically LGBT romances have to serve two functions. One they have to be representation and provide the ability for people to romance the gender they want. This creates a dynamic that can cause problems within the LGBT community. First if you use any kind of representation formula you need a lot of characters that are romanceable because lets face it the world is diverse in who likes inny bits and who likes dangly bits. The more characters you add or the more romances you add the more development cost. And companies always try to reduce costs, Bioware tried to do the no set sexuality in DA2 and that created a huge backlash as people claimed it implied that was making a statement that sexuality isn't fixed. Or people got mad because it made every companion bisexual. So while it gave people the ability to snog the gender they wanted it upset people who wanted games to be more representative of the world.

Perhaps the problem was trying to use romance options to do both duties. What if you had people that are part of the LGBT community but they are not romance options like your second in command, the engineer, or whomever. They just members of the crew who happen to be non straight and you only know about their sexuality because of conversations about loved ones. When someone talks about their wife or husband by using these gender specific titles you have just identified their sexuality without saying...

"Hey Protagonist just wanted to let you know I'm [blank]."

"Err.. thanks... I guess? I didn't ask and don't really care so why did you need to just out of the blue tell me your sexuality?"

If games just had LGBT characters to do the representation heavy lifting and then had 4 romance options all "bi" two women and two men to give players choice on what gender they snog. Would that be a workable model? It would allow the protagonist to be whatever they wanted in terms of sexuality and because non romanceable characters would have set sexualities of Lesbian, Gay, Bi and/or Trans we would see the game's space populated by divergent peoples without having to create so many romance options.

Just a thought. i mean it is really easy for me to say this ideas works as a straight man because lets face it in terms of representation and romance options I am not under represented so maybe i just miss something obvious because of my frame of reference. So from the LGBT perspective, not that you are the lone spokesperson for the LGBT community, does this work? Is it a viable solution to lower costs while still giving everyone the option to snog who they want yet also providing a more realistic representation of the variety of sexualities that people have?

In my opinion the all PC-sexual LIs is likely the best option, haven't heard any complains about Fallout 4. I think people were mad about it in DA2 was 'cause of Anders' flirting. If I made it, I'd make 2 squadmate LIs (1 male 'n' 1 female) and 2 NPC (also 1 male/1 female), all romanceable regardless of gender.