1188 réponses à ce sujet

[Colonelkillabee]

Why are people so afraid of stereotypes, they're not always bad. It's when there's too many stereotype characters present that I consider it a bad thing, or when a gaming studio overuses a particular stereotype and it gets tiring, but having none at all just for the sake of avoiding stereotypes seems pointless.

[Battlebloodmage]

Why are people so afraid of stereotypes, they're not always bad. It's when there's too many stereotype characters present that I consider it a bad thing, or when a gaming studio overuses a particular stereotype and it gets tiring, but having none at all just for the sake of avoiding stereotypes seems pointless.

I do see certain patterns like promiscuous bisexual or bisexual guys who always prefer females at this point. I don't think stereotypes should be avoided, but I was just bringing attention to the writers that they have been falling into certain perceptions with their characters and sexuality, When looking at a promiscuous character, couldn't that guy by straight? I don't remember any recent fuckboi in Dragon Age game. When you see an average everyday guy that you see in movies or the action star guy who get with the hot chick at the end, couldn't that guy be gay? The decision to avoid butch lesbians is at the same time isolate actual lesbians who love them. I don't like set sexuality simply because of whenever it happens, I get the option I don't want because my taste is more akin to what they give to straight women, if they were all bisexuals, then straight women and gay guys will get the same option and option intended for straight girls would also be available to gay guys. I would like set sexuality if the options are outside of the archetypes Bioware often offers to each sexuality. This is why I created this thread.

[Catilina]

Why are people so afraid of stereotypes, they're not always bad. It's when there's too many stereotype characters present that I consider it a bad thing, or when a gaming studio overuses a particular stereotype and it gets tiring, but having none at all just for the sake of avoiding stereotypes seems pointless.

They do not afraid from it, rather bored, at least me. And the oversimplification may insulting.

[dgcatanisiri]

Why are people so afraid of stereotypes, they're not always bad. It's when there's too many stereotype characters present that I consider it a bad thing, or when a gaming studio overuses a particular stereotype and it gets tiring, but having none at all just for the sake of avoiding stereotypes seems pointless.

 

It's not fear of stereotypes. It's the fact that in the majority of media, those stereotypes are the go-to options when someone says 'okay, we can have a gay character.' Like, think of some of the most well-known examples of gay characters - Kurt Hummel on Glee, Jack on Will and Grace, any character portrayed by Paul Lynde, this is something that's been going back for decades. It's the sassy gay guy, the one where the joke is that this guy is extremely non-masculine and gets to be full of witty one-liners and talk about fashion. For many of us asking for this, it's a matter of how (in my experience), we DON'T fit these stereotypes, and aren't seeing reflections of ourselves in media. It's not fear, it's frustration at a media landscape that ignores us, even when they claim to be more accepting.

 

Like, the characters I've most related to in media with gay characters still tend to be the straight characters. Those characters are offered the opportunity to be more nuanced, have more to them - gay characters routinely have 'they're gay' as their defining traits. I feel this way in BioWare games - in the Dragon Age series, the characters I've related to most have been Alistair, Fenris, and Cullen, respectively. Only one of them is portrayed as attracted to other men in the game proper. Meanwhile characters I'm being told are 'for' me as a gay player, Zevran, Dorian, Iron Bull, rank near the bottom of that identifying/relating list. These are the characters I routinely get told are 'for' me to experience and enjoy, and if I say I don't, I get a chorus from straight players who tell me that I'm greedy, and I want so much, and I should be happy to get anything. Meanwhile, I've complained about Dorian's story not being one I relate to, and I've had gay players dismiss me as being 'lucky' to not have gone through that, as though that's the only source of angst and pain for a gay person's life.

 

So I'm hearing on both sides 'shut up and take what you're getting' as I find it uncomfortable or unpalatable for me. I'm tired of stereotypes because I don't see them as reflections of me or my experiences, and yet if I turn on any mainstream media, I can see these stereotypes everywhere. I have to dig around, scrounge the depths of page three (or further) of a Google search to find something that offers something more reflective of myself. I'm not afraid of a stereotype. I'm just sick of it being praised as the bar to pass - and that there are people who STILL REFUSE TO EVEN TRY TO REACH IT.

[Illyria]

I am warming up to everyone being bi option, but there's still too many problems that arise with it for me to agree that it'd be a good idea to go back to.

 

I'd rather have bi characters that are bi because they just are and were written that way, NOT because it's convenient for the player.

 

Same.  This is why I prefer the mixture approach.

 

True, but if it's open to interpretation it can't really prove that she's bi, as someone thought it did.

 

Hush, don't ruin my dream.

[BansheeOwnage]

       

 

Meh.

What?

[BansheeOwnage]

I

Like, the characters I've most related to in media with gay characters still tend to be the straight characters. Those characters are offered the opportunity to be more nuanced, have more to them - gay characters routinely have 'they're gay' as their defining traits. I feel this way in BioWare games - in the Dragon Age series, the characters I've related to most have been Alistair, Fenris, and Cullen, respectively. Only one of them is portrayed as attracted to other men in the game proper. Meanwhile characters I'm being told are 'for' me as a gay player, Zevran, Dorian, Iron Bull, rank near the bottom of that identifying/relating list.

Good post. Funnily enough I tend to relate to guys in Bioware games more than the ladies. Alistair, Cullen, Garrus, Kaidan, Joker, etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Bioware has a lot of female characters, just as I'm glad they have LGBT characters, but they usually don't do much for me past that. I'd like it if I could relate to their female characters more, but...

 

Not exactly the same thing as this thread obviously, but just as Bioware needs to reevaluate how they present their romance options, I sometimes feel like they should do the same for the gender of characters. I feel like they write men and women in different ways as well. Coming up with a character idea before assigning gender to them might help, just as it would help if they would make characters before assigning their sexualities (which is ostensibly how they do it).

 

 

Hush, don't ruin my dream.

Hey, she might be bi, we don't know! I didn't prove she wasn't. It's in a vacuum right now

[GoldenGail3]

@Banshee; It was a indifferent answer....

[9TailsFox]

It's not fear of stereotypes. It's the fact that in the majority of media, those stereotypes are the go-to options when someone says 'okay, we can have a gay character.' Like, think of some of the most well-known examples of gay characters - Kurt Hummel on Glee, Jack on Will and Grace, any character portrayed by Paul Lynde, this is something that's been going back for decades. It's the sassy gay guy, the one where the joke is that this guy is extremely non-masculine and gets to be full of witty one-liners and talk about fashion. For many of us asking for this, it's a matter of how (in my experience), we DON'T fit these stereotypes, and aren't seeing reflections of ourselves in media. It's not fear, it's frustration at a media landscape that ignores us, even when they claim to be more accepting.

 

Like, the characters I've most related to in media with gay characters still tend to be the straight characters. Those characters are offered the opportunity to be more nuanced, have more to them - gay characters routinely have 'they're gay' as their defining traits. I feel this way in BioWare games - in the Dragon Age series, the characters I've related to most have been Alistair, Fenris, and Cullen, respectively. Only one of them is portrayed as attracted to other men in the game proper. Meanwhile characters I'm being told are 'for' me as a gay player, Zevran, Dorian, Iron Bull, rank near the bottom of that identifying/relating list. These are the characters I routinely get told are 'for' me to experience and enjoy, and if I say I don't, I get a chorus from straight players who tell me that I'm greedy, and I want so much, and I should be happy to get anything. Meanwhile, I've complained about Dorian's story not being one I relate to, and I've had gay players dismiss me as being 'lucky' to not have gone through that, as though that's the only source of angst and pain for a gay person's life.

 

So I'm hearing on both sides 'shut up and take what you're getting' as I find it uncomfortable or unpalatable for me. I'm tired of stereotypes because I don't see them as reflections of me or my experiences, and yet if I turn on any mainstream media, I can see these stereotypes everywhere. I have to dig around, scrounge the depths of page three (or further) of a Google search to find something that offers something more reflective of myself. I'm not afraid of a stereotype. I'm just sick of it being praised as the bar to pass - and that there are people who STILL REFUSE TO EVEN TRY TO REACH IT.

Because where you like to put your genitalia is one of most insignificant parts of person. Like in Night Raid Bulat being gay mentioned only one time at the start, and few jokes than he trains Tatsumi with them both half naked. And it have no effect on the plot at all. Why he is important, because he is mentor/friend/strong warrior character.

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

[Battlebloodmage]

Because where you like to put your genitalia is one of most insignificant parts of . Like in Night Raid Bulat being gay mentioned only one time at the start, and few jokes than he trains Tatsumi with them both half naked. And it have n effect on the plot at all. Why he is important, because he is mentor/friend/strong warrior character.

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

It's rare to see a gay character in a shounen that is not a pervert or effeminate. It's usually more of seinen where you can find these characters.

 

I would actually welcome evil gay characters if being gay is just a part of them, not their identity. There are enough examples of good alignment characters to balance it out. This is why I would welcome someone who is selfish and would let people die if it doesn't affect them like Morrigan or someone like Solas. Seeing how Solas was very well received among the fans, I don't think making him a depraved bisexual but it would offer a different relationship than the ones we typically have. I don't personally like Solas, but it's a very interesting romance that Bioware has never had before, someone who is clearly a villain and not even ambiguous like Morrigan in DAO. It doesn't matter the sexual orientation, I would welcome more villainous relationship in the future, even if it means I have to kill that person. 

[BansheeOwnage]

@Banshee; It was a indifferent answer....

Yeah, but an answer to what?

[9TailsFox]

It's rare to see a gay character in a shounen that is not a pervert or effeminate. It's usually more of seinen where you can find these characters.

 

I would actually welcome evil gay characters if being gay is just a part of them, not their identity. There are enough examples of good alignment characters to balance it out. This is why I would welcome someone who is selfish and would let people die if it doesn't affect them like Morrigan or someone like Solas. Seeing how Solas was very well received among the fans, I don't think making him a depraved bisexual but it would offer a difference relationship than the ones we typically have. I don't personally like Solas, but it's a very interesting romance that Bioware has never had before, someone who is clearly a villain and not even ambiguous like Morrigan in DAO. It doesn't matter the sexual orientation, I would welcome more villainous relationship in the future, even if it means I have to kill that person. 

Did you switch names. Solas is not evil he is good person he just not very smart and wants to save world from tranquility. And Morrigan is evil no ambiguity at all she would do everything for selfish reasons. Just because she love her son and warden it doesn't make her good person, both belong to Morrigan. And Morrigan my favorite character in DA:O and i romance her all the time with my nice warden, still she never completely become good person.

[In Exile]

It's rare to see a gay character in a shounen that is not a pervert or effeminate. It's usually more of seinen where you can find these characters.

 

I would actually welcome evil gay characters if being gay is just a part of them, not their identity. There are enough examples of good alignment characters to balance it out. This is why I would welcome someone who is selfish and would let people die if it doesn't affect them like Morrigan or someone like Solas. Seeing how Solas was very well received among the fans, I don't think making him a depraved bisexual but it would offer a different relationship than the ones we typically have. I don't personally like Solas, but it's a very interesting romance that Bioware has never had before, someone who is clearly a villain and not even ambiguous like Morrigan in DAO. It doesn't matter the sexual orientation, I would welcome more villainous relationship in the future, even if it means I have to kill that person. 

 

Like arguably Veidt in Watchmen?

[BansheeOwnage]

Did you switch names. Solas is not evil he is good person he just not very smart and wants to save world from tranquility. And Morrigan is evil no ambiguity at all she would do everything for selfish reasons. Just because she love her son and warden it doesn't make her good person, both belong to Morrigan. And Morrigan my favorite character in DA:O and i romance her all the time with my nice warden, still she never completely become good person.

I wouldn't say Morrigan is evil. Selfish and ruthless, sure. But she doesn't actively go out of her way to hurt others for the lulz for get twisted pleasure out of it as far as I know.

[Battlebloodmage]

Did you switch names. Solas is not evil he is good person he just not very smart and wants to save world from tranquility. And Morrigan is evil no ambiguity at all she would do everything for selfish reasons. Just because she love her son and warden it doesn't make her good person, both belong to Morrigan. And Morrigan my favorite character in DA:O and i romance her all the time with my nice warden, still she never completely become good person.

There are many people in history do horrible things because they think they're in the right. In a way, the end justifies the mean. Even if someone has a noble goal or has a good intention, it may not turn out to be good. What Solas did result in many deaths and now he still wants to continue his plan which may result in even more deaths. Morrigan is selfish, but her goals and plans have never resulted in any big catastrophe. She's not a good person, she's selfish and self-interest at heart but all of her plans haven't resulted in any extensive damage the way Solas did. They are both self-serving and has their own goal, but her goal and his goal have different result, and I don't think she has any intention of wiping out many people for her goal and Solas is knowingly want to tear down the veil knowing that it will kill many people as a result. 

[Hellion Rex]

Did you switch names. Solas is not evil he is good person he just not very smart and wants to save world from tranquility. And Morrigan is evil no ambiguity at all she would do everything for selfish reasons. Just because she love her son and warden it doesn't make her good person, both belong to Morrigan. And Morrigan my favorite character in DA:O and i romance her all the time with my nice warden, still she never completely become good person.

Nah, Solas is pretty evil, in my opinion.

[roelani]

Ok, so since we're on this topic again, and I have been lurking but not commenting on this issue, I'd like to understand.

 

What, exactly, was the problem with DA2's LIs being all player-sexual? I get that there's an issue of representation and erasure somewhere in there, but realistically, if you want a certain combo represented, you're going to pick one gender for your romances, right? So what does it matter that, in the event that you would later make another playthrough with a different gender the same character would be available for romance? It's basically a different universe, and if you believe that LI belongs to your previous warden/hawke/quizzie, you just ignore the heart icons?

No? Just me? Because it seems to me that making the LI's all potentially more or less bisexual just means everyone can do their preferred canon runs, and you eliminate the endless entitled "But not enough hot women" these forums tend to get AND you get to pick your preferred queer or non-hetero romance path (apologies if terms used are not to your liking, I'm old and french).

 

Granted, it limits the possibilities in terms of linking sexuality directly to character arc, but, honestly, would that really be a bad thing? The lore already states that nobody gives a **** who sleeps with whom in Thedas, and basically only people trying to win the genetic lottery care about which organ goes where. Wouldn't eliminating this variable just mean we get more meaningful character arcs that don't rely on modern tropes to be interesting? Don't get me wrong, I like Dorian's personal quest and all, but if it means everybody gets what they feel they want to see, regardless of orientation, isn't it just easier to record a few extra lines of dialog and let the player roleplay it the way they want?

Apologies if this offends or whatever. Just feels like we're beating a dead horse in reverse. DA2 comes out and people scream about everybody being player-sexual. DAI comes out and everybody screams about being locked out of their preferred romances.

... Literally just pick one, ffffh. They only ever give us like 8 companions every game. There's only so many possibilities they can realistically do. Can you even imagine the logistical nightmare the devs and writers have to muddle through when designing these romance arcs? Because clearly they appear to be listening to fan criticism somewhat. I'm just... I don't think it's feasible to please everyone here, and I'm starting to think that DA2's approach, while flawed, might have been the simplest way to go about things.

 

Then everyone could get their Knight in Shining Armor / Hot Babe and roleplay it how ever they like.

Thoughts?

[BansheeOwnage]

Ok, so since we're on this topic again, and I have been lurking but not commenting on this issue, I'd like to understand.

 

What, exactly, was the problem with DA2's LIs being all player-sexual? I get that there's an issue of representation and erasure somewhere in there, but realistically, if you want a certain combo represented, you're going to pick one gender for your romances, right? So what does it matter that, in the event that you would later make another playthrough with a different gender the same character would be available for romance? It's basically a different universe, and if you believe that LI belongs to your previous warden/hawke/quizzie, you just ignore the heart icons?

No? Just me? Because it seems to me that making the LI's all potentially more or less bisexual just means everyone can do their preferred canon runs, and you eliminate the endless entitled "But not enough hot women" these forums tend to get AND you get to pick your preferred queer or non-hetero romance path (apologies if terms used are not to your liking, I'm old and french).

 

Granted, it limits the possibilities in terms of linking sexuality directly to character arc, but, honestly, would that really be a bad thing? The lore already states that nobody gives a **** who sleeps with whom in Thedas, and basically only people trying to win the genetic lottery care about which organ goes where. Wouldn't eliminating this variable just mean we get more meaningful character arcs that don't rely on modern tropes to be interesting? Don't get me wrong, I like Dorian's personal quest and all, but if it means everybody gets what they feel they want to see, regardless of orientation, isn't it just easier to record a few extra lines of dialog and let the player roleplay it the way they want?

Apologies if this offends or whatever. Just feels like we're beating a dead horse in reverse. DA2 comes out and people scream about everybody being player-sexual. DAI comes out and everybody screams about being locked out of their preferred romances.

... Literally just pick one, ffffh. They only ever give us like 8 companions every game. There's only so many possibilities they can realistically do. Can you even imagine the logistical nightmare the devs and writers have to muddle through when designing these romance arcs? Because clearly they appear to be listening to fan criticism somewhat. I'm just... I don't think it's feasible to please everyone here, and I'm starting to think that DA2's approach, while flawed, might have been the simplest way to go about things.

 

Then everyone could get their Knight in Shining Armor / Hot Babe and roleplay it how ever they like.

Thoughts?

I generally agree. While I think having our options have orientations besides bisexual has its advantages, I also think most of those stories could easily be told through characters who aren't romance options. Like you said, it would also be simpler and easier resource-wise, and more people would be happy with their options. And since I'm hoping none of the future companion arcs will have to do with their orientations in a direct way, this wouldn't be a problem for that either.

 

I also think that they don't need to have every option openly declared as bisexual; they can be ambiguous. You can have some who openly express interest in both sexes on one hand, and some who may not even express interest in anyone besides your character on the other, and anything in between. Like you said, it depends how much one meta-games. That is, it depends if a person takes into account multiple playthroughs (as different genders romancing the same character) or just thinks of one playthrough at a time.

 

I should point out though, that the people who complained about DA2's approach are generally not the same people who complain about the opposite    It's just different people with different views.

 

The people who don't like this approach tend not to either because they find the idea of having 4 bisexuals in a group to be unbelievable (in a fantasy universe, no less), which I find to be a weak argument, or because they see this as somehow turning bisexuality into a "convenience" for the player, which is a more complicated issue that I haven't formulated enough coherent thoughts on to answer right now.

[Battlebloodmage]

I generally agree. While I think having our options have orientations besides bisexual has its advantages, I also think most of those stories could easily be told through characters who aren't romance options. Like you said, it would also be simpler and easier resource-wise, and more people would be happy with their options. And since I'm hoping none of the future companion arcs will have to do with their orientations in a direct way, this wouldn't be a problem for that either.

 

I also think that they don't need to have every option openly declared as bisexual; they can be ambiguous. You can have some who openly express interest in both sexes on one hand, and some who may not even express interest in anyone besides your character on the other, and anything in between. Like you said, it depends how much one meta-games. That is, it depends if a person takes into account multiple playthroughs (as different genders romancing the same character) or just thinks of one playthrough at a time.

 

I should point out though, that the people who complained about DA2's approach are generally not the same people who complain about the opposite    It's just different people with different views.

 

The people who don't like this approach tend not to either because they find the idea of having 4 bisexuals in a group to be unbelievable (in a fantasy universe, no less), which I find to be a weak argument, or because they see this as somehow turning bisexuality into a "convenience" for the player, which is a more complicated issue that I haven't formulated enough coherent thoughts on to answer right now.

The thing with all bi approach or bisexual characters is that their characters, especially men would show more preference toward women. While Anders' relationship is only reveal in a male Hawke while left ambiguous with female Hawke. Fenris will sleep with Isabela, and Anders will sleep with Isabela. Bioware also has a history where bi guys only prefer the females with Kaidan, Iron Bull, and Zevran. To a smaller extent, bisexual females if they ever show a preference often have more preference for females with Lelianna and Aria. I think that if they want to make all bisexuals, they really need to make more guys who have a thing for guys. I can see why they avoid it since it would make straight guys more comfortable. The reaction with Anders was pretty strong.This is not just a Bioware's problem though, games in general with bisexual guys always have them show preference for girls like Fallout 4 as well. 

 

As long as I have at least 2 options to choose from I'm happy. I'm of the opinion that I would prefer set sexuality if they could avoid stereotypes and archetype, but if not, then I would rather for all to be bi, as long as the bi characters, if ever talk about other NPCs, talk about both sexes, not just one. 

[BansheeOwnage]

The thing with all bi approach or bisexual characters is that their characters, especially men would show more preference toward women. While Anders' relationship is only reveal in a male Hawke while left ambiguous with female Hawke. Fenris will sleep with Isabela, and Anders will sleep with Isabela. Bioware also has a history where bi guys only prefer the females with Kaidan, Iron Bull, and Zevran. To a smaller extent, bisexual females if they ever show a preference often have more preference for females with Lelianna and Aria. I think that if they want to make all bisexuals, they really need to make more guys who have a thing for guys. I can see why they avoid it since it would make straight guys more comfortable. The reaction with Anders was pretty strong.This is not just a Bioware's problem though, games in general with bisexual guys always have them show preference for girls like Fallout 4 as well. 

 

As long as I have at least 2 options to choose from I'm happy. I'm of the opinion that I would prefer set sexuality if they could avoid stereotypes and archetype, but if not, then I would rather for all to be bi, as long as the bi characters, if ever talk about other NPCs, talk about both sexes, not just one. 

Yeah, that's definitely a problem in Bioware games and beyond I completely agree that I'd like that double-standard to go away regardless of what approach to romances they do (and we all know they're going to keep DA:I's 2/2/2 approach realistically).

[Jedi Comedian]

Like arguably Veidt in Watchmen?

From a certain point of view, he's actually not a villain, I mean, he did what he did for the greater good.

Though you could say the same for The League of Shadows in Batman. Both them and Ozy are all about cutting the Gordian Knot.

[ModernAcademic]

Knight In Shining Armor.
 

 

Thanks. 

[Battlebloodmage]

From a certain point of view, he's actually not a villain, I mean, he did what he did for the greater good.

Though you could say the same for The League of Shadows in Batman. Both them and Ozy are all about cutting the Gordian Knot.

Depending, not all villains think of themselves as evil, some even think of themselves as good. It's like with Illusive Man, he's all about humans, and screw other aliens, and he would go anything to protect human race, even through controlling the Reapers. Just because someone thinks of themselves as noble or that their goal is noble doesn't excuse their actions. Personally, I don't mind them being villains, and my post already stated that a romance with Solas seems interesting due to it even when I'm not personally interested in doing one myself.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

Why are people so afraid of stereotypes, they're not always bad. It's when there's too many stereotype characters present that I consider it a bad thing, or when a gaming studio overuses a particular stereotype and it gets tiring, but having none at all just for the sake of avoiding stereotypes seems pointless.

 

Because the current social narrative says that stereotypes and generalizations are bad, therefore most people blindly follow that and think its bad. To me, stereotypes and generalizations are neither good nor bad, they simply are.

 

It's not fear of stereotypes. It's the fact that in the majority of media, those stereotypes are the go-to options when someone says 'okay, we can have a gay character.' Like, think of some of the most well-known examples of gay characters - Kurt Hummel on Glee, Jack on Will and Grace, any character portrayed by Paul Lynde, this is something that's been going back for decades. It's the sassy gay guy, the one where the joke is that this guy is extremely non-masculine and gets to be full of witty one-liners and talk about fashion. For many of us asking for this, it's a matter of how (in my experience), we DON'T fit these stereotypes, and aren't seeing reflections of ourselves in media. It's not fear, it's frustration at a media landscape that ignores us, even when they claim to be more accepting.

 

Like, the characters I've most related to in media with gay characters still tend to be the straight characters. Those characters are offered the opportunity to be more nuanced, have more to them - gay characters routinely have 'they're gay' as their defining traits. I feel this way in BioWare games - in the Dragon Age series, the characters I've related to most have been Alistair, Fenris, and Cullen, respectively. Only one of them is portrayed as attracted to other men in the game proper. Meanwhile characters I'm being told are 'for' me as a gay player, Zevran, Dorian, Iron Bull, rank near the bottom of that identifying/relating list. These are the characters I routinely get told are 'for' me to experience and enjoy, and if I say I don't, I get a chorus from straight players who tell me that I'm greedy, and I want so much, and I should be happy to get anything. Meanwhile, I've complained about Dorian's story not being one I relate to, and I've had gay players dismiss me as being 'lucky' to not have gone through that, as though that's the only source of angst and pain for a gay person's life.

 

So I'm hearing on both sides 'shut up and take what you're getting' as I find it uncomfortable or unpalatable for me. I'm tired of stereotypes because I don't see them as reflections of me or my experiences, and yet if I turn on any mainstream media, I can see these stereotypes everywhere. I have to dig around, scrounge the depths of page three (or further) of a Google search to find something that offers something more reflective of myself. I'm not afraid of a stereotype. I'm just sick of it being praised as the bar to pass - and that there are people who STILL REFUSE TO EVEN TRY TO REACH IT.

 

You want the media that you consume to exclusively revolve around you ? Media, especially entertainment media, are supposed to entertain, not exclusively revolve around someone.

 

Entertainment media is for the most part fictional. The characters that are played or are animated are not real. If you want to identify with a reflection of your experiences, look in a mirror. Otherwise, go and meet real people.

 

Additionally, we have a term for someone who wants/demands something to change in order conform their reflection and experiences just because - Narcissist.

 

Ok, so since we're on this topic again, and I have been lurking but not commenting on this issue, I'd like to understand.

 

What, exactly, was the problem with DA2's LIs being all player-sexual? I get that there's an issue of representation and erasure somewhere in there, but realistically, if you want a certain combo represented, you're going to pick one gender for your romances, right? So what does it matter that, in the event that you would later make another playthrough with a different gender the same character would be available for romance? It's basically a different universe, and if you believe that LI belongs to your previous warden/hawke/quizzie, you just ignore the heart icons?

No? Just me? Because it seems to me that making the LI's all potentially more or less bisexual just means everyone can do their preferred canon runs, and you eliminate the endless entitled "But not enough hot women" these forums tend to get AND you get to pick your preferred queer or non-hetero romance path (apologies if terms used are not to your liking, I'm old and french).

 

Granted, it limits the possibilities in terms of linking sexuality directly to character arc, but, honestly, would that really be a bad thing? The lore already states that nobody gives a **** who sleeps with whom in Thedas, and basically only people trying to win the genetic lottery care about which organ goes where. Wouldn't eliminating this variable just mean we get more meaningful character arcs that don't rely on modern tropes to be interesting? Don't get me wrong, I like Dorian's personal quest and all, but if it means everybody gets what they feel they want to see, regardless of orientation, isn't it just easier to record a few extra lines of dialog and let the player roleplay it the way they want?

Apologies if this offends or whatever. Just feels like we're beating a dead horse in reverse. DA2 comes out and people scream about everybody being player-sexual. DAI comes out and everybody screams about being locked out of their preferred romances.

... Literally just pick one, ffffh. They only ever give us like 8 companions every game. There's only so many possibilities they can realistically do. Can you even imagine the logistical nightmare the devs and writers have to muddle through when designing these romance arcs? Because clearly they appear to be listening to fan criticism somewhat. I'm just... I don't think it's feasible to please everyone here, and I'm starting to think that DA2's approach, while flawed, might have been the simplest way to go about things.

 

Then everyone could get their Knight in Shining Armor / Hot Babe and roleplay it how ever they like.

Thoughts?

 

One - Not everyone you meet and everyone who falls for you is bisexual. That does not make very little sense and Bioware wants to make a realistic world.

 

Two - We have people who are so narcissistic that they demand that everything must be changed to suit them, their own experiences and their own reflections.

[Witch Cocktor]

You want the media that you consume to exclusively revolve around you ? Media, especially entertainment media, are supposed to entertain, not exclusively revolve around someone.

 

Entertainment media is for the most part fictional. The characters that are played or are animated are not real. If you want to identify with a reflection of your experiences, look in a mirror. Otherwise, go and meet real people.

 

Additionally, we have a term for someone who wants/demands something to change in order conform their reflection and experiences just because - Narcissist.

 

Why are you so salty and aggressive? Just like you want rogues to restock their arrows in the next game, someone wants non-stereotypical portrayal of homosexuals instead.