Jump to content

Same gender relationships clarifications?


elexier

Recommended Posts

2) Not necessarily. A new character can be introduced at all kinds of points. New characters in Mass Effect don't require you to be particularly powerful either...

 

I don't see how, considering the new characters would be introduced with the new content and it would require you to be at a certain level to complete.

 

3) That characters are shared between class is the norm in Bioware games. SW:TOR is an exception.

 

In the other games each class also share the same story. Yes, SWTOR is the exception but we are discussing SWTOR. It has set a level of expectation.

 

4) That's no different than in other Bioware games.

 

See DA2.

 

Leliana is a romance option to both men and women, Morrigan isn't. It's one thing to make same gender romances at all, it's another to make it so that the gender doesn't matter at all to all companions anymore.

 

Nothing else matters to companions when romancing the PC so I don't see why gender should be different (species, appearance, even morality can be overcome with gifts). Plus, it could still matter (i.e., result in different dialogs) without limiting romance choice based only on gender.

 

Regardless, the point is that there will be unhappy people if options are limited. Just from reading this thread over the past half of a year, the posters who desire SGRA content have specific companions in mind for their toons and will not necessarily be happy with any old SGRA option.

 

It's like, "Yeah, I know your female Smuggler wanted Risha, but too bad...you get Akaavi and you should be happy you got something."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't see how, considering the new characters would be introduced with the new content and it would require you to be at a certain level to complete.

 

In the other games each class also share the same story. Yes, SWTOR is the exception but we are discussing SWTOR. It has set a level of expectation.

 

See DA2.

 

Nothing else matters to companions when romancing the PC so I don't see why gender should be different (species, appearance, even morality can be overcome with gifts). Plus, it could still matter (i.e., result in different dialogs) without limiting romance choice based only on gender.

 

Regardless, the point is that there will be unhappy people if options are limited. Just from reading this thread over the past half of a year, the posters who desire SGRA content have specific companions in mind for their toons and will not necessarily be happy with any old SGRA option.

 

It's like, "Yeah, I know your female Smuggler wanted Risha, but too bad...you get Akaavi and you should be happy you got something."

 

Most characters are not all too deeply involved in the class story anyway, apart from the way you pick them up. The existing characters were never designed with the intent to use them for more than one class, and yet I don't see a reason why Tharan for example would work for all republic classes. That the class story is different for all classes is therefore irrelevant, even though it will cause design overhead for integrating them, but that's inevitable either way. If you create different characters for every single class, that will cause considerably more overhead and consequently yield less characters becoming available.

 

When it comes to sexuality the gender matters a lot. Some people are simple not gay. Of course in some cases we'd like them to be, but the game would be shale if all companions would simply be whatever we want them to be. DA2 is not a particularly good Bioware game - I don't find it bad either, but it's certainly not par with Dragon Age: Origins are the Mass Effect series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most characters are not all too deeply involved in the class story anyway, apart from the way you pick them up. The existing characters were never designed with the intent to use them for more than one class, and yet I don't see a reason why Tharan for example would work for all republic classes. That the class story is different for all classes is therefore irrelevant, even though it will cause design overhead for integrating them, but that's inevitable either way. If you create different characters for every single class, that will cause considerably more overhead and consequently yield less characters becoming available.

 

They could do it, but my point is still that people won't necessarily be happy with it.

 

When it comes to sexuality the gender matters a lot. Some people are simple not gay. Of course in some cases we'd like them to be, but the game would be shale if all companions would simply be whatever we want them to be. DA2 is not a particularly good Bioware game - I don't find it bad either, but it's certainly not par with Dragon Age: Origins are the Mass Effect series.

 

And some people simply won't be attracted to a different species or someone who has different morals form them, but the game in it's current state doesn't reflect this. These things also matter a lot.

 

I'm not commenting on how good/bad DA2 was...I don't think it matters here.

 

From what we know now, they won't make all romance companions available to both genders and all I'm saying is that people will be unhappy when it comes time to find out who's available (and not). This is partly the reason I went ahead and leveled my toons in spite of not having SGRA yet...I honestly don't think they'll make any characters available that I'd be interested in anyway so I don't see the point of waiting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not commenting on how good/bad DA2 was...I don't think it matters here.

 

Indeed. I don't think whatever they did with DA2 does not matter at all - or, only as example how you should not do it. Therefore I think your bringing it into the discussion was pointless in the first place. It's irrelevant how romance was handled there.

 

You see, the trick is not to give people what they say they want. That's impossible and in many wouldn't turn out as they think they would. So now you can screw Kira. What changes it? Nothing, it's still the same Kira and the game doesn't change besides a few minutes of dialogue. It's not the same as when it becomes part of the process of rising in level and exploring the galaxy. The trick is to give people what they would like.

 

The primary reason I can imagine why people would be averse to companions that don't belong to a particular class is that people like things for themselves in the first place, not for everyone else. Like it was a property and they don't wish to share it. Like the experience of a companion character becomes more enjoyable the less players are able to share it. I don't think that's the case, though. People would enjoy it or not, regardless who else can do the same.

Edited by Rabenschwinge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And some people simply won't be attracted to a different species or someone who has different morals form them, but the game in it's current state doesn't reflect this. These things also matter a lot.

 

I'm not commenting on how good/bad DA2 was...I don't think it matters here.7

 

 

Forcing a label to NPCs forheads doesn't make them "deeper" or more "realistic". It's really not needed. Some friends of mine saw Merrill as a lesbian. They never romanced her with the dude Hawke. Some others saw Merrill as straight. There was no contradiction. The romance would play out nicely everytime.

Locking her out from romance for either gender, would have added nothing to her character. That just would have sucked for a lot of players. If what you see on youtube, what you read on forums, or another playthrough disrupts your current game, that is your failure.

 

The way I see it, DA2 had many flaws, but its companions and their stories, their interactions were the best. Much better than DA:Origins, than ME, and from what I've seen so far, better than SWTOR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forcing a label to NPCs forheads doesn't make them "deeper" or more "realistic". It's really not needed.

 

If you have a concept for a given character it does make them deeper to be consequent about it. If a character could be anything it's not a sign of a well made character. You're right when you say that forcing a label onto the characters head does not make them better. Better knowing what sexuallity they actually have, what turns them on and what not, what they desire in mates and let all of this shine through if you poke them the right way would make them better. And also what they expect of the player character and how they see the existing relationship.

Edited by Rabenschwinge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. I don't think whatever they did with DA2 does not matter at all - or, only as example how you should not do it. Therefore I think your bringing it into the discussion was pointless in the first place. It's irrelevant how romance was handled there.

 

It is relevant when you say something to the extent that "BW never did romances like this" in defense of your point and they did...in DA2. So, you arguing that they shouldn't do X b/c they never did X is flawed when I can show that they did do X before.

 

You then went on to say DA2 was bad/wasn't as good as ME or DA:O...I hope you weren't implying that the reason this game was bad was due to the way they did SGRA romance....

 

You see, the trick is not to give people what they say they want. That's impossible and in many wouldn't turn out as they think they would. So now you can screw Kira. What changes it? Nothing, it's still the same Kira and the game doesn't change besides a few minutes of dialogue. It's not the same as when it becomes part of the process of rising in level and exploring the galaxy. The trick is to give people what they would like.

 

What?

 

I would 'like' the same options on my lesbian PC that heterosexual PCs already enjoy. It's quite simple.

 

I have no idea what you are getting at here.

 

The primary reason I can imagine why people would be averse to companions that don't belong to a particular class is that people like things for themselves in the first place, not for everyone else. Like it was a property and they don't wish to share it. Like the experience of a companion character becomes more enjoyable the less players are able to share it. I don't think that's the case, though. People would enjoy it or not, regardless who else can do the same.

 

No, people in this thread are adverse to this idea b/c it's seen as unfair considering heterosexual PCs have a bunch of romance options that are exclusive to their class.

 

If everyone was sharing romance characters across classes (even heterosexual PCs), then it wouldn't be a problem.

 

Better knowing what sexuallity they actually have, what turns them on and what not, what they desire in mates and let all of this shine through if you poke them the right way would make them better. And also what they expect of the player character and how they see the existing relationship.

 

Well, when they start doing this in other areas besides gender then I could agree.

Edited by stuffystuffs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said that, explicit or implicit. It's always easy to argue against someone if you make up what they say...

 

I said this:

 

"When you limit the characters to 'gay, straight only' there will be players unhappy that they can't romance character X with their toon b/c of arbitrary gender restrictions...this would include people who do OGRA if they would ever make gay-only characters."

 

You replied with...

 

4) That's no different than in other Bioware games.

 

And then I pointed out that they did do something similar in DA2, which makes your counter-point moot.

 

Unless I'm not following what you really meant there.

Edited by stuffystuffs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said this:

 

Unless I'm not following what you really meant there.

 

"That's no different than in other Bioware games"

Dragon Age II is not one of those games. Mass Effect and Dragon Age: Origins are. That's not a contradiction.

 

"That's no different than in other Bioware games." is not the same as "That's no different than in any other Bioware game." If I had meant that, I would have said it.

Edited by Rabenschwinge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"That's no different than in other Bioware games"

Dragon Age II is not one of those games. Mass Effect and Dragon Age: Origins are. That's not a contradiction.

 

"That's no different than in other Bioware games." is not the same as "That's no different than in any other Bioware game." If I had meant that, I would have said it.

 

Then why didn't you say that earlier instead of stating that DA2 sucks and implied that it somehow doesn't count?

 

If that's what you meant then your counter isn't all that strong anyway. So what if they did it like 'X' in some other games and 'Y' in another? They can change how they implement features.

 

Regardless, they won't implement it the DA2 way as they've stated this before (it still baffles me why people are opposed to this method considering it's totally okay to drastically change the appearance of companions in game :rolleyes:)

 

Anyway, my original point is that no matter how they implement this feature, people will be unhappy b/c they will be left-out...either b/c their toon is lvl 50, or their toon isn't lvl 50, or they wished for a romance with Mako on their female BH, etc. It's a pet peeve of mine to see people state that if the devs do 'X, Y, Z' everyone will be happy!

 

Nope....never going to happen. I typically read those statements as, "if the devs do X, Y, Z then I will be happy" b/c that's typically more accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"That's no different than in other Bioware games"

Dragon Age II is not one of those games. Mass Effect and Dragon Age: Origins are. That's not a contradiction.

 

"That's no different than in other Bioware games." is not the same as "That's no different than in any other Bioware game." If I had meant that, I would have said it.

 

So ?

 

Basically, some BW games had few options, other more options, and other, like this one, no options at all (yet)

I'm all for more options for everybody. DA2 did this right. A friend of mine told me that for the first time she could actually choose, without having to play another gender, or using mods.

 

But, like stuffy says, it's not going to happen here. Unfortunately gender checks will be made ( just that, out of many other things ) to lock out romances. And that'll suck for many people. And will add nothing to the others

Edited by wainot-keel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So ?

Limitations, while not inevitable, are to be expected and everyone can live with them, even if they say otherwise.

As you correctly say, the time being there are no gay romance option at all. That's bad. It doesn't necessarily mean there must be no limitations, it means there must be options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why didn't you say that earlier instead of stating that DA2 sucks and implied that it somehow doesn't count?

 

And here we go again. I didn't say that it sucks either, in fact I said that it wasn't particularly good, but not bad either. That implies "somewhat good", but less good that the other games I referred to. Only a SIth deals in absolutes (and yes, I realize that this is a contradiction in itself ;) )

 

That you can find a game in which all romance options work both ways it doesn't mean that it's necessarily a good idea.

Edited by Rabenschwinge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Limitations, while not inevitable, are to be expected and everyone can live with them, even if they say otherwise.

 

The issue is that everyone doesn't have to live with them in this specific area of the game (people who RP heterosexual PCs have none as far as selecting opposite gender romance options) while others do (homosexual PCs).

 

How is that cool?

 

As you correctly say, the time being there are no gay romance option at all. That's bad. It doesn't necessarily mean there must be no limitations, it means there must be options.

 

With limitations, some will have no options at all.

 

A male Smuggler may have no options...how is the current system any worse?

 

And you can't assume that a player will automatically like their arbitrarily assigned "SGRA romance partner" just b/c it's there.

 

What if they only have one male/one female that's SGRA enabled per faction? (which is possible) What if it's Kaliyo for females on the Imperial side? What if someone's Agent hates her? What if they don't even have an agent and have a BH and SW? Will these people have options?

 

 

And here we go again. I didn't say that it sucks either, in fact I said that it wasn't particularly good, but not bad either. That implies "somewhat good", but less good that the other games I referred to. Only a SIth deals in absolutes (and yes, I realize that this is a contradiction in itself ;) )

 

 

I guess it depends on how you define "sucked"...I don't see that phrase as meaning 'absolutely terrible'.....for me, "not particularly good" could fit that too.

 

Besides, that's beyond my point anyway...when I mentioned DA2 you still replied with a negative value judgement on the game which I found odd in that context.

 

That you can find a game in which all romance options work both ways it doesn't mean that it's necessarily a good idea.

 

I'm not saying it does. I've constantly been stating that this system is independent of how good/bad the game is. You are the one implying otherwise when you made a value judgement on DA2 after I brought it up.

 

Though, Skyrim did do the same thing and that game is considered to be super good and awesome by most.

Edited by stuffystuffs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That you can find a game in which all romance options work both ways it doesn't mean that it's necessarily a good idea.

 

Also, that you can find a game with exclusive options doesn't mean that's necessarily a good idea either.

 

It all dependes how it's written. Difference is with either approach, when all LIs are available for both genders, a lot of more people get to enjoy those romaces. If romances are restricted, fewer people do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, that you can find a game with exclusive options doesn't mean that's necessarily a good idea either.

 

It all dependes how it's written. Difference is with either approach, when all LIs are available for both genders, a lot of more people get to enjoy those romaces. If romances are restricted, fewer people do.

 

That is why I am suggesting to rather add new companions which are not tied to a single one class. Because the existing options are extremely limited. If the existing ones would be made available, almost all current options would have to be made available, regardless of whether that fits into the character concept or not. I would prefer if there were several options, but every single option, for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clarification (and I don't mean to offend anyone with my descriptions below), this is how I see the body types:

 

BT 1 = Anorexic (I guess this one is meant to be just skinny)

BT 2 = Less Anorexic (this one is supposed to be the normal body type, I think)

BT 3 = Tall, athletic, muscular, in other words amazonian

BT 4 = healthy body weight, though some would call this one "fat", TVTropes would call this one Hollywood Pudgy. For some reason this one corresponds to the male corpulently obese (but muscular as well) body type.

 

Most of my characters are BT3, with one or two being either BT2 or 4. I refuse to use BT1 on principle.

 

I have to disagree about female body type 4 being closest to Britney Spears. She's not curvy enough or busty enough, imo. That, and I find her to be extremely skanky. My closest comparison of an actress to female body type 4 would be Noa Tishby. Fell in love with her on Leverage (The 2 Live Crew Job). :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were told in March that each available companion was being given specific, new dialog and story for same-gender romance. Perhaps this is in part to establish the character as specifically so inclined for purposes of that relationship. Thus, opposite-gender romance Corso (for example) becomes in effect a distinct character from same-gender romance Corso. I'd call this "herosexual, done right". The core persona need not change at all to accomodate orientation if the story holds up in both available options.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A thought: Has anyone checked to see if the current companion voice actors have done more work for BioWare? I mean, adding SGR must take a lot f redone lines and flirts, their should be a record of it somewhere.

 

I don't know where it would be documented separately. Usually, actors are credited with a recurring role for the full span of their involvement with a particular project, as 2010–present (or whenever they began voice work on SWTOR). Even if we could track it down, it would only indicate that more companion dialog was being voiced, and not specifically related to same-gender romance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were told in March that each available companion was being given specific, new dialog and story for same-gender romance. Perhaps this is in part to establish the character as specifically so inclined for purposes of that relationship. Thus, opposite-gender romance Corso (for example) becomes in effect a distinct character from same-gender romance Corso. I'd call this "herosexual, done right". The core persona need not change at all to accomodate orientation if the story holds up in both available options.

 

Well, if SGRs are indeed delivered with Makeb, which will be a class story extension (new level cap and all), I don't think it's far fetched to hope that companions' stories will be extended as well. If that's the case, voice actors that have already done the current romance stuff could record the necessary changes to have those romance available for same gender as well. Here's hoping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I'd rather they created new characters who were gay and bi. Too many people think that sexuality can be changed by external forces as it is without reinforcing that notion in entertainment. And that's pretty much all I have to say about that.

 

I get why they don't want to 'lock' people out of options, but that's a fair point too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I'd rather they created new characters who were gay and bi. Too many people think that sexuality can be changed by external forces as it is without reinforcing that notion in entertainment. And that's pretty much all I have to say about that.

 

You know, even if we somehow equate adding same-gender options to existing characters as "external forces changing their sexuality" I still want my Consular to be able to flirt with Nadia even if she does turn her down. I don't think the characters need to be altered to allow them to be open-minded to the possibility of same-sex romance.

 

Also, speaking from personal experience, external factors can play a part. No, you don't "turn gay" nor can you "cure gay", but being faced with new facts can reveal facets of our own person we did not reckognize before that - someone who is gay or bi might not realize it until it "hits them", so to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...