Oh, pretending to know other people shows how "grown up" you are yourself. Problem is - the guy probably doesn't know any better at that point, and the fact that you abuse him doesn't help him at all. "Getting into pants" isn't the issue, it's rather a sense of belonging and acceptance, a feeling of mutual appreciation. He gets abused on and on, and there's little surprise that he snaps, or becomes a mysoginist.

 

Anyhow, I have indeed "grown up", and I do realize that being friendzoned was my own fault as well - primarily because I was attracted to the wrong girls and I wasn't selfish enough when I was younger. Now I'm seeing a wonderful lady with an IQ above 150, PhD, linguist, successfully develops exclusive education methods, shapely, pretty, funny, amazing dancer.

 

Point is - if you're in a position of power over another person and you're using it to abuse them speaks volumes. To the very least, it's extremely non-constructive behaviour that hinders personal growth of both, you and your victim.

A) Never was interested in creeps. Stayed away from them, B) currently dating a guy who respects me, my boundaries, and vice versa.

Which, from your first post here, sounds like YOU can't do.

Kinda like Corso!!

Ew.

Assault is a pretty concrete line not to be crossed and exactly the type matter that can be brought before authorities.

As far as "escalating entitlement" goes, I think it's quite obvious that, by feeding the victim with mixed signals and false hopes, the abuser doesn't quite let go of the person themselves. Definitely doesn't apply to stalkers/creeps, but those are quite another matter. Matter that is considered offense in the majority of civilized countries.

 

I wouldn't look too deep into this. Many romance storylines work like this in SWToR. DS Jaesa, Kira, Akaavi, to a lesser extent Vette, Nadia, Kaliyo, Mako - all work similarly. Once it's started, you can't really get them to shut up unless at a specific focal point.

 

It's the dialogue advancement architecture, rather than a "horrifying mockery". Corso's manner just makes it stand out, that's it. Also, I wonder why it's Corso that you're so up in arms about. I'm no female, but I found Doc and Theran to be even more disrespectful and persistent. Both are quite the sleeze-balls.

You apparently have not seen the hate threads for them either.

Corso gets more vocal hate BECAUSE he's written as a bumbling sweet guy who just happens to also be one hell of a Nice Guy who can't take no for a *********** answer. At least with Doc and Tharan, like you said, they easily come off as sleaze balls. Corso doesn't, at first.

So, I was perusing Tumblr in the SWTOR tag and I came across this...

 

 

This is, I'm assuming, the last conversation with Corso if you didn't fully peruse a romance with him. I wouldn't know as I have yet to get passed his...whatever number conversation it is with mine. Because I dread them so much.

 

WHAT. THE ACTUAL. ****.

 

How do people see that as not *********** creepy?! SERIOUSLY?! That's supposed to be heart warming?! THAT'S A WHINY, CREEPY, NICE GUY RIGHT THERE!!! UGH.

 

And the kiss at the end is the *********** cheery on top of the creeper cake. Her face looked so shocked and semi disgusted. And it ENDS. No option to KNOCK HIM *********** SILLY.

 

What the hell Bioware writers? HOW DID YOU SEE AS NOT CREEPY?!

Well, that was disgusting.

I have a level 6 Smuggler, female. Kind of wondering if I actually want to level her now, knowing that she's going to be assaulted like that at the end of the storyline and without the chance for recompense.

Just... ugh.

A) Never was interested in creeps. Stayed away from them, B) currently dating a guy who respects me, my boundaries, and vice versa.

 

Which, from your first post here, sounds like YOU can't do.

 

Kinda like Corso!!

 

Ew.

And you're so aggressively judgemental because...?

I can draw a wall of even more unflattering conclusions about you from your posts, you know. But I do have a belief (which turns out to be true most of the time) that in many cases, people are better than they behave on the Internet.

You apparently have not seen the hate threads for them either.

 

Corso gets more vocal hate BECAUSE he's written as a bumbling sweet guy who just happens to also be one hell of a Nice Guy who can't take no for a *********** answer. At least with Doc and Tharan, like you said, they easily come off as sleaze balls. Corso doesn't, at first.

I think that's part of the character. He's a hopeless romantic that was raised with hopelessly ideaistic views on the world and he's not mature enough to change them. He does go way overboard, but there's nothing wrong with being a "nice guy". They're easy to hurt, but it's also easy to make them happy, and their enthusiasm can be easily "steered" in the right direction, provided that there's no maliciousness on the other side, conscious or otherwise.

Well, that was disgusting.

 

I have a level 6 Smuggler, female. Kind of wondering if I actually want to level her now, knowing that she's going to be assaulted like that at the end of the storyline and without the chance for recompense.

 

Just... ugh.

Don't flirt with him and shoot him down early and you're clear. Got a female Gunslinger, and she's *solo*. Badum-pssh! (bad Han pun absolutely intended).

Well this thread has been kinda horrifying for me. I played my smuggler as having a soft spot for Corso from the start and only occasionally flirted with other NPCs - only ever once or twice, playfully, but turning them down because Corso was the guy she really liked. The romance played out as very sweet. For the conversational options that my smuggler chose, his answers were generally wonderful. I had no idea that it turned out to be this creepy if you try to get out of the romance. Yuck. Gonna have to do some serious brain-partitioning to separate my smuggler's nice Corso from this jerk.

I did find that the mention of the lost fiancée was a bit odd, but I've played sufficient Bioware romances at this point that I just chalked it down to their apparent need to give 90% of romanceable male characters some previous history to show that, look, they're interested in women and have had past relationships, they're healthy male individuals, really, we promise! The only companion in a BW game who wasn't written like this who comes readily to mind is Alistair. By contrast, Bioware have little problems writing female romanceable companions with little to no romantic experience, innocent flowers waiting to be plucked.

This is related but not quite the same as another disparity along gender lines: not including droids, all female companions are romanceable by male characters. There is not a single female companion put into the game without the intention of making her available for romance. The same, obviously, cannot be said for male companions. What I want to know is this: is there no reason to have interesting female companions if there isn't a romance at stake? Is that all the female companions are for? Do the devs think that if people playing male characters come up against a female companion who they can't romance that their rage would ignite a thousand suns? Do they cater to such hypothetical rage as reasonable? This peeves me in so many ways.

Also, just a slight mention... but no one seems to be interested in the fact that, for all the holo-addict insults, said character is not the consular's romanceable companion. Re the actual romance:

This is related but not quite the same as another disparity along gender lines: not including droids, all female companions are romanceable by male characters. There is not a single female companion put into the game without the intention of making her available for romance. The same, obviously, cannot be said for male companions. What I want to know is this: is there no reason to have interesting female companions if there isn't a romance at stake? Is that all the female companions are for? Do the devs think that if people playing male characters come up against a female companion who they can't romance that their rage would ignite a thousand suns? Do they cater to such hypothetical rage as reasonable? This peeves me in so many ways.

Incorrect. LS Jaesa, for example, is quite firm in maintaining a Jedi way of life, true to the Code.

There are also more male companions than female companions. If the rate was reversed, an opposite conclusion could be drawn.

I did find that the mention of the lost fiancée was a bit odd, but I've played sufficient Bioware romances at this point that I just chalked it down to their apparent need to give 90% of romanceable male characters some previous history to show that, look, they're interested in women and have had past relationships, they're healthy male individuals, really, we promise! The only companion in a BW game who wasn't written like this who comes readily to mind is Alistair. By contrast, Bioware have little problems writing female romanceable companions with little to no romantic experience, innocent flowers waiting to be plucked.

Both types of female romance characters are present. Akaavi and Kaliyo are, for example, are strong, independent, and definitely very experienced.

Also, all romance options in both DA games supposedly had a lot of experience.

Also, just a slight mention... but no one seems to be interested in the fact that, for all the holo-addict insults, said character is not the consular's romanceable companion. Re the actual romance:

 

 

My 100% light-side sage turned the holo-addict down and didn't flirt at all with random NPCs, but chose the romance with the soldier from Hoth who respected her and the way of life she chose. What sold me on that romance was a moment on Voss when he seems to become sick of the consular having to take on the suffering of others and does the same thing for her. The relationship seemed to me to be 100% congruent with the light side, which is supported by the fact that it was not hidden from the jedi council. I loved that he had to take an interview with a master as part of the process to check that everything was above board. When there are exceptions to rules, I like to see why they're exceptions.

Well, the holo-addict *is* quite aggressive. As far as Iresso goes, he's not the only one who has a well-written romance line for females.

For both genders, well-written romance arcs are rather... scarce. The often sole eligible companions are sometimes rather obnoxious.

Incorrect. LS Jaesa, for example, is quite firm in maintaining a Jedi way of life, true to the Code.

LS Jaesa and DS Jaesa... are both Jaesa. I mean, sure, they progress differently storywise (I far prefer LS Jaesa, for the record), but that just means that there is one Jaesa who ends up in another situation depending on choices that your character has made.

EDIT: Whoops, didn't mean to double-post, was actually trying to edit this in...

There are also more male companions than female companions. If the rate was reversed, an opposite conclusion could be drawn.

You may not realise it, but you are actually reinforcing my point. They only put as many female characters into the game as they wanted for romanceable females. Beyond that threshold, they filled it with male companions. Want a driven resistance leader? Male. Want a selfish, corrupt demolitionist? Male. Want an archaeology geek? Male. Nothing forced them to make all those non-romanceable characters male (what's interesting about them is their particular personalities, not their gender), but they did.

Heh, Estelindis, I believe the "women can only justify their presence on the companion roster by sleeping with the male player character" issue is mentioned in a number of threads. I did a Tumblr writeup a little while back, though this probably isn't the thread to discuss it. Anyway, the general indignation that half of Jaesa breaks the pattern is...entertaining?

As for Corso...

As far as "escalating entitlement" goes, I think it's quite obvious that, by feeding the victim with mixed signals and false hopes, the abuser doesn't quite let go of the person themselves.

This may be accurate for unhealthy "friendzone" situations but is inconsistent with the Corso romance. That ran like this (paraphrased, unfortunately I don't have recordings for my conversations):

Woman: Hi, you're nice.

Man: Hi, you're nice.

Woman: Let's be friendly and also flirt.

Man: Yes, let's.

…

Man: While we're getting to know each other, here's a bit of a backstory bombshell.

Woman: …Oh. That actually casts you in a new light and I want to stop now.

Man: I still love you.

Woman: Wait, what?

Man: Also don't talk to other men.

Woman: Back off. I'm not interested anymore.

Man: WHY ARE YOU BEING SO MEAN TO ME. Also, let's have sex.

Woman: NO. (At least, that's what I would have said were it an option. Instead my character said "Maybe some other time." The fact that that is the only rejection is also horrible.)

Man: (-160 approval) And you're still talking to other men!! What is wrong with you? I won't put up with this!

If it looks like the woman is the abuser in this situation, I think your perspective is skewed. Once the clear "stop" is reached (something friendzone situations tend to have trouble with, and something whose absence could indeed render the situation murky, but that's not what is happening here), the continuation of an entitled attitude and advances is a pattern characteristic of stalking and other, less pleasant behaviors. Corso tends much more toward the stalker pattern once the player starts consistently choosing discouraging responses.

Nearly a year ago when I started this thread, Corso was the only offensive romance I was aware of. Since then I have learned that by design, romances can't be turned off after a certain (invisible, unmarked) point. I actually started a petition thread about it because it's disgusting.

Tatile, you can prevent the Corso romance entirely by shooting him down from the start. My mistake was in thinking "This is a nice character and I'll [Flirt] with him because it might be enjoyable content" and handling the first few conversations that way. By giving one positive sign, I apparently demonstrated that I'm asking for it and should never complain about his subsequent treatment of me. Trying to say "no" later on is giving mixed signals that no reasonable character or person should have to put up with, what kind of b**** am I anyway? (Viewers at home: the previous two sentences were bitterly sarcastic.)

LS Jaesa and DS Jaesa... are both Jaesa. I mean, sure, they progress differently storywise (I far prefer LS Jaesa, for the record), but that just means that there is one Jaesa who ends up in another situation depending on choices that your character has made.

Played Warrior storyline about three times. Dark, Light, Neutral. And joining the Warrior is on her terms, in 2 out of 3 cases. In the neutral case, she's unsure which side of the Force to pursue, and the character may advise her. Mine told her that "he has experienced both sides of the Force" and suggested she's better off where she was.

Played Warrior storyline about three times. Dark, Light, Neutral. And joining the Warrior is on her terms, in 2 out of 3 cases. In the neutral case, she's unsure which side of the Force to pursue, and the character may advise her. Mine told her that "he has experienced both sides of the Force" and suggested she's better off where she was.

In those two cases, it occurs based on choices that the player made when they decided to be light sided or dark sided.

Oh and I missed answering this:

Both types of female romance characters are present. Akaavi and Kaliyo are, for example, are strong, independent, and definitely very experienced.

 

Also, all romance options in both DA games supposedly had a lot of experience.

I never said that all female romanceable companions were innocent flowers. I said that a far higher proportion of them are, compared with male romanceable companions.

Heh, Estelindis, I believe the "women can only justify their presence on the companion roster by sleeping with the male player character" issue is mentioned in a number of threads. I did a Tumblr writeup a little while back, though this probably isn't the thread to discuss it.

Great post, Bright. Thanks for pointing me towards it.

Heh, Estelindis, I believe the "women can only justify their presence on the companion roster by sleeping with the male player character" issue is mentioned in a number of threads. I did a Tumblr writeup a little while back, though this probably isn't the thread to discuss it. Anyway, the general indignation that half of Jaesa breaks the pattern is...entertaining?

Eh... That's a very one-sided, making-facts-appear-in-your-favor type of look, I must say.

Allow me to elaborate. RPG games have a combat-heavy component, no denying that. They often take place at a time of crisis. Now, let's be realistic here. Not trying to be sexist or anything, just look at the facts. In real the world, the vast, vast majority of combatants are male. Very few armed forces have women actually fight on the front lines. During crisis, men, being the cannon fodder of evolution, are often sent to die, while women are preserved, at all costs. This is not just logical "preservation-of-humanity-as-species" practice but something hard-wired into our genes.

So, unless it's a very specific "amazon warrior" setting, there aren't supposed to be a lot of women actively participating in violent conflict. And the player party is often in its heart. Keep in mind that Bioware's female companions play roles of both, frontline fighters, like Aveline (who also isn't romancable by Hawke), and specialists/advisors, so there's no discrimination here.

Now let's do some logic here. To write fulfilling story arcs for companions, there mustn't be too many of them, lest they have a LOAD of free development time and resources (VAs, writing). So it does make sense that the companion pool is kind of limited, right? Now, then, they need to make both genders represented, and characters of both genders need romance options. To keep the writing focused, they pick 1-2 romancable characters for each gender and stay with them. Naturally, more male characters get "left overboard", because there are more male companions. And, as far as ToR goes, a lot of unromancable males are very alien. As in physically. So might want to count them out as well, along with constructs.

So, what am I going with here is - sex eligibility does not define a female companion character. It is there because there are no other options and the protagonist needs a romance option. More than half of SWToR classes have only one female companion, and it makes sense for her to be the romance option, otherwise, the male protagonist would be left high and dry.

Making such a connection is very, very stretched and the situation can be explained with (gasp surprise) something else then chauvinism.

As for Corso...

 

This may be accurate for unhealthy "friendzone" situations but is inconsistent with the Corso romance. That ran like this (paraphrased, unfortunately I don't have recordings for my conversations):<.........>

Bad writing, or oversight. Pretty sure BW intended the romance arcs proceed in a linear fashion. I had a lot of inconsistencies with Vette a lot of other companions. To the point that she disproportionately responds to a backhanded, humorous flirt line. The only flirt line with her from my Warrior was a backhanded sarcastic "Lol, u jelly?" line when she confronted them about him going off with Taunt after the Star of Kala'Un quest. Then she practically goes on like he proposed her already.

In those two cases, it occurs based on choices that the player made when they decided to be light sided or dark sided.

 

Oh and I missed answering this:

 

I never said that all female romanceable companions were innocent flowers. I said that a far higher proportion of them are, compared with male romanceable companions.

Males also can be "innocent flowers". Alistair, for one, has "never licked a lamp-post in winter". Seriously, if you haven't heard this convo, you haven't seen half of DA1 And no, I find the "flower-to-mature" ratio pretty healthy, actually. Ash was very mature. So was Morrigan and Leliana. So was (not-really-romancable) Aveline and Isabela. Not even mentioning Jaheira, my favourite lady character of all times.

EDIT: Whoops, didn't mean to double-post, was actually trying to edit this in...

 

You may not realise it, but you are actually reinforcing my point. They only put as many female characters into the game as they wanted for romanceable females. Beyond that threshold, they filled it with male companions. Want a driven resistance leader? Male. Want a selfish, corrupt demolitionist? Male. Want an archaeology geek? Male. Nothing forced them to make all those non-romanceable characters male (what's interesting about them is their particular personalities, not their gender), but they did.

See above in my elaboration for Bright.

Males also can be "innocent flowers". Alistair, for one, has "never licked a lamp-post in winter". Seriously, if you haven't heard this convo, you haven't seen half of DA1 And no, I find the "flower-to-mature" ratio pretty healthy, actually. Ash was very mature. So was Morrigan and Leliana. So was (not-really-romancable) Aveline and Isabela. Not even mentioning Jaheira, my favourite lady character of all times.

I feel like you're actually not reading my posts at all. I specifically mentioned Alistair. I also said that he was the only inexperienced male who came to mind. My point, again, is that the flower-to-mature ratio, as you call it, is extremely different for men and women. You can list off plenty of female characters who differ in this regard, but only one male character. This is precisely what I said myself, yet you're presenting the points I made as if they're your counterargument. You really must not have read my posts carefully.

I feel like you're actually not reading my posts at all. I specifically mentioned Alistair. I also said that he was the only inexperienced male who came to mind. My point, again, is that the flower-to-mature ratio, as you call it, is extremely different for men and women. You can list off plenty of female characters who differ in this regard, but only one male character. This is precisely what I said myself, yet you're presenting the points I made as if they're you're counterargument. You really must not have read my posts carefully.

Apologies. So much to read, so little time.

Also take into consideration that there are widely-established "normal" attractive features for men and for women. Weak and indecisive men are often not appreciated, masculine and aggressive women are rather seen as competition, or buddies rather than ladies. The developers can't just ignore that.

Granted, Alistair wasn't weak and ripe for the pickings, while Aveline wasn't actually a she-male (in fact, she's the only character I really did want my Hawke to romance in DA2), but there's this intangible psychological balance that must be maintained. It has nothing to do with chauvinism, but rather gender-identity.

Edit: Also,mind the greater picture. The most prominent figures in the Republic are female. The Chancellor, the Grand Master of the Order, one of Republic Army's top generals. As far as the Empire goes, Military does seem to favor men, but a lot of prominent Sith are women.

So, unless it's a very specific "amazon warrior" setting, there aren't supposed to be a lot of women actively participating in violent conflict.

Did you possibly miss Bright's mentions of Wynne, Kreia, and Qara? There is absolutely no need for female companions in a setting that involves combat to be amazons. They can be mages (bookish or otherwise), clergy (pious or otherwise), mystics, commoners pushed to defend their homes by oppression, aristocrats (could still work out in combat if they've been trained in, for instance, some fancy duelling style, which still doesn't have to fall into the Amazon pidgeonhole), treasure-hunters, techno-wizards... And, in fact, many of the companions in SW:TOR are just that! Vette is a treasure-hunter, Risha is an aristocrat, Nadia is a diplomat, Mako is an expert slicer... I could go on and on. Even this game, which I am criticising for its lack of non-romanceable female companions, has shown that there's no need for all combat-able women to be Amazons. What can be done for romanceable companions, then, can be done for non-romanceable companions just as easily.

Apologies. So much to read, so little time.

Apology accepted.

Also take into consideration that there are widely-established "normal" attractive features for men and for women. Weak and indecisive men are often not appreciated, masculine and aggressive women are rather seen as competition, or buddies rather than ladies. The developers can't just ignore that.

As I said in the previous post, there can be just as many personality archetypes for combat-fit non-romanceable females as there can be for males.

Furthermore, this comment about attitudes... demands to be challenged. You are stating that being weak and indecisive is a feminine quality and that being aggressive is a male quality.

In actual fact, for all the criticism that I have made on one front, the game of SW:TOR itself shows a whole host of different personalities in both male and female characters without making males seem pathetic or women aggressive. There are quieter, more reflective male companions. They are not aggressive, but that does not make them less male. There are more assertive female companions. They are not weak or indecisive, and that does not make them less female.

It has nothing to do with chauvinism, but rather gender-identity.

No, I'm afraid it is not to do with gender identity. Being weak is... well... a weakness regardless of gender. It is not attached to one gender or another.

Edit: Also,mind the greater picture. The most prominent figures in the Republic are female. The Chancellor, the Grand Master of the Order, one of Republic Army's top generals. As far as the Empire goes, Military does seem to favor men, but a lot of prominent Sith are women.

These women are not non-romanceable party members, the lack of which was the original problem that I raised.

Eh... That's a very one-sided, making-facts-appear-in-your-favor type of look, I must say.

 

Allow me to elaborate. RPG games have a combat-heavy component, no denying that. They often take place at a time of crisis. Now, let's be realistic here. Not trying to be sexist or anything, just look at the facts. In real the world, the vast, vast majority of combatants are male. Very few armed forces have women actually fight on the front lines. During crisis, men, being the cannon fodder of evolution, are often sent to die, while women are preserved, at all costs. This is not just logical "preservation-of-humanity-as-species" practice but something hard-wired into our genes.

 

So, unless it's a very specific "amazon warrior" setting, there aren't supposed to be a lot of women actively participating in violent conflict. And the player party is often in its heart. Keep in mind that Bioware's female companions play roles of both, frontline fighters, like Aveline (who also isn't romancable by Hawke), and specialists/advisors, so there's no discrimination here.

 

Now let's do some logic here. To write fulfilling story arcs for companions, there mustn't be too many of them, lest they have a LOAD of free development time and resources (VAs, writing). So it does make sense that the companion pool is kind of limited, right? Now, then, they need to make both genders represented, and characters of both genders need romance options. To keep the writing focused, they pick 1-2 romancable characters for each gender and stay with them. Naturally, more male characters get "left overboard", because there are more male companions. And, as far as ToR goes, a lot of unromancable males are very alien. As in physically. So might want to count them out as well, along with constructs.

 

So, what am I going with here is - sex eligibility does not define a female companion character. It is there because there are no other options and the protagonist needs a romance option. More than half of SWToR classes have only one female companion, and it makes sense for her to be the romance option, otherwise, the male protagonist would be left high and dry.

 

Making such a connection is very, very stretched and the situation can be explained with (gasp surprise) something else then chauvinism.

Well, let us be realistic. Look at the facts: straight men in a combat setting go without sex for months at a time, or they pay pr*stitutes and then go on their way. (Or, historically speaking, they force what they can get on anyone they can find, but let us hypothesize that we live in a world where it is considered unacceptable to emulate unwanted sexual advances in our video games.) Otherwise, straight men work and they wait until the campaign's over so they can go home, because there simply aren't that many women on the front lines.

Oh. Wait. Was that too realistic?

The assumption that men deserve and require full service to their needs regardless of the circumstances (as for instance a wildly imbalanced ratio chosen to reflect an ongoing war of traditional weapons/dynamics) is chauvinistic. If you can stretch the imagination enough to give men access to as many healthy or at least sensibly written romances as women get, you can damn well stretch the imagination enough to give women all the company-of-comrades-of-their-own-gender that men get.

Did you possibly miss Bright's mentions of Wynne, Kreia, and Qara? There is absolutely no need for female companions in a setting that involves combat to be amazons. They can be mages (bookish or otherwise), clergy (pious or otherwise), mystics, commoners pushed to defend their homes by oppression, aristocrats (could still work out in combat if they've been trained in, for instance, some fancy duelling style, which still doesn't have to fall into the Amazon pidgeonhole), treasure-hunters, techno-wizards... And, in fact, many of the companions in SW:TOR are just that! Vetta is a treasure-hunter, Risha is an aristocrat, Nadia is a diplomat, Mako is an expert slicer... I could go on and on. Even this game, which I am criticising for it's lack of non-romanceable female companions, has shown that there's no need for all combat-able women to be Amazons. What can be done for romanceable companions, then, can be done for non-romanceable companions just as easily.

I didn't miss them and I didn't think I needed to mention them precisely for the very reason that you're aware of them.

Well... so? Ladies do occupy a lot of "specialist" slots. To make them overtake the "non-direct combat" quota would cause a different chauvinism "women are weak and can't fight" uproar. Imagine how "wrong? would it be, should all women in ToR be healers and other sorts of "support staff". Even from a male point of view, I don't think it's very fair.

To make more female companions non-romancable would mean greatly increasing the number of female companions. From my point of view, it would not make sense. But that's my personal, subjective point of view, which has exceptions, depending on each character's team. For example, male-heavy team makes perfect sense for Havoc Squad, for Jedi Knight's group, for Bounty Hunter's team, etc. However, Agent (true to some regard, too), would indeed lack certain restraints on female specialists. Technically, counting out the Ship droid, 3/5 of Agent companions are female - if we count female-emulating programming. Jedi Consular could use more estrogen aboard the Defender.

Anyhow, just random thoughts.

Well... so? Ladies do occupy a lot of "specialist" slots. To make them overtake the "non-direct combat" quota would cause a different chauvinism "women are weak and can't fight" uproar. Imagine how "wrong? would it be, should all women in ToR be healers and other sorts of "support staff". Even from a male point of view, I don't think it's very fair.

"Even from a male point of view" - as if a male point of view isn't supposed to be fair.

I feel that you're trying to have your cake and eat it with this argument. First you say that it would be silly to have a party full of amazons. Then you say it would be unfair to have a party full of healer-types. You present these as counter-points as if any of the people arguing with you had requested these things. A reasonable mix of combat and non-combat support characters is fine, and, indeed, this is what we get. It still has nothing to do with the issue of non-romanceable female companions.

But oh wait, here we go!

To make more female companions non-romancable would mean greatly increasing the number of female companions. From my point of view, it would not make sense. But that's my personal, subjective point of view, which has exceptions, depending on each character's team. For example, male-heavy team makes perfect sense for Havoc Squad, for Jedi Knight's group, for Bounty Hunter's team, etc. However, Agent (true to some regard, too), would indeed lack certain restraints on female specialists. Technically, counting out the Ship droid, 3/5 of Agent companions are female - if we count female-emulating programming. Jedi Consular could use more estrogen aboard the Defender.

 

Anyhow, just random thoughts.

*blinks* I don't actually see how any of the teams should be naturally predisposed to having more male or female characters. There is little that is so distinctively male about the vast majority of character archetypes used by non-romanceable companions for all the classes you listed (and the rest) that it would not have been ridiculous to make a certain proportion of those characters female. Rather than writing a huge post in which I explain all the evidence for this, I instead direct your attention to the work of other people who've already done so: the character sheets for Republic and Imperial characters and companions over at TV Tropes. I don't ask you to read the lot. As you say, there's a lot to read and little time to do it... and I've honestly spent way more time already posting here than I should. But they might interest you if you feel like reading them.

At least you do admit that the jedi consular could have benefitted from some more female companions on the ship. I certainly see nothing so male about most of the character archetypes used by Zenith that he couldn't have been a she.

Anyway, I have thoroughly derailed the thread (even after Bright commented that this probably wasn't the best place for this discussion), so I will leave off for now.

Apology accepted.

As I said in the previous post, there can be just as many personality archetypes for combat-fit non-romanceable females as there can be for males.

Furthermore, this comment about attitudes... demands to be challenged. You are stating that being weak and indecisive is a feminine quality and that being aggressive is a male quality.

No, I'm not attributing weakness and indecisiveness with the female gender. I'm saying that weakness and indecisiveness are not attractive male traits, but modesty and patience are widely considered very attractive female traits in the overwhelming number of cultures.

Doesn't mean that a woman cannot be strong and decisive and still remain a lady. Also doesn't mean that a quiet, patient man cannot be strong when it really counts.

And storytellers need to take that perception account.

In actual fact, for all the criticism that I have made on one front, the game of SW:TOR itself shows a whole host of different personalities in both male and female characters without making males seem pathetic or women aggressive. There are quieter, more reflective male companions. They are not aggressive, but that does not make them less male. There are more assertive female companions. They are not weak or indecisive, and that does not male them less female.

Precisely.

No, I'm afraid it is not to do with gender identity. Being weak is... well... a weakness regardless of gender. It is not attached to one gender or another.

Precisely.

Maybe my post was worded poorly. We need to distinguish weakness and patience/modesty, yes?

Well, let us be realistic. Look at the facts: straight men in a combat setting go without sex for months at a time, or they pay pr*stitutes and then go on their way. (Or, historically speaking, they force what they can get with anyone they can find, but let us hypothesize that we live in a world where it is considered unacceptable to emulate unwanted sexual advances in our video games.) Otherwise, straight men work and they wait until the campaign's over so they can go home, because there simply aren't that many women on the front lines.

 

Oh. Wait. Was that too realistic?

I don't see how that grotesque exaggeration has anything to do with the point that I raised. At least when the point that it seemingly addresses is getting pulled out of context.

The assumption that men deserve and require perfectly equal service to their needs regardless of the circumstances (as for instance a wildly imbalanced ratio chosen to reflect an ongoing war of traditional weapons/dynamics) is chauvinistic. If you can stretch the imagination enough to give men access to as many healthy or at least sensibly written romances as women get, you can damn well stretch the imagination enough to give women all the company-of-comrades-of-their-own-gender that men get.

Now then, that's a pretty lopsided view. If I attributed whatever percieved injustice that I witness to malice, I would have already gone insane and slaughtered the world (or died trying, which is most likely).

Facts are - there are less female companions than male companions. Both, male and female protagonists need romance options. To keep the number of options roughly even, more male companions are left overboard. Making every human or near-human character romancable would be simply inefficient in terms of development resources.

Gave up reading this after one page, but here's what I did:

I deleted my female smuggler and rerolled as a guy (was level 14 or so). I just could not handle Corso's sexist ********, however nice he thought he was being about it. I just don't deal well with people who naturally assume they are superior to me.

My guy smug doesn't much care what Corso thinks and can ignore his inane chatter for as long as he remains useful.

I'm kind of surprised that being mean to Corso doesn't turn off the romance. It seems like they should add in some "second chance" dialog options for people who want to get back in or out.

"Look, I was drunk, you were drunk, things were said. Let's not dwell on it and continue on with our lives professionally as possible."

Incorrect. LS Jaesa, for example, is quite firm in maintaining a Jedi way of life, true to the Code.

 

There are also more male companions than female companions. If the rate was reversed, an opposite conclusion could be drawn.

 

Both types of female romance characters are present. Akaavi and Kaliyo are, for example, are strong, independent, and definitely very experienced.

 

Also, all romance options in both DA games supposedly had a lot of experience.

 

Well, the holo-addict *is* quite aggressive. As far as Iresso goes, he's not the only one who has a well-written romance line for females.

 

For both genders, well-written romance arcs are rather... scarce. The often sole eligible companions are sometimes rather obnoxious.

LS Jaesa may not be, but it doesn't counteract that DS Jaesa can be. Ergo, ALL the female companions (maybe sans SCORPIO, i have no clue) are romancable. It's the male player who may consciously make Jaesa non-romancable, but it doesn't hide that fact that he can if he so chooses.

Most of the guys aren't, which is highly unfair.