Do you have any proof to back that up? yes, groups got all upity at the prospect of gay romances, but I do not see anything to suggest it was big enough to change what was already made.

 

 

Having characters act out of character is stupid, even if it 'doesn't affect anyone elses gameplay'. So, yes, I am against changing parts of what makes characters who they are just cus.

 

 

You seem to contradict yourself with this very thread.

 

 

You're not just asking for SSR options (Which we already have), you're asking to change the original characters because you want to SSR them instead of the new ones.

 

 

You're not being strong armed into 'conforming to a set norm', and if not being able to romance some character breaks your immersion, I doubt anything would help that.

 

 

 

Again, this is not strong arming. Doc's character has always been an ******e. Is the game strong arming you into being a bastard when dark sided characters doing aprve of the nice options?

Cya,, can't be bothered with your negativity and personal attacks. /ignore

Cya,, can't be bothered with your negativity and personal attacks. /ignore

Bye, when you want to have an actual discussion on this discussion fourm, I'll be happy to resume.

Having characters act out of character is stupid, even if it 'doesn't affect anyone elses gameplay'. So, yes, I am against changing parts of what makes characters who they are just cus.

As I said above to Alssaran, it's a flimsy argument to say that making the requested changes would be making people "act out of character," unless you're looking at the story outside of the story and connecting different gameplay sessions, while purposefully doing both gay and straight romances on the same NPC, just so that you can be upset that they aren't limited to straight relationships.

The argument that adding same sex options to 1-50 is somehow a change to the characters makes sense with virtually none of the characters and in most cases, it would be really easy to just not flirt with them, same sex, if you don't want to believe they're willing to do it. Doc might be an exception and a line or two from Kaliyo (maybe?), but I'm pretty sure with most characters, the closest they come to their sexuality getting mentioned beyond the existence of flirting options is the use of "man" or "woman" in a line of flirting dialogue or two.

In most cases, it's all in peoples' heads and it's a straight up assumption that the character is straight, with no openness to anything else. If each 1-50 character had a line of dialogue in which you can attempt to romance them same sex and they reject you, then I might agree with you about "acting out of character." But most have nothing of the sort.

Was the male a true romance though? Or was that just one of those "He's saving our planet. Just do it, Lemda" kisses?

Eh, they don't get married or anything. Or even fade to black on ANY of the Makeb "romances". They all end in a quick kiss and that's pretty much it. So it's about as "valid", I assume, as the one with Cytharet (although Cytharet's a more interesting character in my book). Some flirting, a bit of tension, a quick kiss, then never to be seen again on both accounts.

Why has this thread been removed from the general section? Did too many people complain it was too confronting? That's pretty disgusting if that is the case.

Do you have any proof to back that up? yes, groups got all upity at the prospect of gay romances, but I do not see anything to suggest it was big enough to change what was already made.

Do you really expect her to back and look for an article she read in 2010/11? Just to satisfy your need to question something she said. How about you provide proof of what you are saying?

Having characters act out of character is stupid, even if it 'doesn't affect anyone elses gameplay'. So, yes, I am against changing parts of what makes characters who they are just cus.

How is a character out of character just because there is a same sex option? How would this even affect you? Unless you're offended by it!

You seem to contradict yourself with this very thread.

I don't see how she contradicted her self at all!

You're not just asking for SSR options (Which we already have), you're asking to change the original characters because you want to SSR them instead of the new ones.

Actually she was asking for same sex characters to have exactly the same options and story. So if youre a female character you could romance the exact same toon as the opposite sex can. Why shouldn't her female character be able to romance Vette the same as if she had a male character. All she has suggested is that a small change in the dialogue be made that wouldn't even impinge on the story. You would not even know it was and option if you were on the opposite sex. So if that is your only reason, it's no valid. Either that or you are personally offended by the idea.

You're not being strong armed into 'conforming to a set norm', and if not being able to romance some character breaks your immersion, I doubt anything would help that.

Not sure how you can make that judgement when you're not even gay. How would you know what it feels like to have to accept what society deems normal when it is anything but normal for her. So even if it's not strong armed as she put it, by not giving any positive alternative neutral option when presented the choice to romance an opposite sex character which she is obviously uncomfortable in doing, the game is still trying to make her conform to societies expectations as what normal is.

So yes, it breaks the immersion for her and other gay people because it's one of those confronting moments we put up with in real life. We come to video games to take a break from real life, the same as you do.

Again, this is not strong arming. Doc's character has always been an ******e. Is the game strong arming you into being a bastard when dark sided characters doing aprve of the nice options?

You can't relate the Darkside or lightside option to this argument. It is completely different and has nothing to do with sexuality. Obviously there is an evil vs good option in a SW game, that is a given. It's why SW fans are attracted to the game.

Bye, when you want to have an actual discussion on this discussion fourm, I'll be happy to resume.

Maybe if you hadn't questioned what was offensive to her she wouldn't have decided to ignore you.

Through a slight glitch, I got a Mako same sex romance arc. She was overrated.

How long ago did you do that story with the glitch?

Why has this thread been removed from the general section? Did too many people complain it was too confronting? That's pretty disgusting if that is the case.

Or this story based issue was moved to the story based section of the form.

Do you really expect her to back and look for an article she read in 2010/11? Just to satisfy your need to question something she said. How about you provide proof of what you are saying?

I expect nothing from her, if she doesn't wish to bother trying to find the proof, that's fine. but she shouldn't expect me to take her point seriously without anything to back it up.

And the person who needs to provide proof is the one making the assertion as it is impossiable for the one asking for proof cannot disprove or prove a negative. Telling somone to prove you wrong without providing any actualy evidence to be disproven is asinine. If you make a poit and expect it to be taken seriously, evidence is a good way to go about it.

How is a character out of character just because there is a same sex option? How would this even affect you? Unless you're offended by it!

Because the characters did not have that sexuality before hand, and just because you will not see it as a result of not picking the choice to see it does not change that it is out of character. This would be as bad as it was in Dragon Age 2 where some of the character's backstories changed to accomidate their 'player-sexual'. As a writer myself I am absolutly against needlessly changing a character in this manner.

And offended by it? Is that really the only conclusion you can reach? Did you actually see ths as the only option for somone to be against this idea, or are you simply assuming offense or hate to simply make it easier? Because if it's the first, I assure you that characters getting funky with the same sex does not offend me in any way.

I don't see how she contradicted her self at all!

She saids that

If I got upset everytime I came across something only hetro based, I'd never be able to do anything.

Actually she was asking for same sex characters to have exactly the same options and story. So if youre a female character you could romance the exact same toon as the opposite sex can. Why shouldn't her female character be able to romance Vette the same as if she had a male character. All she has suggested is that a small change in the dialogue be made that wouldn't even impinge on the story. You would not even know it was and option if you were on the opposite sex. So if that is your only reason, it's no valid. Either that or you are personally offended by the idea.

So, like I said. She's asking for the original companions to change their sexuality simply because she wants to screw them instead of the new ones. And we've already pointed out how Bioware messing any more with the romance flags will only serve to break romances even more. With the only other option being that the returning companions are just suddenly bi and we've already delved into whats wrong with changing characters like that as well as the 'well, you would never see it' argument above.

Not sure how you can make that judgement when you're not even gay. How would you know what it feels like to have to accept what society deems normal when it is anything but normal for her.

Off to a bad start by outright assuming that I'm straight, then on to say that I wouldn't understand having to accept bullcrap societial norms and not being being normal without being gay. And yes, I would definitly know how it feels, growing up I've been beaten, mentally abused and even had my leg burned for not being normal.

So even if it's not strong armed as she put it, by not giving any positive alternative neutral option when presented the choice to romance an opposite sex character which she is obviously uncomfortable in doing, the game is still trying to make her conform to societies expectations as what normal is.

She's not given any postive alternative neutral options for one character. You act as if you can't let other characters go down easy and that you're punished for trying to persue SSR. You also don't seem to count the option of not persuing a romance with anyone.

You can't relate the Darkside or lightside option to this argument. It is completely different and has nothing to do with sexuality. Obviously there is an evil vs good option in a SW game, that is a given. It's why SW fans are attracted to the game.

Her complain was that the companion was negativly reacting to her not wanting to romance him, thus apparently 'strong arming' her into conforming into a straight relationship. By this logic the game is strong arming you into commiting vile acts because the resident doucebag of your crew reacts negitivly to you not do doing so.

Maybe if you hadn't questioned what was offensive to her she wouldn't have decided to ignore you.

I question what is offensive to her to understand better, though in the post I think you're referring to I was pointing out that she seemed to purposly be looking to be offended and jumps to the conclusion that Bioware moved this thread to the story and lore section was becase they didn't want to see it, which is an asinine assumption. There are much better reasons to move it (Like I said before, this is a story based discussion, it belongs here) and if they didn't wish for people to see it, they would of simply deleted it.

Because the characters did not have that sexuality before hand, and just because you will not see it as a result of not picking the choice to see it does not change that it is out of character. This would be as bad as it was in Dragon Age 2 where some of the character's backstories changed to accomidate their 'player-sexual'. As a writer myself I am absolutly against needlessly changing a character in this manner.

As I've stated multiple times, this is a poor argument. I'm a writer too and I call BS. We are not talking about something that is defined. We are talking about something that is undefined. The only reason you see their sexuality as "straight" is because that's considered the default.

Letting someone do the same stuff with both sexes is not the same as changing backstory, nor is a change of backstory required for most characters. Most of them just say generic flirty stuff.

The exceptions to this could easily be left untouched (Doc and Corso off-hand). Honestly, I confess I'm a bit baffled by the strength of your convictions. It seems as though this argument boils down to players taking ownership of characters and filling in the blanks. That's fine and all, but sometimes stuff comes in later that fills in the blanks in a different way and the audience just has to deal with that. There is no writing rule that says you can't define something that is undefined because the audience already filled in the blanks. If writers had to tiptoe around that all the time, they'd never be able to write sequels and series.

As I've stated multiple times, this is a poor argument. I'm a writer too and I call BS. We are not talking about something that is defined. We are talking about something that is undefined. The only reason you see their sexuality as "straight" is because that's considered the default.

 

Letting someone do the same stuff with both sexes is not the same as changing backstory, nor is a change of backstory required for most characters. Most of them just say generic flirty stuff.

 

The exceptions to this could easily be left untouched (Doc and Corso off-hand). Honestly, I confess I'm a bit baffled by the strength of your convictions. It seems as though this argument boils down to players taking ownership of characters and filling in the blanks. That's fine and all, but sometimes stuff comes in later that fills in the blanks in a different way and the audience just has to deal with that. There is no writing rule that says you can't define something that is undefined because the audience already filled in the blanks. If writers had to tiptoe around that all the time, they'd never be able to write sequels and series.

We know that all 1-50 LI's are straight because they cannot be romanced SGR. The reason for that is irrelevant. It's possible a couple of them (especially the younger ones) may have a different orientation when they return, but it would be unrealistic if that were more than 2-3 of the twenty three possible candidates.

We know that all 1-50 LI's are straight because they cannot be romanced SGR. The reason for that is irrelevant. It's possible a couple of them (especially the younger ones) may have a different orientation when they return, but it would be unrealistic if that were more than 2-3 of the twenty three possible candidates.

Argh. How many times do I have to say it. That's based on the idea that the lack of an option means the character is against it.

Let me see if I can explain it this way, with the following hypothetical:

Imagine that Kira likes to put banana in her peanut butter sandwiches. You are able to talk to her about this. She notes in the conversation that she likes putting banana in her peanut butter sandwiches.

Now imagine basically every other companion will say the same thing in conversation.

But there's an exception. One companion, Mako, states that she likes to eat peanut butter sandwiches plain. She loves how they taste plain.

You might assume, "Oh, Kira and others don't like plain peanut butter sandwiches. And Mako likes them plain, but not with bananas."

But they never stated any such thing. They didn't say, "I like X, but I don't like Y." They only said, "I like X." I think there's like one companion conversation in the game, I remember hearing mention of (though I don't recall it myself in detail) where a person says words along the lines of, "I don't swing that way." ONE. Out of all the companions in the game.

That one conversation? Sure. Their preferences are pretty well-defined. Most everybody else is left unconfirmed. This whole argument is just people taking game mechanics (the existence of options, or lack thereof) and mixing it into storytelling, saying that the lack of an option is somehow a statement of preference. But that's not story logic, that's video game logic and more importantly, it's "breaking the fourth wall" logic. Even characters like Lana and Theron show no indication of bisexuality. It's simply that they can be romanced by either gender. When people treat each playthrough as its own set of story logic (which is something that's been a part of KOTOR since the beginning *cough* choosing LS one playthrough and choosing DS the next), the whole argument falls apart.

I mean, how about the fact that in KOTOR2, you can influence certain companions to become a Jedi one time, or not become a Jedi the next. Or the fact that you can influence them to be more DS or LS aligned. Are you going to tell me that that's breaking character?

This argument really frustrates me because I don't see people applying it to anything else. It really feels like the argument is a shoddy excuse to hide mental discomfort with the in-your-head concept/belief of interacting with characters who are not sexually static.

If any of this is unclear, just chalk it up to tiredness and pretend I made sense.

I don't believe that metagaming knowledge about characters is invalid, nor that different playthroughs of Lana and Theron are somehow different characters with different sexuality.

It would be more like Kotor 2 having some characters be force sensitive in one save and not in another. No, the potential Jedi companions in Kotor 2 are always force sensitive, they just may or may not go through Jedi training.

On one hand, I hate the idea of PC sexual characters, because it feels like the world is rewriting itself to suit whatever the player wants. I didn't like chosen ones in the force sensitive storyline, I don't like it now that it's bleeding over into main storylines in general.

On the other hand, it's not as if it's stopped developers before. If they think they can get more people to subscribe with a rewrite, to keep the game going, then they'll do it.

Just because all you've seen so far is a character liking one gender it doesn't mean they don't like both. It just means you haven't seen it yet. A bisexual doesn't become heterosexual just because they're currently in a relationship with someone of the opposite gender, but the couple will usually get perceived that way unless you actually know them.

It's the same with the characters. Just because you've only seen them in heterosexual relationships so far doesn't mean they can't be bisexual. All it means is that we haven't seen whether they are or not yet.

Beg all you want but they will not change it. Those return companion through the story have a minor role, they wont have any trigger relationship dialog in the new expansion at all, the only way to trigger relationship with them is through the original companion quests. And they will not waste a lot of money and risk bugs to change those codes just to please a few people that won't get them any profit

right , cose our money is DInars! worth nothing . We pay Monopoly money !

As long as there are peoples asking to Bang Vaylin and Satele...we will keep asking for this .

So deal with it .

We know that all 1-50 LI's are straight because they cannot be romanced SGR. The reason for that is irrelevant. It's possible a couple of them (especially the younger ones) may have a different orientation when they return, but it would be unrealistic if that were more than 2-3 of the twenty three possible candidates.

I can flirt with Kaliyo as a jedi knight. I'm wondering if they will implement same sex 1-50 Lls. I haven't had the option to flirt with Torian so I'm thinking some of the lower level companions are or can be gay.

right , cose our money is DInars! worth nothing . We pay Monopoly money !

 

As long as there are peoples asking to Bang Vaylin and Satele...we will keep asking for this .

 

So deal with it .

Cause your money do not worth the trouble of fixing a bunch of bug and frankly i doubt that there is 1% of players care about same sex romance old companions. Asking to romance Vaylin or Satele is possible cause they will make a brand new code not messing around with old code that no one care about. And ya, I deal with it, Didn't i say beg all you want ? BW just dont care.

I don't believe that metagaming knowledge about characters is invalid, nor that different playthroughs of Lana and Theron are somehow different characters with different sexuality.

 

It would be more like Kotor 2 having some characters be force sensitive in one save and not in another. No, the potential Jedi companions in Kotor 2 are always force sensitive, they just may or may not go through Jedi training.

It's not that metagaming knowledge is invalid; people can see the story and game however they please. It's that some are treating metagaming knowledge as if it is not metagaming knowledge and is somehow the default reality of the story.

As for Kotor 2, I get what you're going for, but I don't entirely buy your rebuttal. In one save, you might never find out that a particular character is force sensitive, so it's as if they never were, in the same way that you might never find out Lana or Theron swings in one direction or another if you never pursue it. Some characters in Kotor 2 would not fit with this, but I'm pretty sure some can go the whole game with no definitive indication that they are force sensitive (Bao-Dur is one that comes to mind... I think Mira too, off-hand).

It's not that metagaming knowledge is invalid; people can see the story and game however they please. It's that some are treating metagaming knowledge as if it is not metagaming knowledge and is somehow the default reality of the story.

 

As for Kotor 2, I get what you're going for, but I don't entirely buy your rebuttal. In one save, you might never find out that a particular character is force sensitive, so it's as if they never were, in the same way that you might never find out Lana or Theron swings in one direction or another if you never pursue it. Some characters in Kotor 2 would not fit with this, but I'm pretty sure some can go the whole game with no definitive indication that they are force sensitive (Bao-Dur is one that comes to mind... I think Mira too, off-hand).

My point was that it doesn't matter whether we learn they are force sensitive or not. They always are.

Argh. How many times do I have to say it. That's based on the idea that the lack of an option means the character is against it.

Except you're wrong. If Kira were bisexual, then female players would be able to romance her. They cannot so she is not bisexual. Knowing ahead of time that Kira is a romanceable companion is technically metagaming, but adding the information that female players cannot romance her to make the argument that she therefore cannot be bisexual is not. One could argue that she "could be bisexual but merely does not find the player character attractive" since this did happen in I believe DA:I. But which is the more likely scenario? That every companion is bisexual but neither finds the same-gender PC attractive nor at any point attempts to romance another same-gender NPC, or the devs made them all straight (especially given that years ago they bloody well told us that all companions are straight and that only future ones would be SGR... even if it took them three years to implement that)? Occam's razor. Kira also cannot be gay because she can be romanced by male players. This is not metagaming either. This logic applies to all romanceable companions of either gender (excepting Lana, Theron, and Koth).

Also, the companion you're referring to is Vette, and I'm going to take your spurious logic and turn it on you. Vette says that in response to a Dark Side Jaesa offering to share a male Sith Warrior; that is, an open relationship (or possibly DS Jaesa is simply interested in a ménage à trois). But by your logic that's not Vette saying she's not interested in women, that's Vette saying she's not interested in an open relationship or a threesome, thus Vette is at the very least bisexual because she doesn't say she doesn't sleep with women and definitely sleeps with a male Warrior. See how stupid that sounds?

So while absence of evidence is strictly speaking not evidence of absence, we have evidence of that absence in that not a single romanceable companion can be romanced by a player character of the same gender, regardless of appearance, alignment, or species. Therefore, none of the companions are bisexual; they are all purely straight.

Finally, as another poster said, the sexual orientation of a companion, like force sensitivity, is an immutable property of that companion. You have the option to romance particular NPC's with particular gender combinations (which in 1-50 TOR consists of "heterosexual only"), whether or not you take them. I elected not to romance Felix Iresso on my female Consular, but I had the option if I so chose. The game didn't ranomly, on my particular consular, decide to not offer that option. Games just don't change the character traits of NPC's for different player characters; it would lead to an inconsistent experience between players, or even between playthroughs by the same player. As an extreme example, it would be as though every 1% of KOTOR playthroughs, Bastila Shan decides in the first ten minutes of the game to kill both Malak and Revan (the player), proclaim herself Dark Lord of the Sith, and crush the Republic, because the game rolled a 1 on the d100 when you made your save file.

TL;DR version: all 1-50 companions are straight, given the evidence that they will not romance a player character of the same gender but will romance a player character of the opposite gender, even ignoring what Bioware has said in the past on the matter. It is possible that some of those companions may come back later (ie. in KOTFE Ch. 16, or in KOTET, and have a different sexual orientation than in the 1-50 game), but either a companion like this will be the minority of returning romanceable companions, or all of them will be playersexual (to pander to the playerbase).

And this is why people invented fanfic.

Do I want to romance Kira on my female Sentinel? Not just yes, but HELL YES!.

Are Bioware going to make it happen in-game? Almost certainly not, but it would be great if I could once KotET rolls around.

Does that stop me from headcanoning them as a couple and writing fanfic? Not remotely.

Just because the game doesn't let me do it officially, my Kira will always be my waifu so on the antis.