Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Same gender romance discussion

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > Story and Lore
Same gender romance discussion
First BioWare Post First BioWare Post

SithKoriandr's Avatar


SithKoriandr
04.02.2013 , 04:41 PM | #761
Quote: Originally Posted by Tatile View Post
Changing existing NPCs in the leveling content will be rather hard - unless they really do just remove the gender check for most of them.

It is assumed that companions will be made available, but we do not know how or when.

I was referring to leveling NPCs in my post, hence the "50 levels". I said that Bioware will not have SGR only NPCs for 50 levels because, well, every single biological* female companion is available as a romance option for male PCs, whereas not every single biological* male companion is available, which rather implies that making all female companions (and by extension, female romance and [Flirt] NPCs) available to male PCs must be something of a necessity to Bioware.

*here non-droid, not cis.
LS Jaesa has become romancable in 2.0?
"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more...than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so *********** what." - Stephen Fry

Tatile's Avatar


Tatile
04.02.2013 , 04:42 PM | #762
Quote: Originally Posted by SithKoriandr View Post
LS Jaesa has become romancable in 2.0?
You know exactly what I mean, don't be so obtuse.

SithKoriandr's Avatar


SithKoriandr
04.02.2013 , 04:44 PM | #763
Quote: Originally Posted by Tatile View Post
You know exactly what I mean, don't be so obtuse.
I totally did! But seeing as how it happens to me all the time, I figured it was forum ettiquette!
"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more...than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so *********** what." - Stephen Fry

Gwena's Avatar


Gwena
04.02.2013 , 07:51 PM | #764
I recently resubscribed and popped in to see how SGR is coming along in TOR. Such an interesting topic this is to read!

But despite Makeb, I admit I am disappointed that we still don't have truly solid information (be it confirmation or denial) about SGRA being added for Companions in the future! I want to level my Sith Warrior but I also would like him to romance Quinn, sure would be nice if I knew whether SGRA with Companions are anything more than a nebulous possibility at this point. Please, someone correct me if I am wrong, I will be happy. ^_~

As far as the idea of NPC's -- including Companions -- being "herosexual" or being selective, I can see both sides of the debate. But since Bioware's resources are limited, and there are already not a lot of romance choices in the game, I would much prefer NPC's to be herosexual so everyone has a decent amount of choices. Not to mention that NPC's rarely even care about our character's species (sometimes not even when they should!), let alone their body type or morality, so it would strike me as rather unfair for them to start being selective only after same gender romance is being included.

Just my 2 credits, though!
Ecc 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

stuffystuffs's Avatar


stuffystuffs
04.02.2013 , 08:14 PM | #765
Quote: Originally Posted by Tatile View Post
More interesting in the "not going to automagically fall at feet" sense, not "intrinsically a more interesting person because they're not bi and/or herosexual". I mean, it's expected of those in the Empire that they be human supremacists and purists, so anyone who falls outside of the expectation would be interesting for a moral and ethical perspective, but every Imperial [Flirt] NPC falls outside that expectation (unless of course you want to argue that there is a power play because of the nature of the PC, which is reasonable) in that they are herosexual, so the NPC has less of a personality based in the culture because it has been removed for the purposes of making the smexy-times easier.
So, it's more an issue with the mechanics of the romance content? There are only a few interactions with the NPCs in which they take place so they can't get super nuanced as far as preferences go (even companions would be the same for the most part...not a ton of interaction there). This seems to be an issue with romances in other BW games as well. There's only ever so much you will find out about an NPC/companion via dialog.
Node guarder

Zandilar's Avatar


Zandilar
04.02.2013 , 09:02 PM | #766
Quote: Originally Posted by FuryoftheStars View Post
Well, that's what I thought, too. But I'm also being told by some that I'm "stifling creativity".

If anything, I'd think it'd open up some creativity, as you'd have to play through multiple times as various species, classes, and genders to see all of the content? Granted, in its current form, that's not much content, but it'd (hopefully) open the way for more.
Who ever said it stifled creativity was wrong. I mean, whose creativity were they talking about? Because honestly, one of the more interesting things I've seen in the game is Watcher Two being iffy about being friends/romantically involved with non-human Agents... but that still ends happily if you play your cards right. (I personally think the "trait makes it harder to befriend/engage romantically flirt!NPC" thing is more interesting than just a flat refusal from the get go.)

Anyway, what you're doing is taking a limited pool of flirts and restricting the number of happy endings. Some people like that idea, but some people don't. I personally like the possibility of a happy ending, even if you have to jump through some extra hoops to get it because of X or Y trait. Being turned down is... well... a downer. I play to have fun, not to experience angst.

If they did what you're suggesting, they would have to be scrupulously fair about how how evenly the restrictions are applied (ie: if you make too many heterosexual flirts successful compared to homosexual flirts or whatever), lest they be accused of bias (which they will be anyway, some people might see some of the rejections as a slight against <insert sexuality or species or gender here>).
Zandilar, an Australian, IN SPAAAAAAAACCCCEEEEE!!
Too many characters, most of them Chiss.

Tatile's Avatar


Tatile
04.03.2013 , 04:42 AM | #767
Quote: Originally Posted by stuffystuffs View Post
So, it's more an issue with the mechanics of the romance content? There are only a few interactions with the NPCs in which they take place so they can't get super nuanced as far as preferences go (even companions would be the same for the most part...not a ton of interaction there). This seems to be an issue with romances in other BW games as well. There's only ever so much you will find out about an NPC/companion via dialog.
Did part of my post get corrupted or deleted? I can't say I really care that much either way, but because of how this game is done and how it has been done up until now, non-herosexual NPCs (with the obvious exception of Watcher Eight, the model of an Imperial Citizen) aren't really possible or justifiable.

FuryoftheStars's Avatar


FuryoftheStars
04.03.2013 , 07:24 AM | #768
Quote: Originally Posted by Zandilar View Post
Anyway, what you're doing is taking a limited pool of flirts and restricting the number of happy endings.
Which I am aware of and is the reason why I have said (at least, I believe I have) that they should add in more.

But please note, I realize companions are very limited in numbers... thus they would have to be herosexual (unless they increased the pool of available companions and you could pick and choose which ones stay, and which ones go).
The Shadowlands
||| Vanguard | Sage | Sentinel | Scoundrel

Crawelc's Avatar


Crawelc
04.03.2013 , 08:35 AM | #769
I dont understand the "herosexual" argument. For the JK for example. If you play a male you have 1 romance option. Same for the trooper. So what you are asking for(if I am reading this correctly) is to allow 1 sgra, and 3 ogra options? That does in my mind seem to be asking a bit much from writers and devs.
Imprimis <Fight><Redemption><Conquest><Super Bads><Murica Force><The Cream><RSU>
All Imprimis All the time.
GM of 3 dead guilds and counting.

FuryoftheStars's Avatar


FuryoftheStars
04.03.2013 , 10:23 AM | #770
Quote: Originally Posted by Crawelc View Post
I dont understand the "herosexual" argument. For the JK for example. If you play a male you have 1 romance option. Same for the trooper. So what you are asking for(if I am reading this correctly) is to allow 1 sgra, and 3 ogra options? That does in my mind seem to be asking a bit much from writers and devs.
Herosexual means it does not matter species, gender, or any other "discriminatory" factor, they are capable of (essentially) falling in love with you. They are what the "hero" of the story wants them to be.

So, in the context of this debate, it wouldn't matter if your char was male or female, both the male and female romancable companions would respond to your character and could get married.
The Shadowlands
||| Vanguard | Sage | Sentinel | Scoundrel