[Player sexual companion]

I'm probably explaining it poorly, but let me try it this way--

 

We know that at some point, Fenris can become interested in Isabela. Granted some of that development happens off-screen.  Now the player they can be the opposite of Isabela in personality, temperment, interests and still interest Fenris. So with respect to the Player, Fenris has no standards. He's playersexual.

 

This mean that Fenris doesn't really have a character based interest in the player, the player subsumes his character under their will. To be honest this can even be applied to the single sex and/or single race romances as well, its just got a gender/race based condition on it but the essence of the romance being solely the player's choice, not an element of character remains.

 

What I'd like to see would be an advancement of criteria; if a Fenris-like character has an established interest in an Isabela-like character in the game, this should be based on the interests and attractions of the Fenris-like character; then if the player also does or says things that match this interest, then the player also can meet the interest of the Fenris-like character. 

 

That doesn't necessarily mean gender for bisexual character, but perhaps expressing dialogue choices/worldview that are similar or consistant (to attract) or too dissimilar or inconsistant (to not attract).  That would make the Fenris-like character's pursuit/acceptance/continuation of a romance with the player seem to be more a part of his character and not the PC clicking the right dialogue option to go forward or deny the romance per their will.  It'd also (theoretically if implemented correctly) cut off the Fenris-like NPC from flirting with everyone, by narrowing down who they flirt with to a consistent personality design ("I know you just slaughtered all of the puppies in town, and I'm the puppy avenger, but since you've deigned to talk to me, I find you really hot right now <<charname>>...")

 

He's not though. There's a clear reason why he falls for Hawke. He/she saved him. It's not healthy at all (which I love about it) and he admits he still has a slave mentality. It's a pretty messed up relationship in a way but it works for them. His romance with Isabela meanwhile is more based off two equals which is also why it starts later when he's emotionally on his feet and somewhat stable. However he feels extremely indebted to Hawke (even a rivalry Hawke) and relies on them for protection.

 

Again his interest is tied in with his characterization. It's why Hawke gets away with things the other characters don't with Fenris. Fenris is a *awful* example for you to use because his character perfectly justifies him clinging to Hawke regardless of friendship/rivalry. "He's still looking for someone to follow. I recognize that urge." You'd be better off using Merrill still getting with a rival Hawke who steals the dagger than Fenris.

 

Fenris really doesn't work for this scenario. Neither does Anders for similar reasons. I'm going to replace that with Merrill because even Anders has a reason for getting with a Templar supporting Hawke (he's insane, clingy and using Hawke for protection). Hawke's relationships are actually pretty messed up when you think about them (except friendship Merrill).

 

That said people often have more than one type of person they're attracted to. As long as the PC doesn't blatantly conflict with the NPCs views it shouldn't be an issue for a romance to start. As long as they have something in common as well. So I don't agree the PC should have to act exactly like another NPC they're interested in. Merely do things the companion approves of and don't do things the NPC blatantly disapproves of (like it shouldn't be minus approval it should be an automatic closing of the romance path to do certain things).

 

Merrill and  Isabela rivalrymances are questionable in their relationships with Hawke. Isabela cause she finds Hawke a complete bore (and says this several times) and unlike the others she has no problem walking away from someone, and Merrill because she's not quite as clingy and doesn't put up with Hawke's nonsense.

 

But if you mean NPCs being more selective about the player I agree that should be the case. Alistair marrying my slavery warden was absurd. That said of course we don't have to worry about them flirting with everyone because devs already have NPCs only hit on select people they'd just apply that to certain character types as well so we can agree on that.

 

But yeah Fenris and Anders not being overly selective about Hawke was character friendly for them. The things they would've dumped Hawke over weren't optional choices. You always look out for them regardless of friendship/rivalry status and the only way not to meet their requirements is literally not to do their quests in which case Fenris for one will ditch you if you refuse to do his act 2 quest and you can't skip Anders act 1 quest. Not to mention their romances can't be completed by skipping said quests.

[Player sexual companion]

I did play the Fenris romance (I played all of them because I liked DA2 an awful lot despite its flaws). That was a long time ago; I also wasn't trying to argue what happened so much as use Fenris-Isabela-Player to illustrate the problem I see rather than talk about what actually happened in the game specifically (other than going from memory that Fenris doesn't go after Isabela if the Player goes after Fenris).

 

But you are probably right in that the episodic nature of DA2 (jumping it time several times) makes any of the characters a poor example since so much of the development can be left to the time gaps. 

 

RE: Aveline what I liked was that you could try, even though it was obviously doomed.  I appreciated that they let the player fail rather than succeed in wooing her from Donnic

 

 

Yeah my thing is using that as playersexual because he doesn't go for Isablea until after is odd because at there's no point int he game in which the player/Isabela are both options for Fenris. Fenris doesn't start a relationship with Isabea in act 2 because to be frank he wasn't in the mental space where he could have casual sex without turning super clingy like he does in Hawke's romance. It's not like Fenris and Isabela start a relationship then the PC drags him away.  It's the same thing with Bull and Dorian (with Bull having a reason to prioritize the PC considering he's a spy). I mean I guess there could be a love triangle but that doesn't happen even with the straight LIs unless the PC initiates it so trying to claim that's a playersexual flaw when it's merely a protagonist being a romance option flaw loses me. Leliana expresses attractiveness to Alistair (and even gets with him in a dlc where the player's dead) but you don't have to compete with the one of them for the other's affection. Plus I'm not inclined to fight with an NPC over an LI anyway stinks too much of second best.

 

Probably same thing will occur in deadfire regardless of sexuality if they're a player option.

 

Oh agreed. I also love how Vivienne always turns you down and her rejection changes based off how much she likes you. She's rather sweet about it if her approval is high and the shade she gives if her approval is low is beautiful.

[Player sexual companion]

 

 

 

 

Well Aveline was great but she was interested in Donnic (so much so that if you don't get them together she ends up bitter as hell).

 

 

She turned me down before she ever discovered Donnic. I recall thinking that she was so much cooler than Hawke that she should have been the real hero of DA2.

 

 

Eh she's cool and all but I'd take snarky Hawke over her any day. That said rivaling her and getting that salt mine is beautiful.

 

That said I probably got the rejection dialogue too late. I only flirted with her once in act 2 on my hits on everything that moved Hawke XD

[Player sexual companion]

 

But it doesn't mean the characters will have no real character of their own. The devs certainly can make it that way (as with any other feature, really), but there is no law that states it is impossible to do it right (more or less, I guess).

 

So to my mind - rightly or wrongly - for an NPC character to be a true character in their own right, they have to actually have some consistent standard of behavior.  They can't have that if they're programmed to always like the player regardless of who the player is.  To my mind the playersexual NPC is part of the same problem of a good NPC having  a relationship with a known evil PC. You don't have a character, you have something that exists due to player's whim.  YMMV.

 

 

Pretty sure Gaider said he made Fenris' romance around his m/m version. Not to mention Fenris being more skittish around men is perfectly lore friendly. As for Merrill how isn't she portrayed as natively bisexual? She hardly shows interest in anyone because she's the naive virgin trope BW uses with Liara as well. Anders is the only one I could somewhat see because Karl only comes up if he's talking to a male character (which I really hated). Fenris always shows an attraction to Isabela and to be honest what male would he really have hit on in the group? Anders? He loathes him, Seb is straight and in the friendzone for Fenris, Varric is a no and Carver is a prat.

 

I also wish the players got more options to break up with an NPC as well (like when Morrigan tells my character he should sacrifice his family. What an automatic deal breaker).

 

I can't really say I followed DA2's development closely (bioware's changing boards was too much for me, so I just followed loosely the development), so you may be right about Fenris being built around the m/m romance. But to my mind, since you mention Fenris being attracted to Isabela - at no point in the game, if you show interest in Fenris, will he ever as a character choose Isabela over you (yes I know a real romance isn't written there, the principle remains, I think).  This means that Fenris' character is sublimated to the player's choice.  This makes him less of a character, to me.

 

Had he been written as bisexual natively, you could establish that he was attracted to the player and Isabela both and dealt with that as part of the romance, even including a point where - based on your actions - he chooses to not romance either of you or tries to start a romance with Isabela instead of you.  It'd be a deeper investment into his character.

 

But this is a subset problem, in general, because almost all characters are written as playersexual to greater or lesser degrees at the moment (unless they're NOT romance options).  One of the greatest things DA2 did IMO was to allow you to flirt - and fail - with Avelline, to be honest.  It made her character feel stronger to me than any of the others because it made her characterization consistent.

 

 

Did you play the Fenris romance? Because you really come across as if you haven't played it. Saying Fenris is sublimated to the player's choice when he doesn't pick Isabela over the protagonist is ridiculous. The only thing he's doing with Isabela when his relationship with the player starts is her flirting with him and him awkwardly returning it. There's no principal to be made because him getting with Isabela is done after the window to romance him is closed. There's never a choice between Isabela or the player because he romances them at different points in the story. if you played the romance you'd know Fenris doesn't even sleep with Isabela until act 3. Well after his relationship with the player has been established.

 

Like what on earth are you even talking about? You'd been better off using Bull and Dorian instead of Fenris and Isabela for that kind of thing. Fenris relationship has no competitiveness with Isabela because his romance is structured in such a way that the two don't intersect (for good reason given Fenris' reaction to you sleeping with him).

 

Well Aveline was great but she was interested in Donnic (so much so that if you don't get them together she ends up bitter as hell).

[Player sexual companion]

I do think that Fenris, Anders and Merrill's character were hijacked for their romances because they weren't portrayed as natively bisexual (Isabella, as I recall, was established as bisexual; that said I honestly can't remember if Anders expressed anything one way or the other in DAO:A right now or not).  They were portrayed as being natively attracted to whoever the Champion was, which meant that an aspect of their character was left to the decision of the player, so that aspect was sublimated to the player rather than resulting from a character who is well fleshed out and whose own likes and interests align to how the player plays their character.  Just establish the character as bisexual if that's the route you want, as you find out more about them. 

 

I agree with you there should be more places to break a romance and it should be based on your actions.  It should be valid for an NPC to break up with you, for the romance to fail for more reasons than the player chose "nope not interested" in a dialogue tree, IMO.

 

Pretty sure Gaider said he made Fenris' romance around his m/m version. Not to mention Fenris being more skittish around men is perfectly lore friendly. As for Merrill how isn't she portrayed as natively bisexual? She hardly shows interest in anyone because she's the naive virgin trope BW uses with Liara as well. Anders is the only one I could somewhat see because Karl only comes up if he's talking to a male character (which I really hated). Fenris always shows an attraction to Isabela and to be honest what male would he really have hit on in the group? Anders? He loathes him, Seb is straight and in the friendzone for Fenris, Varric is a no and Carver is a prat. Like a lot of my issue is how people seem to think if someone's not openly talking about who they're attracted to both genders they don't count as bisexual. There's a vast difference in something like Sky where his sexuality is literally hidden unless you do a certain path and someone like Fenris where his attraction to men doesn't come up because the only male he's attracted to is the protagonist. The only woman he shows interest in is Isabela (other than the PC) but he's not called Isabela sexual if you don't romance him.

 

Anders is really the only npc who's story changes based off your gender because of the removal of mentioning his relationship with Karl if you play a femHawke. Merrill's always pretty chaste, Fenris only flirts with Isabela (who flirts with him first), and Isabela is Isabela.

 

I also wish the players got more options to break up with an NPC as well (like when Morrigan tells my character he should sacrifice his family. What an automatic deal breaker).

[Player sexual companion]

My problem with player sexual companions is that it means the character has no real character of their own; their personality and interests are sublimated to those of the PC. I'd rather a bisexual companion be bisexual because that's who they are, not because the player wants to sexxor them and happens to be one gender or another. That to my mind is treating the relationship as a reward to the player rather than a character based story arc that the player and the NPC are both a part of. YMMV, but I think it should be okay for the NPC to reject the player, and for the player to pursue a romantic relationship that is ill-advised (and will end badly).  The reward is the alternate character based content, not sex at the end of a dialogue string.

 

 

But that's not true unless you think Isabela, Fenris, Anders and Merrill had no character and interests? In which case maybe the issue is you equalizing their romance track with the rest of their character development. That said I agree about NPCs rejections though my personal preferences have always been for it to be based off choices made (because there's no reason Alistair should've slept with a slaving, homicidal maniac and yet he did with my femwarden.). If anything NPCs don't drop you nearly as often as they should because some of the player's choices blatantly contradict with their character arcs but its swept under the rug and ignored. I agree with you about the reward though but that's always been the reward sex scenes for me at least can be completely dropped. They tend to waste more resources than they're worth anyway. (looking at you ME:A where apparently the entire animation budget when to Jaal's and Cora's sex scenes).

 

(Wait unless you mean playersexual as someone who shows no interest in anyone *but* the player in which case that would need a very specific type of NPC for it to even work like a rescue romance or a childhood friend or something).

[Portraits II]

 

Trk83Xn-MDx_FLo0sAGQ2_XqqL0gtQWBPNgW8pLTxx4.jpg

 

another Critical Role portraits revealed, the next one is scheduled on May 1st. 

Not sure if this is a man or a woman (leftmost Critical Role portrait). I think it is supposed to be a woman based on the original character and the accessories but when I look at that face, I just see a man for some reason. Everything below the eyes is a man's head. (To preempt certain comments, I think Maia Rua's portrait is beautiful and feminine.)

 

 

Yeah she has a very bifauxnen look. That'll actually work really well for one of my girls though.

[Player sexual companion]

> More than one person thinks the earth is flat.

 

This isn't a good comparison.

 

> Saying someone else thinks something doesn't make it accurate.

 

True, but there are standards of beauty that exist because most people find them attractive.  Look at supermodels, for example.

 

No way in hell could Josephine be a model.

 

> An antagonist making a positive moral judgement on something isn't portraying it in a positive light

 

If something 'toxic' is occurring within a game, and all the other characters say it's a good thing, then of course that portrays it in a positive light.

 

You're demanding that other characters make moral judgements on negative things that are occurring within a game.  Otherwise, for example, the game risks portraying toxic relationships without acknowledging that they are toxic.  I'm saying that artists should be free to create whatever they want within a game, without these arbitrary demands being placed on them.

 

> Someone acknowledging he's pretty sexist is just that.

 

No such acknowledgement needs to take place.  That's my point.  You're demanding that it should take place.  I'm saying F that.

 

Not least because one's definition of what is 'sexist' can differ greatly when compared to another's.

 

> Say he's still sexist the romance will ignore this and go on as though he's not. That's my main issue. Even if his female LI approves of such behaviors they won't be remarked upon they cause no conflict and essentially are completely glossed over.

 

But what if nobody else thinks its sexist except you?  What if you're the minority?  Why should all games cater to your specific views?

 

> Why would they not care about their commander making decisions based off who he/she is sleeping with in matters of life or death?

 

That wasn't my point, but most games don't fail to address this at all.

 

>  I said sometimes in the scenario of a boss sleeping with an employee who's life they hold in their hands it could be brought up.

 

Ah 'it could be brought up'.

 

But originally you said:

 

> That said I'm fine with romances as long as they feel like an actual partnership and not the PC bribing the LI into boning them. Those relationships end up feeling toxic as hell but no one admitting how toxic they are (which again I have no issue with toxic relationships but there needs to be some acknowledgement and those romances just pretend that's health and okay when it's really not) which skives me out.

 

I.E. you're not OK with relationships where consent isn't brought up.  There needs to be some acknowledgement, you're not fine with them.

 

'it could be brought up' isn't the same as 'I'm not ok with relationships where consent isn't brought up'.

 

> I began the discussion talking about toxic relationships in videogames being unacknowledged as such. 

 

And I'm saying that there is no such need for them to be acknowledged.

 

The massive problem with videogames these days is this absurd need to lecture players on what is and isn't acceptable.  Oh let's discuss consent in our latest videogame romance!  That'll be fun!

 

 

It is though. Just because one person says something doesn't mean its true I could say the color blue is red that also isn't true. There are very few people that are actually ugly and most of them have deformities or hygiene issues.

 

If your argument is that you don't agree that it needs to be acknowledged then that's it. There's nothing to discuss because we're not even remotely on the same page. And you seeing acknowledging something as a lecture is *shrug*

 

The quote you tried to use as proof of my consent thing had *nothing* to do with consent anyway. The one that did have to do with consent is regarding the boss scenario full stop. That's where my consent even came into play.  Otherwise I wanted acknowledgement that something was toxic instead of trying to pretend what caused the toxicity was non existent. That has nothing to do with me wanting a tangent as you say about consent in every relationship. Like you're putting words in my mouth again. Pretending its healthy and everything was referring to actual issues being brushed under the rug and ignored. I.E giving all the emotional support in a relationship but not once is this even acknowledged in the slightest bit. It instead pretends the relationship is of equal give and take which is laughable because its not.

 

No well written relationship ignores its flaws. Does that mean it screams that its flaws are bad and the characters should feel bad? And overly moralizes like the Mockingjay (still irritated at that third book) No. It gives you a flawed relationship, with flawed people, who know they're flawed and doesn't brush it under the rug and ignore them.

 

 

I have to stop at the Josephine bit.

 

There's a is a wide wide wide wide wide wide field of attractiveness between Super model and as you said "car crash victim." Someone not looking like a super model does not make them ugly. Hell it doesn't even mean they're not really attractive!

 

Like that's not a discussion.

 

Yeah and Josephine is on the far side of the spectrum along with people who have to wear paper bags over their heads in public

 

 

lmao You really need to get your eyes examined. Cause they clearly aren't working.

[Player sexual companion]

I have to stop at the Josephine bit.

 

There's a is a wide wide wide wide wide wide field of attractiveness between Super model and as you said "car crash victim." Someone not looking like a super model does not make them ugly. Hell it doesn't even mean they're not really attractive!

 

Like that's not a discussion.

[Player sexual companion]

I'm pretty sure Sion was supposed to skeeve you out. He's a sick puppy. But understandable, not everyone wants to be skeeved out by fiction.

 

I want rivalries and intra-party conflict more than anything from the relationship system, personally.

 

Actually I was more skeeved out by his looks lol. That face is only something a mother could love. Atton is pretty cray cray too but I'm fine with him

 

Oh god yes.

 

 

 

 

I think Ryz explicitly said they were ok with that actually. That would count as an acknowledgement.

 

Where have they said that?

 

 

Several times actually. But you insist on fighting this argument that I don't want any relationship that's not healthy for some reason unless you get some moralizing "this is bad and this is why" tangent apparently.

 

 

Provide the quote.  It seems to me that you're contradicting yourself.

 

 

You're kidding right? I wrote that same thing in pretty much every post. Do you know what acknowledgement means?

 

Meanwhile you say I feel characters should go on tangents about consent in every relationship (which doesn't even begin to make any sense).

[Player sexual companion]

 

I think Ryz explicitly said they were ok with that actually. That would count as an acknowledgement.

 

Where have they said that?

 

 

Several times actually. But you insist on fighting this argument that I don't want any relationship that's not healthy for some reason unless you get some moralizing "this is bad and this is why" tangent apparently.

[Player sexual companion]

> No they don't. Unless you're blind.

 

I'm not blind.  And I'm not the only one that thinks this.

 

> Something that causes you undue amounts of stress is unhealthy. 

 

I see.

 

Should we have less stories like Wuthering Heights then?  The relationships portrayed in that book are extremely stressful.

 

> Hell they could make a positive value judgement on it and again I'd be fine with that.

 

But you're contradicting yourself now.  You said:

 

> It just means not pretending like most games do that the codependent relationship that's occurring is a healthy relationship

 

But now you're saying that it's ok for an NPC to say that this unhealthy relationship is fine.

 

So which is it: should games be allowed to pretend that unhealthy relationships are healthy, or should they stop pretending that unhealthy relationships are healthy?

 

> Like you seem to have this weird impression that I don't want anything other than a perfectly healthy relationship and anything else has an asterisk. 

 

If you want relationships to be more nuanced that's one thing, I can agree with that.

 

> BDSM and having your life in someone else's hand are not the same thing. 

 

That's exactly what a lot of BDSM relationships are about, putting your life in someone's hands...

 

> If there's a choice between your LI or leaving someone else to die I'd expect the PC to be called out for bias by the rest of the cast for saving their LI regardless of why the choice was made

 

I don't see what this has to do with the discussion.  Called out or not called out, what difference does it make?  Maybe the other NPCs just don't care?  Maybe they understand the decision?

 

What game are you thinking of specifically where this fails to happen and it seems odd?

 

> Also if you find the concept of discussion of consent to be really off-putting well to be frank don't do it then. No one's forcing you to? 

 

But I can't avoid it if you have what you want, because you're asking for all relationships to feature discussion about consent.

 

Not that I care either way, I find most discussions about consent to be extremely banal but they don't bother me that much.  It would seem odd to me if the person I was romancing suddenly went off on a tangent to discuss the moralities of consent, but I wouldn't get upset over it.

 

> As for problematic I really don't care? Like why are even discussing problematic? 

 

Because you began this discussion by talking about 'toxic' relationships in videogames.

 

More than one person thinks the earth is flat. Saying someone else thinks something doesn't make it accurate.

 

Again you seem to be equalizing me wanting acknowledgement with me wanting something not to exist. They're not same thing. Also you think Wuthering Heights portrayed its relationships as though nothing were wrong with them? LOL

 

Again you seem to be equalizing acknowledgement with not wanting something to exist. An antagonist making a positive moral judgement on something isn't portraying it in a positive light. Or ignoring its flaws. That's why an antagonist would be supportive of it. Meanwhile if a protagonist supports something negative it's treated as a character flaw. Also a character can be positive towards something that's not positive. Plenty of people support things that they shouldn't. That's not a contradiction there's a difference in what an NPC does/says with how the game portrays an action. And for the most part most of those games don't even portray those flaws as positives they're just ignored completely.

 

I.E. if a protagonist is usually pretty good but is sexist and has a very go back to the kitchen attitude. Someone acknowledging he's pretty sexist is just that. Doesn't mean he has to magically change his ways or get punished for it. It's just acknowledged that he's sexist. From there you can have him interact with certain characters in a certain way and so on. The same treatment isn't often given to romances however. Say he's still sexist the romance will ignore this and go on as though he's not. That's my main issue. Even if his female LI approves of such behaviors they won't be remarked upon they cause no conflict and essentially are completely glossed over.

 

BDSMs are consensual relationships that revolve around you giving someone control yes. In controlled settings. They don't revolve around you literally allowing someone to put you in actual danger as in on a battlefield.

 

Why would they not care about their commander making decisions based off who he/she is sleeping with in matters of life or death? If someone didn't care they'd be the minority at best.

 

When did I say that? Why do you *constantly* put words in my mouth I did not say. I said nothing about all relationships feature discussions about consent. I said sometimes in the scenario of a boss sleeping with an employee who's life they hold in their hands it could be brought up. That's a very specific scenario and is nowhere near all relationships.

 

Why are assuming this would be some tangent and not a discussion that the player is involved in?

 

I began the discussion talking about toxic relationships in videogames being unacknowledged as such. You seem not to get that difference.

[Player sexual companion]

 

But if a romance arc adds a lot to the plot and is restricted by gender/sexuality it tends to put me off the romance personally. Because that's a lot of resources on something I might not be able to use and I'm salty by nature I rather get more friendship content with that character instead if that development is important to the plot. I don't really compare that to a race or class because you're always giving up something in that matter. If I play a human I'm not an elf and vice versa. Meanwhile a plot integral romance often doesn't give up something of a similar value so it's like ehhh for me. (Unless of course there's multiple plot integral romances in which case that again leads to the resource issue). I rather that be put in a friendship route because there always has to be compromises in amounts of content.

 

Ah thanks for the information.

 

Different content is certainly better than less content, as long as it's truly different. To give an example that's somewhat related to this topic: KOTOR 2 didn't handle romance much (which honestly I think is for the best given how games tend to do it), but the player character's gender if male changes the tone of Atris's character and her relationship with the exile in subtle but important ways. Specifically, an implied inappropriate romantic relationship while he was still a student. If the Exile is female, then Darth Sion's interactions change even more markedly, with his pursuit seeming to be more about a twisted attempt at a mercy killing instead of just trying to torture Kreia. So you get content either way.

 

Though I don't think this should take the form of "Male gets 2 romances, female gets 2 romances." It should flow naturally from the characters what the nature of the PC brings out in them. Romance is only one of many possible outcomes. I personally think if no attempts at pandering are going on this would lead to a pretty small number of "romanceable" companions period. Probably 1 or 2 at most. It's an important human drive but not every single story is about everyone making moon eyes at someone.

 

 

Oh yes agreed. That said I wasn't that fond of the Sion thing it skeeved me out but yes it was balanced for both male and female players that way.

 

To be honest I actually only prefer 1 or 2 romances because more than that almost always negatively effects friendship routes. And to be honest I like friendship routes way more than any romance. A good friendship route can give an astonishing amount of depth to a character. Most of my favorite character relationships are friendships because they almost always feel less forced than a romance does even with romancable NPCs. That said the even amount of options yeah I'm only really for that if there's a plot important LI. Otherwise I don't really care how the scale shakes out. (Well as long as I'm not in another BG2 scenario where I'm stuck with Amojerk.) I'll take one well crafted option over several poorly crafted ones.

[Player sexual companion]

> "They all look like ass." for one thing.

 

They do!

 

> It just means not pretending like most games do that the codependent relationship that's occurring is a healthy relationship

 

>  even in a healthy relationship game relationships are often extremely shallow.

 

Define what is and isn't 'healthy'.

 

You're making a judgement call on what is a healthy relationship but you're only one person.  Why should you get to decide that?

 

> As for 1. It could be anyone. Doesn't have to be a certain person because generally speaking in an toxic relationship more than one person notices. Most of the time someone in the relationship realizes it but stays for any matter of reasons. 

 

So you're saying an NPC would comment on the relationship or something?  How should the NPC comment?  What if the NPC is evil, and sees a 'toxic' relationship in progress (which you still haven't defined, but whatever, let's roll with it for the sake of argument), and comments positively?  Would that be problematic?

 

> As for 2. I'd say its crap like the PC acting as the NPCs mother and constantly giving emotional support only for the NPC to turn around and say hilarious things like "Oh I totally forgot your whole family was killed my bad." (assuming it's even brought up which let's face it a lot of the times its not) like the imbalance isn't subtle in games. 

 

That makes no sense at all.

 

> Or having your boss who holds your life in the palm of their hand maybe acknowledging how kind of iffy consent is in those scenarios instead of having everyone ignore it as though that makes sense.

 

That sounds hamfisted and unnecessary.

 

What if I get a kick out of being dominated by my boss?  What if I find the concept of a discussion of 'consent' to be really off-putting?  Is that problematic?

 

No they don't. Unless you're blind.

 

You do realize healthy isn't something I magically made up right? Something that causes you undue amounts of stress is unhealthy. You can argue til the cows come home in the reverse but that doesn't stop it from being unhealthy for you. Whether you find it worth it or not is a completely different matter and is up to the individual. (now if you want to argue those relationships *don't* cause stress then we get into the unrealistic portrayal bit which eh).

 

And again an evil character can acknowledge something without making a value judgement. Hell they could make a positive value judgement on it and again I'd be fine with that. It's acknowledged. It's not something that's swept under the rug or ignored. Also who cares if its problematic. You seem to think I'm making a moral judgement. I'm not. I love villain romances. I actually do like abusive romances when the abusive is acknowledged they paint a very beautiful picture of how flawed people are I actually prefer those kind of romances that have two broken people doing the best they can over some overly clean fairly tell nonsense. But those romances acknowledge both characters flaws, how they negatively and positively effect each other. It's not ignored.

 

As for not making sense. How is giving emotional support and getting none in return not make sense to you? Cause this is a normal issue for a protagonist. (granted choose your own protagonists have this issue *far* more often than predefined protags.)

 

Like you seem to have this weird impression that I don't want anything other than a perfectly healthy relationship and anything else has an asterisk. That's not the case I just want those unhealthy relationships (hell if I'm honest I want this for all relationships it just jars me more when it's something blatantly unhealthy) to have depth Is someone overly codependent? Acknowledge that. Is someone physically aggressive? Acknowledge that. Does someone have severe PTSD that needs to be worked around in the relationship? Don't give them a magical cure and have it ignored in the romance. Has the main PC had his/her soul ripped out? Don't have the entire romance track about the LI's daddy issues or at the least don't do it without acknowledging how the PC is the giving all the emotional support and getting jack all in comparison.

 

BDSM and having your life in someone else's hand are not the same thing. Role play isn't the same as being told to go on the front lines and get shot at. If there's a choice between your LI or leaving someone else to die I'd expect the PC to be called out for bias by the rest of the cast for saving their LI regardless of why the choice was made. (I'd also expect them to get raked over the coals for not choosing their LIs in a non right solution outcome )Also if you find the concept of discussion of consent to be really off-putting well to be frank don't do it then. No one's forcing you to? As for problematic I really don't care? Like why are even discussing problematic? My issue is people pretending issues aren't there which for me is an issue. When I said not okay I was referring to pretending the relationship didn't have issues and that'd actually apply for a healthy relationship too. It's just more overt with something toxic.

 

When I say acknowledge I mean as if you recruited the villain last moment and he's traveling with you. I wouldn't expect that to not be commented on, reacted to in any manner of ways both positive and negative. When a relationship blatantly has issues like one partner being a doormat and that goes unremarked I'm not okay with it because it's extremely immersion breaking for it to be ignored. Do I want someone to run behind the protag screaming about how wrong they are? No unless my PC can have a predictably hilarious reaction to that. But someone commenting on it even secondhand or going off-handily how much they let X get away with things they wouldn't let anyone else do? Sure.

[Player sexual companion]

> You're always quick to start an argument with a strawman then run off when people give you facts to counter your nonsense.

 

When did that happen?  I must have missed it.

 

> I never said a relationship had to be healthy.

 

You did say there needs to be some acknowledgement that the relationships are 'toxic'.  In other words, you're saying that it's ok to portray 'toxic' relationships, but they need to be portrayed as a bad thing.

 

So ok, you didn't say they have to be healthy, but why do they have to be portrayed as a bad thing?  Again, I ask: who gets to decide what is toxic and isn't toxic in a relationship?

 

Maybe the sort of relationship you thing is a good one, I think is toxic.  You see how that works?

 

I'll ask again:

 

1) Who would be doing the admissions or acknowledgements about how 'toxic' these relationships are?

 

2) Who gets to define what is and isn't 'toxic' in a relationship?

"They all look like ass." for one thing.

 

And again acknowledgement that something's toxic doesn't mean moralizing. It just means not pretending like most games do that the codependent relationship that's occurring is a healthy relationship that'll last forever (let alone the ignoring of the stress those relationships cause) and ever and all your friends are super supportive. It adds depth if anything. There's a great deal of conflict and drama that's being ignored for the yay isn't love grand <3 Hell even in a healthy relationship game relationships are often extremely shallow.

 

You're making an argument that I did not make.

 

As for 1. It could be anyone. Doesn't have to be a certain person because generally speaking in an toxic relationship more than one person notices. Most of the time someone in the relationship realizes it but stays for any matter of reasons. 

 

As for 2. I'd say its crap like the PC acting as the NPCs mother and constantly giving emotional support only for the NPC to turn around and say hilarious things like "Oh I totally forgot your whole family was killed my bad." (assuming it's even brought up which let's face it a lot of the times its not) like the imbalance isn't subtle in games. Or having your boss who holds your life in the palm of their hand maybe acknowledging how kind of iffy consent is in those scenarios instead of having everyone ignore it as though that makes sense.

[Player sexual companion]

I agree with you in principle on everything but the bi thing. For whatever reason just the knowledge that a companion's sexuality was tailored explicitly for the player just takes me right out of the narrative. If the writer thinks a companion is bi fine. But just making them bi so more people can have their waifu/husbando fantasy in one playthrough bugs me. If a romance arc added a lot to the plot or themes but was unavailable because of my watcher's gender or sexuality, I'd just make a different watcher on a replay. Just like trying a different race or class.

As for Avellone...well many won't agree with my take. There's a thread on the most recent drama in the Computer and Console forum on this site.

 

Oh that's fair. I mostly am pro bi because romances take quite a bit of resources and I'm one of those types that prefer content most players can use. I don't mind exclusive content but I rather we all have access to things that aren't as prone to personal preferences as a romance. That said I do prefer an LI to be consistent above all. So if a character is super flirty and they're a player option I want them to flirt with the player's gender. Not nonsense like the bi option being pretty much straight until you hit on them as the PC then magically they're okay with flirting with the same gender. My god that's the one thing that almost always drives me bananas because it feels so forced. But if resources weren't an issue I do enjoy defined sexualities (that don't just revolve around the PCs and because of that I'm really looking forward to the NPC and NPC romances because that's really my jam because my PCs are matchmakers at heart :3 )

 

I also don't mind however LIs that are more subtle with their affections. It just needs to be consistent for me. Like Merrill didn't bother me because she wasn't overly bold in flirting with Hawke as one gender then extremely subtle with the other. She was always pretty subtle with her comments. Meanwhile Isabela is bold and flirty with everyone she meets and the player is no exception.

 

But if a romance arc adds a lot to the plot and is restricted by gender/sexuality it tends to put me off the romance personally. Because that's a lot of resources on something I might not be able to use and I'm salty by nature I rather get more friendship content with that character instead if that development is important to the plot. I don't really compare that to a race or class because you're always giving up something in that matter. If I play a human I'm not an elf and vice versa. Meanwhile a plot integral romance often doesn't give up something of a similar value so it's like ehhh for me. (Unless of course there's multiple plot integral romances in which case that again leads to the resource issue). I rather that be put in a friendship route because there always has to be compromises in amounts of content.

 

Ah thanks for the information.

[Player sexual companion]

 

 

I just hope all the romances were written by Josh. I feel like only someone that hates video game romance could write a decent one. The only other candidate in that regard was Avellone, and he seems to have gone insane.

 

Wait what now regarding the bolded?

 

That said I'm fine with romances as long as they feel like an actual partnership and not the PC bribing the LI into boning them. Those relationships end up feeling toxic as hell but no one admitting how toxic they are (which again I have no issue with toxic relationships but there needs to be some acknowledgement and those romances just pretend that's health and okay when it's really not) which skives me out.

 

The main issue with video game romances in my opinion is they don't feel like 2 people that actually are in a relationship. It often feels forced/random or as a reward with your PC doing all the heavy lifting for the romance to happen which is just no.

 

As for player sexual companions...I don't really care? I'm fine with a defined sexuality or player-sexual. My main concern is the relationship itself not being shallow.

 

I personally prefer 2 bi companions because romances can be resource intensive and I'd rather get more quests and such than 6 different LIs but that's a take it or leave it scenario.

 

 

>  feeling toxic as hell but no one admitting how toxic they are (which again I have no issue with toxic relationships but there needs to be some acknowledgement and those romances just pretend that's health and okay when it's really not)

 

Who would be doing the admissions or acknowledgements about how 'toxic' these relationships are?

 

Who gets to define what is and isn't 'toxic' in a relationship?

 

Why do in-game relationships have to be 'healthy'?

 

You come off as very preachy here.

 

 

You're always very quick to start an argument with a strawman then run off when people give you facts to counter your nonsense.

 

I never said a relationship had to be healthy. I actually distinctly said the opposite. Yet here you are again claiming someone said something they didn't.

[Player sexual companion]

I just hope all the romances were written by Josh. I feel like only someone that hates video game romance could write a decent one. The only other candidate in that regard was Avellone, and he seems to have gone insane.

 

Wait what now regarding the bolded?

 

That said I'm fine with romances as long as they feel like an actual partnership and not the PC bribing the LI into boning them. Those relationships end up feeling toxic as hell but no one admitting how toxic they are (which again I have no issue with toxic relationships but there needs to be some acknowledgement and those romances just pretend that's health and okay when it's really not) which skives me out.

 

The main issue with video game romances in my opinion is they don't feel like 2 people that actually are in a relationship. It often feels forced/random or as a reward with your PC doing all the heavy lifting for the romance to happen which is just no.

 

As for player sexual companions...I don't really care? I'm fine with a defined sexuality or player-sexual. My main concern is the relationship itself not being shallow.

 

I personally prefer 2 bi companions because romances can be resource intensive and I'd rather get more quests and such than 6 different LIs but that's a take it or leave it scenario.

[Player sexual companion]

Bioware romance talk not going away.

 

Well as long as people constantly lie about it to push their agendas yeah it won't.

 

 

I'm just hoping the romances will be as funny as the Tyranny ones

 

I still don't even know how to trigger the Tyranny romances. I managed to do it once but I can't repeat it.

[Player sexual companion]

Meh. The non cherry picked screenshots still make the dude look really weird and he's weirder in motion. it's an ugly game.

 

To be honest Cullen's really the most conventionally attractive male. But saying the others are ugly because they don't look like super models like Cullen and Vivienne is ridiculous.

 

That said I do agree with you that some of DAI's lighting makes the characters look hideous.

 

And dudes and dudettes! The quotes! Please crop the quotes! Holy Lord of Fruitless Debates - this is so much nesting I fear we will see some weird eggs soon...

They really should do an auto remove nesting quotes feature or make the BBCCode option easier to use. It's a pain.

Is Josephine ugly? I'd smash a girl who looks like her irl. But I did find the innocent girl act abit tedious.

My only issue with the innocent act (which I kind of got because she's kind of sheltered in some ways) was they could've given her an extra love scene. She already has the lowest amount of interaction than any LI and Cullen gets the benefit of having 3 games worth of development.

 

 

Also people being so quick to point out Cullen...um...he was always attractive in each game he was in. It's not like Leliana or Morrigan's looks were severely downgraded through the games either. The main reason Cassandra was changed because she was generic as hell in DA2.

[Player sexual companion]

 

 

 

 

 

I saw games getting ruined because of "romance" - if you think that romance is just sex...- and I saw games getting better because of it. I never played The Witcher 3 because everything that I hear from that game is, "which bitch shall I bang?" and that is it... Dragon Age Inquisition is just an awfull game that didn't know how to handle romance right, with the exception of Harding, every single romance feel rushed, it feels like they want to give sex to the main character as soon as possible... talking about sex... Mass Effect is just a sex simulator now, the trailers are out and people are preoccupied with the appearence of the team, one of the comments from the trailers: 'There was a Bioware dev. meeting with fans two years before, in that meeting one SJW girl stood up and asked the developers to make the female characters literally ugly and 'thick'. Seems like Bioware took it to the heart." when your game community attracts people with this type of thoughts... that is when you know you destroyed your game...

 

BUT, you have some games with great romance options, like Dragon Age Origins, I don't know about you guys but for me all of the romances in that game felt natural and, the most important, felt right towards the character personality.

 

TL;DR: It's important that the romance don't get in the way, that the best thing about the game is the combat, the lore or the story and not if you can bang someone or not... oh... by the way, Xoti is not beautiful to you? Why? Well... maybe it's because your culture is different. The culture of your country really dictates what you like and don't like.

Don't listen to the Witcher 3 stuff. The game is fantastic, easily the best modern rpg. I can't really fathom why some people would talk about banging girls in the game, there's really not much in it. There's just two romance options. I think there's one or two one-offs you can have in side-quests but I can't really remember all too well. It's a 100+ hour game so it's definetly not a focuss in the game by any stretch. The only reason why I can imagine some people having that conversation is because they didn't actually play the game and are still hung up on the cards from Witcher 1.

Because lots of people didn't play Witcher 3, they 'like' it because "Ohh pretty ladies and I get to decide which one I should bang", Same goes for the hate with DA:I: "All the female characters looks like **** and all the males are gay!".

 

They don't know much about these games other than the memes.

I sank enough hours into DA:I to know that it's a **** game, and not just cos the female characters look like ass.

 

But there you go again constructing straw men so you can tidily put all criticism of the game into a box.

 

Witcher 3 isn't even all that good either, frankly. Overrated, even. (And I say that as someone who's completed Witcher 2 twice)

lmao Josephine and Cassandra look like ass? (And we're not even touching the unromancables because anyone who seriously thinks super model like Vivienne is ugly is clearly blind).

Yeah, pretty much.

 

Josephine:

 

https://goo.gl/images/KRL2Xo

 

Looks like a car crash victim. And she's frigid.

 

Cassandra:

 

https://goo.gl/images/Hazwi9

 

Cassandra isn't quite ugly, but she's incredibly butch. And she loses points for being a humourless zealot. I'd sooner romance Varric than put up with her incessant whining.

 

Vivienne isn't a romance option.

 

 

looks like a car crash victim? lmao what universe do you live in sounds like fun. As for frigid as someone who did her romance not at all. Her romance scene doesn't end in sex like the rest because the devs admit it ruined the mood of the scene. (Granted she does look derpy if you screenshot her in the middle of talking but that's a thing with a lot of DAI faces including the protagonist).

 

Also Cassandra isn't ugly at all either. You disliking her personality is a completely separate matter from her looks. Now they may not be what you prefer for your partner to look like that's fair enough but saying they're ugly is laughable. I don't prefer beards but saying Blackwall is ugly? It's not true. (Really if you remove that beard and the gauntness that comes from the beards in Inquisition he's pretty damn attractive.) The only LI you can really get away with calling ugly would be Bull. Solas maybe but even he looks fine.

 

The more I think about it the only LI in a BW game that's not at least passable (let alone ugly) would be Bull and he's all scarred up. (and his head is waaaay too small in proportion to his body. Not sure what's going on there).

 

There's no reason to say blatantly and obviously untrue things like they're ugly. Just say the LIs weren't to your preference. If you want the devs to make LIs that meet your preferences just say so. There's no need to claim things like the current LIs are hideous or crash victims or any other overly exaggerated nonsense.

[Player sexual companion]

 

 

 

I saw games getting ruined because of "romance" - if you think that romance is just sex...- and I saw games getting better because of it. I never played The Witcher 3 because everything that I hear from that game is, "which bitch shall I bang?" and that is it... Dragon Age Inquisition is just an awfull game that didn't know how to handle romance right, with the exception of Harding, every single romance feel rushed, it feels like they want to give sex to the main character as soon as possible... talking about sex... Mass Effect is just a sex simulator now, the trailers are out and people are preoccupied with the appearence of the team, one of the comments from the trailers: 'There was a Bioware dev. meeting with fans two years before, in that meeting one SJW girl stood up and asked the developers to make the female characters literally ugly and 'thick'. Seems like Bioware took it to the heart." when your game community attracts people with this type of thoughts... that is when you know you destroyed your game...

 

BUT, you have some games with great romance options, like Dragon Age Origins, I don't know about you guys but for me all of the romances in that game felt natural and, the most important, felt right towards the character personality.

 

TL;DR: It's important that the romance don't get in the way, that the best thing about the game is the combat, the lore or the story and not if you can bang someone or not... oh... by the way, Xoti is not beautiful to you? Why? Well... maybe it's because your culture is different. The culture of your country really dictates what you like and don't like.

Don't listen to the Witcher 3 stuff. The game is fantastic, easily the best modern rpg. I can't really fathom why some people would talk about banging girls in the game, there's really not much in it. There's just two romance options. I think there's one or two one-offs you can have in side-quests but I can't really remember all too well. It's a 100+ hour game so it's definetly not a focuss in the game by any stretch. The only reason why I can imagine some people having that conversation is because they didn't actually play the game and are still hung up on the cards from Witcher 1.

Because lots of people didn't play Witcher 3, they 'like' it because "Ohh pretty ladies and I get to decide which one I should bang", Same goes for the hate with DA:I: "All the female characters looks like **** and all the males are gay!".

 

They don't know much about these games other than the memes.

I sank enough hours into DA:I to know that it's a **** game, and not just cos the female characters look like ass.

 

But there you go again constructing straw men so you can tidily put all criticism of the game into a box.

 

Witcher 3 isn't even all that good either, frankly. Overrated, even. (And I say that as someone who's completed Witcher 2 twice)

 

 

lmao Josephine and Cassandra look like ass? (And we're not even touching the unromancables because anyone who seriously thinks super model like Vivienne is ugly is clearly blind).

[Player sexual companion]

I wonder what kind of bizarre bubble one has to live in to that be the only thing you have heard about Witcher 3.

 

Or that Mass Effect is a  sex simulator. Weird.

 

Remember that Fox News special XD all that drama caused the rest of the ME games to stick with undies. So silly.

[Player sexual companion]

I’m looking forward to graphic descriptions of intense, frenzied, passionate love making sessions...and I plan to play solo

Did you play Divinity OS 2? The narrator oh god the narrator.

 

I couldn't breathe while playing the romances. XD

[Player sexual companion]

 

No, because none of them made a big deal out of it. It was just there, like a ton of other content. 

 

Bioware did, and employees of the company did, including Gaider, on the forums. In fact, Gaider was on the record more than most, beating the SJW drum. He was in fact, instrumental in pushing for it, likely because he's gay himself. 

 

I know it's an amazing concept, but people can, in fact, have agendas and people within BW weren't even trying to deny it. 

 

https://www.polygon.com/2014/7/1/5860204/dragon-age-inquisition-bioware-gay-character

https://www.destructoid.com/bioware-lead-writer-talks-gay-romances-lgbt-characters-and-dragon-age-sales-292333.phtml

https://gamerant.com/bioware-same-sex-romance-stance/

 

And there is no denying what obvious agenda you are pushing. The level of anxiety from insecure heterosexuals over those hidden homosexuals, that the for the most part are already specifically designed to be entirely avoidable, is most curious. If you do not wish to encounter anything gay then games, barring a handful of indie exceptions, have you covered. If you hate homosexuals so much that you cannot stand the very thought of playing a game with homosexuals in it then you are part of a group that is no longer universally catered to. Though you still can play 99% of games without issue since the overwhelmingly huge majority of games, as shockin as that may seem to you, do not have any gay characters. Luckily Deadfire is not one of them. No matter how angry you and your accomplices get Deadfire will still have gay content.

 

 

This is the part that drives me bananas. It's not "oh I hate forced flirtation." because I can't think of a single BW game where one female character doesn't openly hit on the PC. (Other than of course NWN which I haven't played to confirm that). Its funny how its only an issue when it's a male NPC on the male PC. There has never been a forced (bug or otherwise) gay romance in the games they trot as examples of "forcing the gay agenda". And some of them laughably try to use the "it's only fanservice and doesn't make sense." even when said NPC hitting on their PC is perfectly in character.

 

The only complaint I can get is the ones that feel their rejections didn't match what they felt their PC would say, otherwise it's usually "how dare he hit on me!" thin skinned nonsense. If a woman reacted to them hitting on her the way they do these NPCs they'd call her hysterical.