Yosharian

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. 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 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 did I say something was problematic? When I said not okay I was referring to pretending the relationship didn't have issues and that'd actually a healthy relationship too. It's just more overt with something toxic. > 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.

"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. > "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?

> What's better writing, a relationship that's meant to be good but comes across terrible, or a relationship meant to be terrible that comes across as terrible. I don't think you can define whether a relationship is well-written or not by using such broad strokes. You haven't even defined 'good' and 'terrible'. > Why the arrows? I like to respond to points individually for clarity.

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 don't get tired of the power fantasy? I'd kill for an actually dysfunctional relationship in an RPG that was actually intended to be written that way. Would be interesting. There's a big difference between: a) I'm tired of 'power fantasy' relationships, I'd like to see other types represented. and b) 'Power fantasy' relationships are 'toxic as hell and nobody admits how toxic they are; there needs to be some acknowledgement [of how toxic they are].' (Direct quote from what Ryz is saying) If you're asking for different types of relationships, I have no problem with that. I usually despise videogame 'relationships' where you give gifts or whatever and get sex in return.

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 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. > 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?

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.

Hilarious.

I didn't even know about it. It's archived already, but you (maybe) have to subscribe to Geek and Sundry to watch it. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/256786856?collection=Uu7MCEZL_RSxsQ Looks like Josh and Co. show up at the 40 min mark, but I haven't done more than skip ahead until I saw something I recognized (which turned out to be Josh). Can't watch it since it's subscriber only. Based on what I see on RPGcodex and 4chan, the only new thing is that they confirmed the talking sword romance? Didn't have any proof though. > they confirmed the talking sword romance What.

Not really: https://goo.gl/images/R4p1zL Cullen is a stereotypical chiselled adonis with a jaw so wide and square you could use it as a house foundation. Blackwall isn't too bad but that beard makes him look like he's got Cthulhu growing on his chin. Dorian is fabulous. Solas, not sure about him.

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.

It is very little result compared to other, far more impactful things that dev time can be spent on.

I was looking at a Skald/Fighter with the following attribute distribution: MIG: 18 (always max MIG on a melee character in Deadfire) CON: 08 DEX: 15 (fast attacks = more crits = more phrases, also faster casting speed) PER: 18 (accuracy = more crits) INT: 10 RES: 10 More into Paladin/Troubadour now, but that was what I was considering

Good idea, someone should tweet that to Josh

Mage Slayer is absolute trash. So Obsi have done a remarkable job porting it from BG2!

It's too much work for very little result. Not worth it at all.

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)

As far as I know the Witcher series has two gay characters. In Witcher 2 a wizard betrays the good guys. He's subsequently show with a half-naked male slave, squeezing his pimples. The designers explicitly said they intended to make him as despicable as possible. His sexuality serves to make him even more disgusting to the presumed straight player, much in the same way bishonen and sissy villains were meant to do for decades. The wizard is killed but he can also be castrated for good measure. It is indeed one the most homophobic games of the last years. In Witcher 3 Geralt can find a hunter in the wilderness. He is described as freak. If the player inquires the hunter will explain that he fell in love with the son of the local lord. Said lord caught them and the son killed himself. The lord became an alcoholic, his estate fell into ruin. And the hunter now lives in the wilderness alone because he is a social outcast. This is by no means a positive representation. Ciri is an entirely different matter. While this was not the case 20 or 30 years ago, the current ideal of heterosexual masculinity dictates that straight men must think lesbians are hot. The reactions towards lesbian characters in games is nowhere anywhere near as negative as those toward gay characters. I just watched that scene (search for 'uncle roche meets uncle dethmold'). I don't think it does that at all. If it is meant to show him as a disgusting character it's because his slave is physically repulsive, and because his manner with the slave is repulsive, and also the slave's obedient manner is quite repulsive. It has very little to do with the fact that his slave is male in my view. Maybe you're the homophobe, because you're seeing a scene portraying two repulsive characters showing repulsive behaviour, and all you can fixate upon is the gender of the characters. Presumably, if the slave had been female, you'd have had no problem with the scene? What does that say about you? Maybe it's the case that developers simply cannot have two repulsive males in a master/slave scenario because critics will instantly accuse the developer of using the slave's gender as a weapon. You seek to shackle artistic creativity in the name of social responsibility, but I think it's a dishonest facade. When it is the only instance of a gay or bisexual male character in the entire game then looking at the scene in that light is completely justified. Obviously there is nothing wrong with having gay, bisexual or effeminate villains, but when they also happen to be the only male character who isn't straight then obviously that has really negative implications. I get the feeling that if there was a game where the cast was almost all powerful female characters and the one male character was an evil, bumbling idiot you would be the first to point to his gender and call the game a shameless agenda-driven piece of work. > When it is the only instance of a gay or bisexual male character in the entire game then looking at the scene in that light is completely justified. No it's not.

As far as I know the Witcher series has two gay characters. In Witcher 2 a wizard betrays the good guys. He's subsequently show with a half-naked male slave, squeezing his pimples. The designers explicitly said they intended to make him as despicable as possible. His sexuality serves to make him even more disgusting to the presumed straight player, much in the same way bishonen and sissy villains were meant to do for decades. The wizard is killed but he can also be castrated for good measure. It is indeed one the most homophobic games of the last years. In Witcher 3 Geralt can find a hunter in the wilderness. He is described as freak. If the player inquires the hunter will explain that he fell in love with the son of the local lord. Said lord caught them and the son killed himself. The lord became an alcoholic, his estate fell into ruin. And the hunter now lives in the wilderness alone because he is a social outcast. This is by no means a positive representation. Ciri is an entirely different matter. While this was not the case 20 or 30 years ago, the current ideal of heterosexual masculinity dictates that straight men must think lesbians are hot. The reactions towards lesbian characters in games is nowhere anywhere near as negative as those toward gay characters. I just watched that scene (search for 'uncle roche meets uncle dethmold'). I don't think it does that at all. If it is meant to show him as a disgusting character it's because his slave is physically repulsive, and because his manner with the slave is repulsive, and also the slave's obedient manner is quite repulsive. It has very little to do with the fact that his slave is male in my view. Maybe you're the homophobe, because you're seeing a scene portraying two repulsive characters showing repulsive behaviour, and all you can fixate upon is the gender of the characters. Presumably, if the slave had been female, you'd have had no problem with the scene? What does that say about you? Maybe it's the case that developers simply cannot have two repulsive males in a master/slave scenario because critics will instantly accuse the developer of using the slave's gender as a weapon. You seek to shackle artistic creativity in the name of social responsibility, but I think it's a dishonest facade. When it is the only instance of a gay or bisexual male character in the entire game then looking at the scene in that light is completely justified. Obviously there is nothing wrong with having gay, bisexual or effeminate villains, but when they also happen to be the only male character who isn't straight then obviously that has really negative implications. I get the feeling that if there was a game where the cast was almost all powerful female characters and the one male character was an evil, bumbling idiot you would be the first to point to his gender and call the game a shameless agenda-driven piece of work. > one male character was an evil, bumbling idiot You mean almost every game ever made? > was almost all powerful female characters and the one male character was an evil, bumbling idiot you would be the first to point to his gender and call the game a shameless agenda-driven piece of work. No, I wouldn't.

As far as I know the Witcher series has two gay characters. In Witcher 2 a wizard betrays the good guys. He's subsequently show with a half-naked male slave, squeezing his pimples. The designers explicitly said they intended to make him as despicable as possible. His sexuality serves to make him even more disgusting to the presumed straight player, much in the same way bishonen and sissy villains were meant to do for decades. The wizard is killed but he can also be castrated for good measure. It is indeed one the most homophobic games of the last years. In Witcher 3 Geralt can find a hunter in the wilderness. He is described as freak. If the player inquires the hunter will explain that he fell in love with the son of the local lord. Said lord caught them and the son killed himself. The lord became an alcoholic, his estate fell into ruin. And the hunter now lives in the wilderness alone because he is a social outcast. This is by no means a positive representation. Ciri is an entirely different matter. While this was not the case 20 or 30 years ago, the current ideal of heterosexual masculinity dictates that straight men must think lesbians are hot. The reactions towards lesbian characters in games is nowhere anywhere near as negative as those toward gay characters. I just watched that scene (search for 'uncle roche meets uncle dethmold'). I don't think it does that at all. If it is meant to show him as a disgusting character it's because his slave is physically repulsive, and because his manner with the slave is repulsive, and also the slave's obedient manner is quite repulsive. It has very little to do with the fact that his slave is male in my view. Maybe you're the homophobe, because you're seeing a scene portraying two repulsive characters showing repulsive behaviour, and all you can fixate upon is the gender of the characters. Presumably, if the slave had been female, you'd have had no problem with the scene? What does that say about you? Maybe it's the case that developers simply cannot have two repulsive males in a master/slave scenario because critics will instantly accuse the developer of using the slave's gender as a weapon. You seek to shackle artistic creativity in the name of social responsibility, but I think it's a dishonest facade.

I think that they are all scared, the idea of a guy hitting on you is scarying if you still have doubts of who you are and what you like, lack of confidence.I disliked that moment with Anders and I have had guys literally beg me to have sex with them and it didn't bother me, so no, it isn't that. It's very easy to dismiss criticism as 'oh they're just bigots'. Disliking the moment is one thing. Crying about it years later as a forced romance (despite it being no such thing. At most it's a forced flirtation and you know what? I've had one of those in every single BW game except DAI as a female character and somehow I managed to reject them and move along. Hell even male PCs get hit on unavoidably by female characters. Somehow people managed to reject them just fine for their preferred partner without acting like it was the end of the world years later. > crying > end of the world Do you ever stop to think that your hyperbole doesn't accurately represent reality? Constantly bringing it up the way some people do in every single thread to do about same sex romances does hit my definition of crying about it and acting like they were traumatized by it. Especially given the language they usually use. And yes I'm very used to hearing that over-exaggerated complaint so please don't try to tell me about an accurate representation. Anders is not forced on you as a romance option. He hits on you, you can reject him and its never brought up again other than the rivalry hit. (that once again is laughably easy to make up) Strange, I don't remember people complaining about Zevran despite him doing a similar thing. I have actually. Generally only in BioWare boards thankfully he's not trotted out like Anders was probably because Zevran required a certain amount of approval before he offered and unlike Anders it's a missable conversation. Also unlike Anders he's not trotted out by people who obviously didn't play the game and just want to push a bs lie. That and if early on you tell Zev you're not interested in men he doesn't even give you the massage conversation I'm pretty sure. That said I've played DA2 too more often than DAO so I can't be completely certain. (Also wtf why can't I trim some of these quotes?) > Zevran required a certain amount of approval before he offered > and unlike Anders it's a missable conversation ? What's to wonder. You had to speak to Zevran at camp with 30+ approval before he offered the sex conversation. Thus it's miss-able. You can't even recruit Anders (who is a forced companion) without saving Karl and the conversation where he hits on you is a forced conversation right after that quest. You do realize people had Zevran at a higher approval for him not to stab you in the back but still got him betraying them because they never spoke to him and got the "I'm your man" conversation right? It was one of the more hilarious "why won't he stop betraying me" things I had to explain. (Some people even ran into the same issue with Bull which lol) Fenris had the same issue with turning on people when they sided with the mages despite having enough approval to stay loyal. People skip non forced conversations quite often. The emoji was meant to illustrate 'makes you think huh' not 'I don't believe you'.

I think that they are all scared, the idea of a guy hitting on you is scarying if you still have doubts of who you are and what you like, lack of confidence.I disliked that moment with Anders and I have had guys literally beg me to have sex with them and it didn't bother me, so no, it isn't that. It's very easy to dismiss criticism as 'oh they're just bigots'. Disliking the moment is one thing. Crying about it years later as a forced romance (despite it being no such thing. At most it's a forced flirtation and you know what? I've had one of those in every single BW game except DAI as a female character and somehow I managed to reject them and move along. Hell even male PCs get hit on unavoidably by female characters. Somehow people managed to reject them just fine for their preferred partner without acting like it was the end of the world years later. > crying > end of the world Do you ever stop to think that your hyperbole doesn't accurately represent reality? Constantly bringing it up the way some people do in every single thread to do about same sex romances does hit my definition of crying about it and acting like they were traumatized by it. Especially given the language they usually use. And yes I'm very used to hearing that over-exaggerated complaint so please don't try to tell me about an accurate representation. Anders is not forced on you as a romance option. He hits on you, you can reject him and its never brought up again other than the rivalry hit. (that once again is laughably easy to make up) Strange, I don't remember people complaining about Zevran despite him doing a similar thing. I have actually. Generally only in BioWare boards thankfully he's not trotted out like Anders was probably because Zevran required a certain amount of approval before he offered and unlike Anders it's a missable conversation. Also unlike Anders he's not trotted out by people who obviously didn't play the game and just want to push a bs lie. That and if early on you tell Zev you're not interested in men he doesn't even give you the massage conversation I'm pretty sure. That said I've played DA2 too more often than DAO so I can't be completely certain. (Also wtf why can't I trim some of these quotes?) > Zevran required a certain amount of approval before he offered > and unlike Anders it's a missable conversation

I think that they are all scared, the idea of a guy hitting on you is scarying if you still have doubts of who you are and what you like, lack of confidence.I disliked that moment with Anders and I have had guys literally beg me to have sex with them and it didn't bother me, so no, it isn't that. It's very easy to dismiss criticism as 'oh they're just bigots'. Disliking the moment is one thing. Crying about it years later as a forced romance (despite it being no such thing. At most it's a forced flirtation and you know what? I've had one of those in every single BW game except DAI as a female character and somehow I managed to reject them and move along. Hell even male PCs get hit on unavoidably by female characters. Somehow people managed to reject them just fine for their preferred partner without acting like it was the end of the world years later. > crying > end of the world Do you ever stop to think that your hyperbole doesn't accurately represent reality? Constantly bringing it up the way some people do in every single thread to do about same sex romances does hit my definition of crying about it and acting like they were traumatized by it. Especially given the language they usually use. And yes I'm very used to hearing that over-exaggerated complaint so please don't try to tell me about an accurate representation. Anders is not forced on you as a romance option. He hits on you, you can reject him and its never brought up again other than the rivalry hit. (that once again is laughably easy to make up) Strange, I don't remember people complaining about Zevran despite him doing a similar thing.

Why would you capitalize 'not stack' and not 'does'? So confusing

I think that they are all scared, the idea of a guy hitting on you is scarying if you still have doubts of who you are and what you like, lack of confidence.I disliked that moment with Anders and I have had guys literally beg me to have sex with them and it didn't bother me, so no, it isn't that. It's very easy to dismiss criticism as 'oh they're just bigots'. Disliking the moment is one thing. Crying about it years later as a forced romance (despite it being no such thing. At most it's a forced flirtation and you know what? I've had one of those in every single BW game except DAI as a female character and somehow I managed to reject them and move along. Hell even male PCs get hit on unavoidably by female characters. Somehow people managed to reject them just fine for their preferred partner without acting like it was the end of the world years later. > crying > end of the world Do you ever stop to think that your hyperbole doesn't accurately represent reality?

I hope it's two handed sword. wanna wear her myself. Yikes