Player sexual companion

[algroth]

 

 

But in a society where gays and heteros are treated equally, and no one would raise an eyebrow, I don't think the gay Edér and the hetero one would be so different, family plans aside. That will always be a factor, like when he would want to start a family on his own.

 

Somehow this conversation starts to be interesting.

 

I do not think, you are right. I think (I can only guess, as I am not gay and can only take my experience with women into account), that those two Eders would be different, or at least would act different depending on the MCs sex. I really try to act towards women as I would try to act towards men. Meaning, if I work together with a woman as my boss or coworker I'm trying to treat her with the same respect or disrespect as I would treat a man. When it's about hard work, I try not to spare women too much if I think they are able to do it and so on. But: I never have the impression that I am fully sucessful. I do treat women differently, no matter how much I try not to. I think if you see a person as a potential partner you will always do that. So I think the gay Eder will behave differently towards male or female characters than the straight Eder. Unless of course he lives in a vulcan world, were emotions dont interfere with your normal behaviour.

 

And there is more. It is not only about wether the world accepts Eders sexual orientation. It is about how his sexual orientiation is viewed in general. I assume that in our fantasy world gay people are still not 50% of the population, so they are the exception. Noone in our fantasy world sees that as a bad thing. But they still see it as something. Maybe they think Eder is a female soul trapped in a mans body. Or maybe he is viewed as being sexually very adventurous. But whatever the world thinks about him shapes his character in a certain way. If I choose to wear only black cloth, which is a relatively minor decision compared with my sexual orientation people will get a certain image about me. If I wear only bright colors, they will get another one. Depending on that, they will react to me and that will further shape who I am.

 

Yes, I agree with all of this. Also that does bring up a pretty interesting idea too: what is certain dialogue options or NPC reactions were tied to the kind of gear we wear or carry with ourselves? Clearly a man wearing full plate and packing steel will be more intimidating than one dressed in padded armour and concealing a dagger. And for that matter, certain specific items would have their own specific connotations: what if a blacksmith were to see the MC wielding the Hammer of Abydon? How would a magic-user react to an archmage's grimoire, or a somewhat studied lord to a regal suit of armour? These could all be interesting acknowledgements from behalf of the NPCs that would make our choice of equipment even more interesting as well.

 

Obviously this is an aside point. Maybe it's worth bringing up in a different topic?

[Lord_Mord]

 

Eothas portfolio is more than just birth and rebirth though, and those two concepts can be interpreted in many ways.

 

I just meant this as an example how his sexual orientation could have influenced his life. It all depends on how Eder views these things.

Edited August 14, 2017 by Lord_Mord

[MortyTheGobbo]

Eothas is a god of rebirth, not birth. In addition to forgiveness, redemption and kindness. Saying that a person wouldn't worship him if they can't personally bring a child into the world is... I'm going to be much kinder than this argument deserves and call it bending facts to fit your argument.

 

The claim that Eder would have different stats if he was gay is... what? Stats are a mechanical abstraction, not a faithful representation of a person's life.

[blotter]

Eothas is a god of rebirth, not birth.

He's actually the god of birth and rebirth, though I quite agree that not being able or inclined to have children isn't a barrier to worshipping Eothas. Then again, Lord_Mord recognized this possibility as well when he initially raised the question, as seen here:

 

 

Would he have chosen a different one, knowing that he will never reproduce? Or would he still have chosen Eothas just because of that fact?

[Lord_Mord]

 

He's actually the god of birth and rebirth, though I quite agree that not being able or inclined to have children isn't a barrier to worshipping Eothas. Then again, Lord_Mord recognized this possibility as well when he initially raised the question, as seen here:

 

Exactly. It all depends on what Eder sees in Eothas and which aspects are important to him. A gay Eder could either find other aspects important, dispise Eothas at all or maybe have the exact same view as the other Eder. But, and that was my point I think, when it comes to world views, religion, philosophical thinking and stuff, your sexual orientation can influence everything (but does not necessarily have to).

 

Wasn't there a good that was both male and female? Maybe gay Eder likes that idea better than kindness and rebirth. I don't know.

 

In my opinion of course. Im not really trying to make an argument here. This is all speculation.

 

 

Stats are a mechanical abstraction, not a faithful representation of a person's life.

 

Yes. But as your view of the world changes, so do your stats. If at some point in your life you decide that strength is important, you will throw away the books and lift weights. Small things can affect your whole life. Imagine that: 14 years old gay Eder decides that Eothas is not the right god for him, because he just does not get the whole birth/rebirth concept. He starts to get interested in Berath (looked it up), so maybe his role in the Saints War would be a different one, maybe his parents kick him out, maybe he would have chosen to be a priest... You get the idea. Small changes lead to a butterfly effect. In one live you are strong in the other you are wise. Or even stronger.

[HooAmEye]

Eder is a total bear

[Juodas Varnas]

Eder is a total bear

I think you mean Durance 

[smjjames]

 

 

He's actually the god of birth and rebirth, though I quite agree that not being able or inclined to have children isn't a barrier to worshipping Eothas. Then again, Lord_Mord recognized this possibility as well when he initially raised the question, as seen here:

 

Exactly. It all depends on what Eder sees in Eothas and which aspects are important to him. A gay Eder could either find other aspects important, dispise Eothas at all or maybe have the exact same view as the other Eder. But, and that was my point I think, when it comes to world views, religion, philosophical thinking and stuff, your sexual orientation can influence everything (but does not necessarily have to).

 

Wasn't there a good that was both male and female? Maybe gay Eder likes that idea better than kindness and rebirth. I don't know.

 

In my opinion of course. Im not really trying to make an argument here. This is all speculation.

 

 

Stats are a mechanical abstraction, not a faithful representation of a person's life.

 

Yes. But as your view of the world changes, so do your stats. If at some point in your life you decide that strength is important, you will throw away the books and lift weights. Small things can affect your whole life. Imagine that: 14 years old gay Eder decides that Eothas is not the right god for him, because he just does not get the whole birth/rebirth concept. He starts to get interested in Berath (looked it up), so maybe his role in the Saints War would be a different one, maybe his parents kick him out, maybe he would have chosen to be a priest... You get the idea. Small changes lead to a butterfly effect. In one live you are strong in the other you are wise. Or even stronger.

 

 

Reincarnation and The Wheel in Eora doesn't work on a sliding scale like the Buddist concept of reincarnation where you can go up or down depending on your actions in life, it's completely random. Sagani speaks of an elder who reincarnated as a polar bear, her quest target was reborn as a white stag, and sometimes they'll reincarnate as a Pale Elf. Those are the only references that I know of to kith reincarnating as something that is not kith, so, we don't know how commonly that actually happens.

Edited August 14, 2017 by smjjames

[Lord_Mord]

 

Reincarnation and The Wheel in Eora doesn't work on a sliding scale like the Buddist concept of reincarnation where you can go up or down depending on your actions in life, it's completely random. Sagani speaks of an elder who reincarnated as a polar bear, her quest target was reborn as a white stag, and sometimes they'll reincarnate as a Pale Elf. Those are the only references that I know of to kith reincarnating as something that is not kith, so, we don't know how commonly that actually happens.

 

I already treid to communicate that those are examples I'm making up to explain my point of view. This is a hypothetical Eder in a hypothetical game. The lore does not matter in this case.

[rjshae]

Hmm, if somebody has a female Orlan PC, will they be able to romance Serafen... and will their offspring be blue rabbits?

[algroth]

Hmm, if somebody has a female Orlan PC, will they be able to romance Serafen... and will their offspring be blue rabbits?

 

I bet Edér would want to cuddle either way. :3

[injurai]

Eder will find excuses to fall asleep in Serefen's hammock.

[Beyond The Sea]

What's with the leading questions that don't at all relate or follow from what I was talking about?

As I understood you wrote, you don't need representation or that representation is insulting or bad. My point is not everyone thinks that way. Representation can be very powerful, especially if your identity doesn't get represented a lot or usually not in a good light.

[injurai]

 

What's with the leading questions that don't at all relate or follow from what I was talking about?

As I understood you wrote, you don't need representation or that representation is insulting or bad. My point is not everyone thinks that way. Representation can be very powerful, especially if your identity doesn't get represented a lot or usually not in a good light.

 

 

My argument you shouldn't need mediums to cater precisely to you and your sensibilities for you to enjoy it. That they shouldn't just be mirrors all the time. That just because you pay for something, doesn't not mean that you should expect that thing to be made for you. I draw the corollary that in Star Wars, and medium that we all have a expectations and preconceived notions of, we still want to be confronted with unknowns out of our control. My argument ultimately is that you shouldn't form entitlements. (At least, and especially, to luxury goods.)

 

As far as representation, I believe it's very important to have it but also that it shouldn't be necessary or fundamental in the enjoyment of something. Additive to one's enjoyment, but not fundamental. But my main point in bringing up representation was that entitlements can pit the underrepresented against themselves. As much as straight people are represented, gays are a far better represented minority than many many others. So well represented that it's pushed to the forefront of the mediums instead of just being a side note to the character. My ultimate argument here is that entitlements even fail to be justified when the goal is of better representation, because entitlements lead to self-serving objections, demands, and expectations.

[kierun]

 

 

What's with the leading questions that don't at all relate or follow from what I was talking about?

As I understood you wrote, you don't need representation or that representation is insulting or bad. My point is not everyone thinks that way. Representation can be very powerful, especially if your identity doesn't get represented a lot or usually not in a good light.

 

 

My argument you shouldn't need mediums to cater precisely to you and your sensibilities for you to enjoy it. That they shouldn't just be mirrors all the time. That just because you pay for something, doesn't not mean that you should expect that thing to be made for you. I draw the corollary that in Star Wars, and medium that we all have a expectations and preconceived notions of, we still want to be confronted with unknowns out of our control. My argument ultimately is that you shouldn't form entitlements. (At least, and especially, to luxury goods.)

 

As far as representation, I believe it's very important to have it but also that it shouldn't be necessary or fundamental in the enjoyment of something. Additive to one's enjoyment, but not fundamental. But my main point in bringing up representation was that entitlements can pit the under-represented against themselves. As much as straight people are represented, gays are a far better represented minority than many many others. So well represented that it's pushed to the forefront of the mediums instead of just being a side note to the character. My ultimate argument here is that entitlements even fail to be justified when the goal is of better representation, because entitlements lead to self-serving objections, demands, and expectations.

 

 

By all the Unholy Great Old Ones! Two people talking like civilised adults on the Internet! ☺

 

…

 

Representation in any media can help people with no, or limited (and possibly flawed) knowledge of, a minority better understood it. Thus fighting prejudice. In addition, it can give a good positive role model to someone struggling with feelings/thoughts/whatnot that they cannot reason away. The whole "you are not alone" thing. And while this discussion is about sexuality, this is true of many things: PTSD comes top mind.

 

However, diversity should not be a sprinkled condiment added to please such minorty. That is just condescending at best.

 

As an example of it done right, have a look at Ringil Eskiath and Archeth from the Steel Remains, The Cold Commands, and The Dark Defiles by Richard Morgan.

[Beyond The Sea]

You haven't seen the Force Awakens right? The protagonists are a woman and a black man. The other recent star wars film had a female protagonist too and while both movies had strengths and weaknesses the main characters were according to most pretty awesome. Recently movies having a lot more diverse set of characters and I would argue that star wars is one of the best examples of how to do it right.

It is characters first and not diversity for the sake of diversity. It doesn't cater to a singular group of people, the sex, sexuality or race isn't really that important in the first place in Star wars.

I draw the corollary that in Star Wars, and medium that we all have a expectations and preconceived notions of, we still want to be confronted with unknowns out of our control. My argument ultimately is that you shouldn't form entitlements. (At least, and especially, to luxury goods.)

 

But my main point in bringing up representation was that entitlements can pit the underrepresented against themselves. As much as straight people are represented, gays are a far better represented minority than many many others. So well represented that it's pushed to the forefront of the mediums instead of just being a side note to the character. My ultimate argument here is that entitlements even fail to be justified when the goal is of better representation, because entitlements lead to self-serving objections, demands, and expectations.

JJ Abrams said, "Star Wars was always a boys' thing and a movie that dads take their sons to, and though that's still very much the case, I was really hoping this could be a movie that mothers could take their daughters to as well." He cast Lupita Nyong'o and Gwendoline Christie. He spoke out about having female characters and on those characters not getting toys like the male ones. He cast John Boyega and defended this call. Diversity does not automatically lead to tokenism. Abrams made a conscious effort.

This wouldn't have happened without people speaking up, without some women asking to be represented better. I just don't think asking for minority representation is entitlement.

[algroth]

Asking for minority representation isn't entitlement, but I think what injurai is replying to is the thought that by not having it you are deliberately and maliciously excluding a minority (which is what you alluded to when you said that not having a same-sex romance would be telling gay people that the game is not for them). Regardless of this I do have to wonder at what point can we still claim the LGB side is lacking in representation, as there seems to be no shortage of games, films, books and music nowadays including gay characters and addressing the matter of homosexuality. By contrast, the trans community is barely represented in these games (only example that comes to mind is that priestess from Siege of Dragonspear, and even that one line of hers seemed to be enough to cause an uproar from the bigots), yet I rarely hear any demands for their appearance in videogames or other media. In all frankness, there should be, and Eora does represent a pretty peculiar chance to work with trans themes given the misplacement of souls, awakened memories and so on (the soul of a woman in the body of a man gains a literal meaning in this setting after all). Do I think Deadfire should by consequence include a trans character? Not really. I can't demand it of them because they have their topics of interest - in the end the best way I can ensure to see the content *I* want in a game, and done with the degree of attention and detail so as to not be another throwaway gesture of inclusion, is to make that game myself.

Edited August 15, 2017 by algroth

[rjshae]

My argument you shouldn't need mediums to cater precisely to you and your sensibilities for you to enjoy it. That they shouldn't just be mirrors all the time. That just because you pay for something, doesn't not mean that you should expect that thing to be made for you. I draw the corollary that in Star Wars, and medium that we all have a expectations and preconceived notions of, we still want to be confronted with unknowns out of our control. My argument ultimately is that you shouldn't form entitlements. (At least, and especially, to luxury goods.)

 

As far as representation, I believe it's very important to have it but also that it shouldn't be necessary or fundamental in the enjoyment of something. Additive to one's enjoyment, but not fundamental. But my main point in bringing up representation was that entitlements can pit the underrepresented against themselves. As much as straight people are represented, gays are a far better represented minority than many many others. So well represented that it's pushed to the forefront of the mediums instead of just being a side note to the character. My ultimate argument here is that entitlements even fail to be justified when the goal is of better representation, because entitlements lead to self-serving objections, demands, and expectations.

 

There's another side to this, and that is: businesses who don't listen to their customers tend to go out of business. Gaming is the only industry I know of where customer feedback is called "entitlement". It's an issue right now only because the supply of top-level games is rather limited. Hence, players who want that time of game are stuck with whatever content they particularly dislike. Once there's a more diverse base of media releases (as there is in the movie industry), then top-flight games will be able to cater more to particular preferences. It's much easier with paperback novels, for example, because there's a huge selection and it's easy to discard books you don't like.

 

The alternative, as already mentioned, is to build games tailored to particular preferences.

Edited August 15, 2017 by rjshae

[injurai]

Yes, asking for minority representation isn't entitlement. Perhaps on this I was not clear, but my point depends on that distinction. I start by talking about the person who disliked encountering an advance from a gay npc as indeed being entitled over expecting he shouldn't experience such a thing. I go on to describe that I think entitlement in general is a bad mentality. Then I extend that claim by comparing it to asking/demanding for representation, a case where I feel entitlement is more often justified. With the ultimate secondary point, the first being entitlement is bad, being that representation can be sought without entitlement. Representation obviously need be advocated and fought for, but when entitlement is the justified approach one operates of a self-serving and self-aggrandizing mind. Hence, I detail the problem of favored minority representations at the expense of the even less represented. I'd imagining entitlement is very tempting when one has an axe to grind, and it's an undermining force that's proliferated allyship.

 

The reason I brought Star Wars into it, is that for 6 feature films, it really was a series that was "made" for me. But when The Force Awakens came out I had no expectations or entitlements that it would be made for me. I wouldn't want that and didn't want that. I went in wanting Star Wars. I wanted the characters to exist as individuals with identities of their own. The other reason I chose TFA is that it's one of the best examples to date of diversity, which I believe is helped by it's fictional setting. It's far harder to write shallow, stereotypically designed characters when it's removed from our world; it's an IP that is somewhat shielded from group-identity-progressives. So, diversity has gone up and the characters are written individuals embedded in a fictional setting. If in one's eyes they "lost representation" I'd say they were entitled to expect otherwise, for those that "gained representation" I would hope they can enjoy the gains without indulging in a negative mentality. For everyone, I would hope they can enjoy watching individual characters who ultimately represent themselves, and I think Star Wars does that well. For these reasons I think TFA is a great example because it's diversity without falling into the abyss of representing collectivist group-identities.

[rjshae]

So I would want to talk about the differences in the personality of a hetero and a gay Edér APART from his sexuality. So in disregard of it.

 

Let's say the fantasy world was one which treated gays and heteros equally. Now you have a gay Edér and a hetero one.

Let's say Edér liked animals (which he in fact does), would that change if he changed his sexuality? If he had a favorite dish, would that change? If he believed in a certain God would that change by changing his sexuality? Would his intellect change? His charisma, his wisdom? Etc etc.

 

How much of a person would change, APART from the sexual behaviour, when you replace their sexuality, in a world where different sexualities are treated equally?

 

How much of a person is defined by their sexuality in a world that treats the sexualities equally? How much of that person OTHER than the behavior that is immediately linked to his sexuality?

 

Of course you would treat mean and women differently based on your sexuality. I mean in disregard of that.

I mean everything of a personality that has nothing to do with that.

 

How much would change?

 

Hmm. There are two factors: (1) irrespective of our views on the matter, what are the cultural elements of this setting that would impact behavior due to sexual preference? (2) how tolerant would we be toward a different cultural perspective on the matter? I'm not sure the two can be treated independently.

 

For example, the ancient greeks societies tolerated pederasty. How would we feel about an island culture in PoE2 that permitted and even promoted pederasty? What if a pederastic Edér wanted to live there? How would you feel? Perhaps there would be a loud outcry to have that content removed? But pederasty has been accepted in many historical societies.

 

I'd say it is very difficult for developers to introduce modern cultural elements of sexual orientation into their games because of the societal baggage. Most likely they'll steer well clear of the topic, except for certain light touches.

[Fluffle]

@rjshae

 

For a very long time I have thought that the developers would invent their own fantasy world and that they'd be free to do whatever they wanted with it. And of course I still think that. BUT...

 

that fantasy world is going to be judged by people from THIS world. And people from this world will judge it by the standards of this world respectively the cultures of this world (respectively their upbringing).

 

For some naive reason I always expected people to judge a fantasy world by the standards of the fantasy world, not by our world. And I admit that that is hardly possible. It's a very naive, unrealistic thought.

 

So I don't think anymore either that your point (1) and (2) can be treated independently. I think, they cannot.

 

Just as the developers are free to design their fantasy world however they want, the players of their game are free to have an opinion on that world. And that opinion is of course influenced by our world's standards, societies etc.

 

And yet... in the end it's a game. And as such it is, ultimately, a part of our world. So it may change and influence our opinions.

 

I wouldn't want any game to make someone feel like the game has an "agenda" or that the game tries to brainwash them. Maybe just make someone start to think about things. And you are always free to not change your opinion.

 

All in all I believe it's a very thin line of balancing if you introduce modern topics of equality into a game. There are a lot of people who like that, and a lot who dislike it. And if you as a developer fail to balance that thin line, you may very well experiment harassment and threats (going even so far as death threats in the most extreme cases).

[Wormerine]

@rjshae

 

For a very long time I have thought that the developers would invent their own fantasy world and that they'd be free to do whatever they wanted with it. And of course I still think that. BUT...

 

that fantasy world is going to be judged by people from THIS world. And people from this world will judge it by the standards of this world respectively the cultures of this world (respectively their upbringing).

 

For some naive reason I always expected people to judge a fantasy world by the standards of the fantasy world, not by our world. And I admit that that is hardly possible. It's a very naive, unrealistic thought.

 

So I don't think anymore either that your point (1) and (2) can be treated independently. I think, they cannot.

 

Just as the developers are free to design their fantasy world however they want, the players of their game are free to have an opinion on that world. And that opinion is of course influenced by our world's standards, societies etc.

 

And yet... in the end it's a game. And as such it is, ultimately, a part of our world. So it may change and influence our opinions.

 

I wouldn't want any game to make someone feel like the game has an "agenda" or that the game tries to brainwash them. Maybe just make someone start to think about things. And you are always free to not change your opinion.

 

All in all I believe it's a very thin line of balancing if you introduce modern topics of equality into a game. There are a lot of people who like that, and a lot who dislike it. And if you as a developer fail to balance that thin line, you may very well experiment harassment and threats (going even so far as death threats in the most extreme cases).

I think it depends how much "fantasy" is in the fantasy. if you world looks so much like ours, has similar culture and habits and yet dropps more problematic issues it can feel out of place. While don't have issues some people have with equal rights in games, I can understand why seeing "man and woman are equal" in medieval-like setting can be seen as wrong. I think, for example, that having an RPG where man and woman are not treated as equals is a very interesting proposition. Same with race or sexual orientation.It is, however, a tricky proposition and I am not surprised developers prefer to avoid that kind of approach.

[Witkh13]

Merry Meet!

 

For the relationships to be LGBT failed to be what the O.P. was referring to, feel do I.  Being wrong is possible for me.  However, what was apparent to me was asking if a character's sexuality will be able to 'flip' based on the protagonist/watcher's words and actions.

 

Why does a game have to satisfy only what you specifically want?  I mean logically, to be as profitable as it can be, a game should satisfy as many players as possible given the realm in which we live.  All fans should want the game to be as profitable as it can be, because it only increases Obsidian's interest in making a newer better games... more expansions and/or a hypothetical P.o.E. III.

 

Unless of course, in increasing sales the studio detracted from what the original audience wanted.  Yet that fails to be the case, because there has yet to be a game played by me;  That forces a player into picking any romance.  There has always been an option to be the loner.  And I have played... a lot of them.  Probably not all that exist though.

 

That would have been fantabulous in DA:I because the Red Jenny girl was the only one that was found to be attractive to me.  It would have been wonderful if those who wanted to romance her were free to pick male or female as the gender of their protagonist.

 

 

 

sorry if I am starting a controversial topic. my idea is not to get a flame war started, but I am interested in knowing what is obsidian position to companion sexuality. I would personally like if it was independent of. the player's choice in character. that is a companion will be attracted to a given gender and race regardless of who the player choose as a main character.

also I've notice that many of the female companions are not really conventionally atractive. pallegina being the exception, but with a very unattractive personality. perhaps a more conventionally attractive female character would be aappropriate for our mostly male player base.

I don't think that's what OE is going for. They're going for interesting complex characters. Not hot damsels with a ladyboner for the pc. I heard Bioware has a new game coming out, that will probably tickle your fancy. 

 

 

Yeah, this kinda thing alwayas annoys the heck out of me. People complain about LGBT romances as "pandering", but then ask for the romance options to pander to them instead. It's like the Cassandra debacle from DAi all over again

 

 

The constant flame wars that these otherwise frank, earnest, and innocent questions is annoying as well, to me.  Apparently there is a small but vocal portion of the population that mistakenly define all romance in stories to equal porn.  And they always 'reference' BioWare, ignoring that is probably a big part that helps them attract a bigger audience for their games.  'Appealing to a wider and more diverse audience' is a very sound business practice that many companies engage in to great success.

 

If the O.P.'s post is understood right by me;  Having most of the romancable NPC's sexuality alter based on the protagonist/watcher's words and actions sounds like a wonderstrukk idea.  The Red Jenny that BioWare had in DA:I always annoyed me because she was the only female character that was found to be attractive by me.  If they had given her the option to be, or become based on the player's words and choices, bisexual would have been a great boon to the game, believe do I.

 

Really the typical 'male' attitude towards romance in their RPGs should be the reverse of what it is.  Statistically speaking, women are most attracted to stories of romance.  So mixing romance, action, and adventure is... smart because they are doubling their audience.  Why certain men choose to dislike that is beyond the understanding of mine.

 

sorry if I am starting a controversial topic. my idea is not to get a flame war started, but I am interested in knowing what is obsidian position to companion sexuality. I would personally like if it was independent of. the player's choice in character. that is a companion will be attracted to a given gender and race regardless of who the player choose as a main character.

also I've notice that many of the female companions are not really conventionally attractive.  Pallegina being the exception, but with a very unattractive personality. perhaps a more conventionally attractive female character would be appropriate for our mostly male player base.

 

That really failed to be what the O.P. was going for, feel do I.  Why did you feel compelled to try insulting the O.P. and those who agree with them?  Are you really so insecure to require an entire game to pander to what only you want?  It would be just horrid if people who chose to think differently would be equally satisfied.

 

The word try also denotes failure;  That is the supposed insult fails to actually be an insult, outside of that person's mind, feel do I.  That is free of an intended insult from me, so if it is taken as offense then... well that is your choice.  Why and how would someone always know what other people thought?  Well unless their a Cipher and/or a Watcher.

 

The issue that some try to make fails to be present at all, think do I.  In every game that Obsidian, BioWare, and Bethesda has already made and included romance in the story;  There is always the option of ignoring the romance option in the game.  Recently they have begun to even highlight the dialogue options with hearts so the player knows that they will have a disappointed npc when they tell them to bugger off.

 

If there is any pandering at all, it is to the very faction of the audience who raise the biggest cow... almost to orbital level...   over it.  That is why the edges of the issue are also absolutely defined by the confines of their psyche.  So much so that people with the question are often hesitant to ask it;  For fear of offending others just by asking a question.

 

 

sorry if I am starting a controversial topic. my idea is not to get a flame war started, but I am interested in knowing what is obsidian position to companion sexuality. I would personally like if it was independent of. the player's choice in character. that is a companion will be attracted to a given gender and race regardless of who the player choose as a main character.

also I've notice that many of the female companions are not really conventionally attractive.  Pallegina being the exception, but with a very unattractive personality. perhaps a more conventionally attractive female character would be appropriate for our mostly male player base.

I don't think that's what OE is going for. They're going for interesting complex characters. Not hot damsels with a ladyboner for the pc. I heard Bioware has a new game coming out, that will probably tickle your fancy. 

 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Witkh13

[ShadySands]

So what's the verdict?

[HooAmEye]

Some people think it's a good way to please everyone, other call it immersion breaking. Some apparently don't think bisexuals are real, some guys got angry. Thread gets resurrected every few weeks. Cycle repeats, game comes out, players find out only Eothas is a romance option, everybody is happy