Player sexual companion

[SonicMage117]

Slight rephrase: Never have I seen a non-dating sim force you into a homosexual relationship. Which, I mean...it's a dating sim, you know *exactly* what you're getting into. Nobody plays a "daddy dating sim" expecting anything but dating dudes, right? Right?

 

For the sake of my faith in humanity I hope I'm right.

You're 100% right.

 

There is no rpg or game in general (that we know if right now) which forces you into a homosexual relationship, if it dies, it always makes sure to say so in the description to let players know exactly what they're getting into. And like you said, the devs are pretty loud about it.

 

There have always been rpg's and games in general which force you into a heteroexual relationship though. A bit strange when you think about it, since homosexuality isn't anymore accepted as it was years ago when gaming industry first kicked off.

 

Very interesting indeed.

Edited March 27, 2018 by SonicMage117

[Night Stalker]

There is no rpg or game in general (that we know if right now) which forces you into a homosexual relationship, if it dies, it always makes sure to say so in the description to let players know exactly what they're getting into. And like you said, the devs are pretty loud about it.

 

There have always been rpg's and games in general which force you into a homosexual relationship though. A bit strange when you think about it, since homosexuality isn't anymore accepted as it was years ago when gaming industry first kicked off.

 

Could you please elaborate on this, because the two emphasised pieces of texts seems to be in opposition.

[SonicMage117]

Yeah, the second paragraph was supposed to say Heterosexual lol

[algroth]

 

 

 

They don't fall within your blanket statement, however.

My favorite out of which you mention was Planecape Torment and that is probably only because it dared to push boundries in what was allowed on gaming whether it was about death or love, (shock value) making it unique among any rpg sub-genre. The others were generally pale in comparison if I were being honest. None of the games had terribly great writing, despite nostalgic fans crediting BG2 and PST having some if the greatest stories of all time.

Given what I've seen you credit as "great writing" in the past, I'll take this as high praise.

So, as I thought, resort to petty insults because there's no argument.

 

By the way, can you tell me what I've credited as good writing and how I'm wrong

 

I would discuss the matter in further detail if I thought it was worth the discussion, i.e. if I thought you were seriously defending the argument and not whoring for attention by means of posting deliberately incendiary and contrarian arguments (which are likewise rife of false assumptions, incorrect terminology, blanket statements and so on), and then acting like you're the victim of a spiteful board when called upon these. Your shtick runs very thin very fast, Sonic. But for the sake of offering a half-measure to your question, here's a pretty good video on the writing of Planescape: Torment:

 

Edited March 27, 2018 by algroth

[SonicMage117]

 

 

 

 

They don't fall within your blanket statement, however.

My favorite out of which you mention was Planecape Torment and that is probably only because it dared to push boundries in what was allowed on gaming whether it was about death or love, (shock value) making it unique among any rpg sub-genre. The others were generally pale in comparison if I were being honest. None of the games had terribly great writing, despite nostalgic fans crediting BG2 and PST having some if the greatest stories of all time.

Given what I've seen you credit as "great writing" in the past, I'll take this as high praise.

So, as I thought, resort to petty insults because there's no argument.

 

By the way, can you tell me what I've credited as good writing and how I'm wrong

I would discuss the matter in further detail if I thought it was worth the discussion, i.e. if I thought you were seriously defending the argument and not whoring for attention by means of posting deliberately incendiary and contrarian arguments (which are likewise rife of false assumptions, incorrect terminology, blanket statements and so on), and then acting like you're the victim of a spiteful board when called upon these. Your shtick runs very thin very fast.

You mean you would discuss the argument further if you could actually back up your claims about my personal preference.

 

You're either assuming or intentionally making up stuff and me asking where you got the info isn't trolling or whoring for attention. You tried to insult me by saying that my choice of games which represents sexual companionship or storylines is lesser than what you want in a game. I simply asked you where I've ever talked about this and you couldn't answer.

 

It's an easy cop-out but like I said, there are 2D platformers now with just as good wtiting as the sacred "Crpg's" of the lost generation, this isn't meant to insult anyone's favorite titles but I leave it to forums to be bothered by such small things.

Edited March 27, 2018 by SonicMage117

[Katarack21]

 

 

 

 

 

They don't fall within your blanket statement, however.

My favorite out of which you mention was Planecape Torment and that is probably only because it dared to push boundries in what was allowed on gaming whether it was about death or love, (shock value) making it unique among any rpg sub-genre. The others were generally pale in comparison if I were being honest. None of the games had terribly great writing, despite nostalgic fans crediting BG2 and PST having some if the greatest stories of all time.

Given what I've seen you credit as "great writing" in the past, I'll take this as high praise.

So, as I thought, resort to petty insults because there's no argument.

 

By the way, can you tell me what I've credited as good writing and how I'm wrong

I would discuss the matter in further detail if I thought it was worth the discussion, i.e. if I thought you were seriously defending the argument and not whoring for attention by means of posting deliberately incendiary and contrarian arguments (which are likewise rife of false assumptions, incorrect terminology, blanket statements and so on), and then acting like you're the victim of a spiteful board when called upon these. Your shtick runs very thin very fast.

You mean you would discuss the argument further if you could actually back up your claims about my personal preference.

 

You making up stuff and me asking where you got the info isn't trolling or whoring for attention. You tried to insult me by saying that my choice of games which represents sexual companionship or storylines is lesser than what you want in a game. I simply asked you where I've ever talked about this and you couldn't answer.

 

It's an easy cop-out but like I said, there are 2D platformers now with just as good wtiting as the sacred "Crpg's" of the lost generation, this isn't meant to insult anyone's favorite titles but I leave it to forums to be bothered by such small things.

 

That statement about 2d platformers now is accurate--Into The Woods is *amazing*--but it doesn't alter or change the fact that CRPG's of the past had some spectacular writing as well. PS:T is *amazingly* well written. It's story is *good*. It's characterization is deep and complex. It's narrative complexity is up there with any novel you care to name. It basically is an interactive novel--hell it contains more text than most novels.

[Elarie]

There's nothing wrong with writing the characters in any sexual orientation, but Bioware's explicit branding as a 'socially responsible' company that represents 'disenfranchised minorities' in gaming, via force-feeding players their 'progressive content' (or, rather the idea that implement it- the content was mostly subtle in the game itself),  coupled with a toxic player-base that evolved into an inquisition on their forums, helped by terrible community (mis)management and Gaider's comments (who is bisexual/gay and openly biased on the issue) has poisoned whatever 'good intentions' the idea once had.

 

It got to the point that anyone who was questioning Bioware's approach in the matter was attacked or banned on their forums for being a racist/nazi/discriminatory monster (myself included), turning what was once whimsical and flavorful (Planescape: Torment, Baldur's Gate 2), first into an obligatory 'dating sim' feature and subsequently to outright pandering of the very worst of BW's player base.

 

Thus, knowing the sort of people this content would attract and resenting Bioware because they couldn't just stick to being a video-game company and had to go on a crusade - I'm now dead against romances as a 'feature', particularly of the ones explicitly designed to promote 'social justice'. 

Saying someone who is bi/gay is biased on the issue of equality makes about as much sense as saying someone who is hetero does. I don't think they add them to promote social justice. They add them to include as much of their player base as they feasibly can. And because like you said it's now their brand and monies. I suspect with Obsidian's player base the community you are worried about won't happen. (Although the split in the communities surprises me with how many Bioware sequels Obsidian made)

[JerekKruger]

I would discuss the matter in further detail if I thought it was worth the discussion, i.e. if I thought you were seriously defending the argument and not whoring for attention by means of posting deliberately incendiary and contrarian arguments (which are likewise rife of false assumptions, incorrect terminology, blanket statements and so on), and then acting like you're the victim of a spiteful board when called upon these. Your shtick runs very thin very fast, Sonic. 

 

He's achieved the, reasonably, impressive feat of being the second person on my ignore list.

[SonicMage117]

I encourage you to block me if you do not like my comments or have an issue with me. You have that freedom

 

I know some wish me to disappear but unfortunately that's never going to happen.

Edited March 27, 2018 by SonicMage117

[algroth]

 

I would discuss the matter in further detail if I thought it was worth the discussion, i.e. if I thought you were seriously defending the argument and not whoring for attention by means of posting deliberately incendiary and contrarian arguments (which are likewise rife of false assumptions, incorrect terminology, blanket statements and so on), and then acting like you're the victim of a spiteful board when called upon these. Your shtick runs very thin very fast, Sonic. 

 

He's achieved the, reasonably, impressive feat of being the second person on my ignore list.

 

 

Yeah, I think that's a wise thing to do.

[SonicMage117]

By all means, block away kids!

 

If you haven't noticed by now, I'm not here for you or to make friends.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

Thus, knowing the sort of people this content would attract and resenting Bioware because they couldn't just stick to being a video-game company and had to go on a crusade - I'm now dead against romances as a 'feature', particularly of the ones explicitly designed to promote 'social justice'.

Including non-heterosexuals in a game is not a crusade. I think you need to look the word up, cause you don't seem to understand what it means, or your are exagerating in a way which is ridiculous.

 

 

And you're unaware of the zeal with which Bioware, and a part of their community, pushed the issue - ergo the crusade comment. No other video-game company made such an issue of it, nor were they as self-congratulatory over something so unimportant (in the grand scheme of things) as Bioware was. Way back when, you could take part in a gay marriage in Temple of Elemental Evil, and nobody cared (myself included), because it was obviously put in there just for the heck of it. In Arcanum, as well as some other games, you could actually engage in bestiality, but this was done as an obvious joke. Bioware made it an Issue, that eventually came to sting even more as their games got worse and worse but optional content that the forumites demanded was prioritized and included. 

 

I've never seen an argument against LGTBQA romances or characters that doesn't boil down to "Eww, that's gross and I don't want to see it in my game." and that is, frankly, bull****.

 

 

Actually, it's not bull****. It's an opinion, just like your own. People are fully within their rights to find something 'gross' and to rather not have it, or to push for other content they actually like instead, in the entertainment they're financing with their money.  You can argue: 'don't buy it if it turns you off', or ignore it - but that is completely besides the point of whether it is legitimate claim or not. It's equally legitimate to want it included.

 

Anyway, (any) romance is a feature I wouldn't pursue in an RPG (unless its an integral part of the narrative as was the case in Torment), which is why I'd rather have something else scripted in instead. Furthermore, I watched Bioware drive itself into a corner over that stupidity, culminating in the nonsensical orgy that was Dragon Age 2, and I don't want that of an Obsidian game. Most of all, I want Obsidian games to be about gaming, rather than the pandering, Liara salivating, SJW, toxic weeaboo fanservice Bioware fostered.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Drowsy Emperor

[Katarack21]

 

 

Thus, knowing the sort of people this content would attract and resenting Bioware because they couldn't just stick to being a video-game company and had to go on a crusade - I'm now dead against romances as a 'feature', particularly of the ones explicitly designed to promote 'social justice'.

Including non-heterosexuals in a game is not a crusade. I think you need to look the word up, cause you don't seem to understand what it means, or your are exagerating in a way which is ridiculous.

 

 

And you're unaware of the zeal with which Bioware, and a part of their community, pushed the issue - ergo the crusade comment. No other video-game company made such an issue of it, nor were they as self-congratulatory over something so unimportant (in the grand scheme of things) as Bioware was. Way back when, you could take part in a gay marriage in Temple of Elemental Evil, and nobody cared (myself included), because it was obviously put in there just for the heck of it. In Arcanum, as well as some other games, you could actually engage in bestiality, but this was. again, done as a joke.

 

I've never seen an argument against LGTBQA romances or characters that doesn't boil down to "Eww, that's gross and I don't want to see it in my game." and that is, frankly, bull****.

 

 

Actually, it's not bull****. It's an opinion, just like your own. People are fully within their rights to find something 'gross' and to rather not have it, or to push for other content they actually like instead, in the entertainment they're financing with their money.  You can argue: 'don't buy it if it turns you off', or ignore it - but that is completely besides the point of whether it is legitimate claim or not. It's equally legitimate to wanting it included.

Some opinions are just worthless trash. Does that offend you?

 

Well, it's just my opinion. You don't have a right to question it.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

 

Thus, knowing the sort of people this content would attract and resenting Bioware because they couldn't just stick to being a video-game company and had to go on a crusade - I'm now dead against romances as a 'feature', particularly of the ones explicitly designed to promote 'social justice'.

Including non-heterosexuals in a game is not a crusade. I think you need to look the word up, cause you don't seem to understand what it means, or your are exagerating in a way which is ridiculous.

 

 

And you're unaware of the zeal with which Bioware, and a part of their community, pushed the issue - ergo the crusade comment. No other video-game company made such an issue of it, nor were they as self-congratulatory over something so unimportant (in the grand scheme of things) as Bioware was. Way back when, you could take part in a gay marriage in Temple of Elemental Evil, and nobody cared (myself included), because it was obviously put in there just for the heck of it. In Arcanum, as well as some other games, you could actually engage in bestiality, but this was. again, done as a joke.

 

I've never seen an argument against LGTBQA romances or characters that doesn't boil down to "Eww, that's gross and I don't want to see it in my game." and that is, frankly, bull****.

 

 

Actually, it's not bull****. It's an opinion, just like your own. People are fully within their rights to find something 'gross' and to rather not have it, or to push for other content they actually like instead, in the entertainment they're financing with their money.  You can argue: 'don't buy it if it turns you off', or ignore it - but that is completely besides the point of whether it is legitimate claim or not. It's equally legitimate to wanting it included.

Some opinions are just worthless trash. Does that offend you?

 

Well, it's just my opinion. You don't have a right to question it.

 

 

I'm not questioning it, I respect your response more than you did mine. 

[Katarack21]

 

 

 

 

Thus, knowing the sort of people this content would attract and resenting Bioware because they couldn't just stick to being a video-game company and had to go on a crusade - I'm now dead against romances as a 'feature', particularly of the ones explicitly designed to promote 'social justice'.

Including non-heterosexuals in a game is not a crusade. I think you need to look the word up, cause you don't seem to understand what it means, or your are exagerating in a way which is ridiculous.

 

 

And you're unaware of the zeal with which Bioware, and a part of their community, pushed the issue - ergo the crusade comment. No other video-game company made such an issue of it, nor were they as self-congratulatory over something so unimportant (in the grand scheme of things) as Bioware was. Way back when, you could take part in a gay marriage in Temple of Elemental Evil, and nobody cared (myself included), because it was obviously put in there just for the heck of it. In Arcanum, as well as some other games, you could actually engage in bestiality, but this was. again, done as a joke.

 

I've never seen an argument against LGTBQA romances or characters that doesn't boil down to "Eww, that's gross and I don't want to see it in my game." and that is, frankly, bull****.

 

 

Actually, it's not bull****. It's an opinion, just like your own. People are fully within their rights to find something 'gross' and to rather not have it, or to push for other content they actually like instead, in the entertainment they're financing with their money.  You can argue: 'don't buy it if it turns you off', or ignore it - but that is completely besides the point of whether it is legitimate claim or not. It's equally legitimate to wanting it included.

Some opinions are just worthless trash. Does that offend you?

 

Well, it's just my opinion. You don't have a right to question it.

 

 

I'm not questioning it, I respect your response more than you did mine. 

 

There is no rule saying I have to respect your opinion. It's an opinion. That means it's up for debate and I can call it horse **** all day long. I can insult your opinion without insulting *you*. Your opinion is an inanimate concept, an *idea* based on nothing more than what you think, and ideas are always open to criticism.

[Yosharian]

 

 

Thus, knowing the sort of people this content would attract and resenting Bioware because they couldn't just stick to being a video-game company and had to go on a crusade - I'm now dead against romances as a 'feature', particularly of the ones explicitly designed to promote 'social justice'.

Including non-heterosexuals in a game is not a crusade. I think you need to look the word up, cause you don't seem to understand what it means, or your are exagerating in a way which is ridiculous.

I've never seen an argument against LGTBQA romances or characters that doesn't boil down to "Eww, that's gross and I don't want to see it in my game." and that is, frankly, bull****.

 

If you don't want to romance Anders, *don't*. It's that's simple. Nobody is forcing it down your throat. It's there as an option for people who want that. It's entirely up to you whether you pursue it. I played a male character who was best bro's with Anders, for the express purpose of murdering Templars, and romance never came up between us *because I never picked that option*. In fact through all of DAII and DA:I I never romanced *anybody*. My character was way to focused on fighting Templars and defeating Corypheus to even think about romancing anybody. In the ME series, I romanced Ashley Williams, because she was awesome, and held to that through the whole series. Again, it was an option that I chose.

 

Literally never have I seen a game *force* you into a homosexual relationship with anybody. The idea is frankly ridiculous.

> romance never came up between us *because I never picked that option*

 

Pretty sure you're wrong on that point

[MortyTheGobbo]

I can confirm that neither of my Hawkes have ever had Anders come on to them this way. One of them was pro-Templar, the other pro-Mage, so they covered the spectrum of their relation to Anders.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

 

 

 

Thus, knowing the sort of people this content would attract and resenting Bioware because they couldn't just stick to being a video-game company and had to go on a crusade - I'm now dead against romances as a 'feature', particularly of the ones explicitly designed to promote 'social justice'.

Including non-heterosexuals in a game is not a crusade. I think you need to look the word up, cause you don't seem to understand what it means, or your are exagerating in a way which is ridiculous.

 

 

And you're unaware of the zeal with which Bioware, and a part of their community, pushed the issue - ergo the crusade comment. No other video-game company made such an issue of it, nor were they as self-congratulatory over something so unimportant (in the grand scheme of things) as Bioware was. Way back when, you could take part in a gay marriage in Temple of Elemental Evil, and nobody cared (myself included), because it was obviously put in there just for the heck of it. In Arcanum, as well as some other games, you could actually engage in bestiality, but this was. again, done as a joke.

 

I've never seen an argument against LGTBQA romances or characters that doesn't boil down to "Eww, that's gross and I don't want to see it in my game." and that is, frankly, bull****.

 

 

Actually, it's not bull****. It's an opinion, just like your own. People are fully within their rights to find something 'gross' and to rather not have it, or to push for other content they actually like instead, in the entertainment they're financing with their money.  You can argue: 'don't buy it if it turns you off', or ignore it - but that is completely besides the point of whether it is legitimate claim or not. It's equally legitimate to wanting it included.

Some opinions are just worthless trash. Does that offend you?

 

Well, it's just my opinion. You don't have a right to question it.

 

 

I'm not questioning it, I respect your response more than you did mine. 

 

There is no rule saying I have to respect your opinion. It's an opinion. That means it's up for debate and I can call it horse **** all day long. I can insult your opinion without insulting *you*. Your opinion is an inanimate concept, an *idea* based on nothing more than what you think, and ideas are always open to criticism.

 

 

It's the tone of your post that speaks of what you're bringing to the conversation. You know this as well as I do, which is why you're now trying to make it sound like you weren't trying to insult with your post, which you were. If you wanted to be critical there are xy different ways to express it. 

 

*shrug* It doesn't really matter though.

[Katarack21]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thus, knowing the sort of people this content would attract and resenting Bioware because they couldn't just stick to being a video-game company and had to go on a crusade - I'm now dead against romances as a 'feature', particularly of the ones explicitly designed to promote 'social justice'.

Including non-heterosexuals in a game is not a crusade. I think you need to look the word up, cause you don't seem to understand what it means, or your are exagerating in a way which is ridiculous.

 

 

And you're unaware of the zeal with which Bioware, and a part of their community, pushed the issue - ergo the crusade comment. No other video-game company made such an issue of it, nor were they as self-congratulatory over something so unimportant (in the grand scheme of things) as Bioware was. Way back when, you could take part in a gay marriage in Temple of Elemental Evil, and nobody cared (myself included), because it was obviously put in there just for the heck of it. In Arcanum, as well as some other games, you could actually engage in bestiality, but this was. again, done as a joke.

 

I've never seen an argument against LGTBQA romances or characters that doesn't boil down to "Eww, that's gross and I don't want to see it in my game." and that is, frankly, bull****.

 

 

Actually, it's not bull****. It's an opinion, just like your own. People are fully within their rights to find something 'gross' and to rather not have it, or to push for other content they actually like instead, in the entertainment they're financing with their money.  You can argue: 'don't buy it if it turns you off', or ignore it - but that is completely besides the point of whether it is legitimate claim or not. It's equally legitimate to wanting it included.

Some opinions are just worthless trash. Does that offend you?

 

Well, it's just my opinion. You don't have a right to question it.

 

 

I'm not questioning it, I respect your response more than you did mine. 

 

There is no rule saying I have to respect your opinion. It's an opinion. That means it's up for debate and I can call it horse **** all day long. I can insult your opinion without insulting *you*. Your opinion is an inanimate concept, an *idea* based on nothing more than what you think, and ideas are always open to criticism.

 

 

It's the tone of your post that speaks of what you're bringing to the conversation. You know this as well as I do, which is why you're now trying to make it sound like you weren't trying to insult with your post, which you were. If you wanted to be critical there are xy different ways to express it. 

 

*shrug* It doesn't really matter though.

 

No, I really wasn't. You took it personal--that's on you. I was insulting the idea that gay people are gross. Nothing in my post hints at anything else. I didn't even *mention* you because I was talking in generics about the greater gaming community, not about you. You're just really sensitive about this issue.

[Yosharian]

From a forum thread I found:

 

 

 

It's only forced in the sense that, by simply being nice to him, playing as a male Hawke you will be confronted with a dialog wheel response tree consisting only of "Flirt with" or "Completely end any pretense of a relationship" responses (this may be true while playing as a female Hawke as well, but in that case I was actively trying to pick those responses so I might have "pre-empted" it).

 

Or in other words, Anders, alone among the various npcs you can "romance", actually initiates that conversation himself, even if you were not necessarily trying to flirt with him, and forces you to make a decision right away (and not flirting back gets you rivalry points). Isabella might be far more openly flirtatious pretty much all the time, but she doesn't force you to decide to start pursuing a romance with her or shut her down completely in the second bloody proper conversation you have.

 

So yes, I guess I would say that his romance felt forced, because all of a sudden through no desire on my part my male character was being hit on by another dude. With Fenris, the option is there but you have to actually pick it first, if you decide to pursue that it is clearly your decision; with Anders they've coded in a "decide your character is a homosexual/bisexual" or "stay straight/just not into Anders and get rivalry points" conversation gate, which is really kind of stupid - there should absolutely be a way to be nice to the guy without making players playing a male Hawke as a straight male pick the jackass response to stay straight in-game. The way it is now, Bioware seems to equate "being a straight male" with "being a jerk" - as a straight male myself, that kind of offends me.

 

So yeah, it's not so much that the designers pushed Anders onto the player, it's that they force the issue of whether or not your character would even want to consider a relationship with Anders onto the player, and don't give you a nice way to let him down.

 

 

This is how I remember it.  I could have remembered it wrong, but I don't think so.

 

The thing I remember so vividly is that there was no nice way to reject him, and doing so gained 'rivalry points'.  I remembered it as 'loss of friendship points' but now I remember it was rivalry points that are gained. I was quite irritated by that.  And I really didn't like the way the writers portrayed Anders in DA2 either.

 

As for DrowsyEmperor's comment on Bioware, I don't think he was arguing against the inclusion of LGBTQ+ romances exactly, but I may have misunderstood his words.

 

Edit: more comments I found in the forum thread

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's see, they make Anders go for you immediately, in a fairly mandatory quest, putting you in a make-or-break situation that you have to propagate yourself with almost shameless flirting with every other character. Yes, I'd say it was forced. Especially because he hates you afterwards (unless you're a mage-lover or a paragon of virtue). If this was their attempt to make a good character that oh just happens to be gay (let's face it,he was pretty obvious with the implications of his relationship with that friend who's name I've already forgotten), then they failed miserably (not to mention that Anders got over him pretty fast). There was a lot that they could have done there, especially with the dual metaphor, but then they made the game impersonal and poorly written at the best of times.

 

Hawke tells him, angrily, to stop thinking of him like that and he doesn't do that. It was completely uncalled for. I had to reload and pick a mild flirt option because I felt bad and there was no other option.

 

I honestly had to reload at one point because just being nice to him was leading to a Romance like a freight train.

 

That was the moment that made me hate Bioware for the forced romance. I either rudely yell at him to stop thinking about me like that or flirt with him. Why is there no middle ground like with Zevran? It was so unrealistic.

Edited March 28, 2018 by Yosharian

[Drowsy Emperor]

I actually had Zevran try to kill me immediately after rejecting his advances (with a male PC). I don't know whether that was the result of the script or merely one more minus that tipped the scale.

 

Nevertheless at the time I was like, 'What, seriously?'.

[Katarack21]

 

From a forum thread I found:

 

 

 

It's only forced in the sense that, by simply being nice to him, playing as a male Hawke you will be confronted with a dialog wheel response tree consisting only of "Flirt with" or "Completely end any pretense of a relationship" responses (this may be true while playing as a female Hawke as well, but in that case I was actively trying to pick those responses so I might have "pre-empted" it).

 

Or in other words, Anders, alone among the various npcs you can "romance", actually initiates that conversation himself, even if you were not necessarily trying to flirt with him, and forces you to make a decision right away (and not flirting back gets you rivalry points). Isabella might be far more openly flirtatious pretty much all the time, but she doesn't force you to decide to start pursuing a romance with her or shut her down completely in the second bloody proper conversation you have.

 

So yes, I guess I would say that his romance felt forced, because all of a sudden through no desire on my part my male character was being hit on by another dude. With Fenris, the option is there but you have to actually pick it first, if you decide to pursue that it is clearly your decision; with Anders they've coded in a "decide your character is a homosexual/bisexual" or "stay straight/just not into Anders and get rivalry points" conversation gate, which is really kind of stupid - there should absolutely be a way to be nice to the guy without making players playing a male Hawke as a straight male pick the jackass response to stay straight in-game. The way it is now, Bioware seems to equate "being a straight male" with "being a jerk" - as a straight male myself, that kind of offends me.

 

So yeah, it's not so much that the designers pushed Anders onto the player, it's that they force the issue of whether or not your character would even want to consider a relationship with Anders onto the player, and don't give you a nice way to let him down.

 

 

This is how I remember it.  I could have remembered it wrong, but I don't think so.

 

The thing I remember so vividly is that there was no nice way to reject him, and doing so gained 'rivalry points'.  I remembered it as 'loss of friendship points' but now I remember it was rivalry points that are gained. I was quite irritated by that.  And I really didn't like the way the writers portrayed Anders in DA2 either.

 

As for DrowsyEmperor's comment on Bioware, I don't think he was arguing against the inclusion of LGBTQ+ romances exactly, but I may have misunderstood his words.

 

Anders "flirt" deal is generic enough that it didn't strike me as being romantic. I *didn't pick the romance option* and I went on with my game; me and Anders stayed best bros fighting Templars together and it was never an issue. It's virtually impossible not to pick up some rivalry points with everybody, so that didn't bother me. It seemed to me less about my character being a jerk and more about Anders being miffed at getting rejected, which seems perfectly okay to me. Lots of people get a little pissy at being rejected, doesn't mean they can't still be best friends who bond over a mutual hatred of Templars.

 

Almost every character in that game has a dialogue at some point that seems a little iffy--it could be flirtatious it could be not--and that's generally the point where you get the option of clicking the "heart" icon or not doing so. With Anders the difference is that he comes right out about it and you have more "romance" options in the dialogue then "not romance" options, so you have to actually pay attention. The point is it's still just an *option*. You can choose to romance him or you can choose to *not* romance him; the choice is *entirely* up to you. It's not a forced relationship; at no point does the game *make* you be gay. You can be in a homosexual relationship, a straight relationship, or no relationship at all--your characters sexuality is *up to you*.

[Yosharian]

I actually had Zevran try to kill me immediately after rejecting his advances (with a male PC). I don't know whether that was the result of the script or merely one more minus that tipped the scale.

 

Nevertheless at the time I was like, 'What, seriously?'.

 

Well that's weird.  I turned Zev down too and he didn't try to kill me, haha.

 

I think you are remembering this wrong.  Zevran trying to kill you is a result of having low approval with him when the Antivan Crow encounter happens.  It may be indirectly affected by the romance thing though.

 

This is what I found on the Wiki:

 

 

 

After the Landsmeet quest has started, and while traveling through Denerim, Taliesen approaches the party and offers to take Zevran back to Antiva. If his approval rating is not high enough, Zevran (regardless of whether or not he's in the active party) will betray the team for the Crows and permanently die in the following confrontation. If this happens, his codex entry will be updated with details regarding his death. If he has high approval (+26, or at least at "warm" or "interested"), he will deny the Crows. If he is in a romance with the Warden and at least "interested" but below +71, he may refuse to fight, depending on how the Warden answers Taliesen. If this happens, the Warden will have the opportunity to question Zevran about his relationship with Taliesen later. Zevran expresses regret over killing Taliesen as, despite everything, Zevran had feelings for his fellow Crow. If he is in a romance with the Warden and the approval rating is high enough, he will fight alongside them against his fellow assassins. Afterward, Zevran states that the Crows will have assumed he rejoined Taliesin and subsequently died with him. This gives Zevran an opportunity to disappear before they learn otherwise, and his disposition will determine if he then asks for his freedom or to remain with the group and continue to fight the Blight.

Edited March 28, 2018 by Yosharian

[Yosharian]

 

 

From a forum thread I found:

 

 

 

It's only forced in the sense that, by simply being nice to him, playing as a male Hawke you will be confronted with a dialog wheel response tree consisting only of "Flirt with" or "Completely end any pretense of a relationship" responses (this may be true while playing as a female Hawke as well, but in that case I was actively trying to pick those responses so I might have "pre-empted" it).

 

Or in other words, Anders, alone among the various npcs you can "romance", actually initiates that conversation himself, even if you were not necessarily trying to flirt with him, and forces you to make a decision right away (and not flirting back gets you rivalry points). Isabella might be far more openly flirtatious pretty much all the time, but she doesn't force you to decide to start pursuing a romance with her or shut her down completely in the second bloody proper conversation you have.

 

So yes, I guess I would say that his romance felt forced, because all of a sudden through no desire on my part my male character was being hit on by another dude. With Fenris, the option is there but you have to actually pick it first, if you decide to pursue that it is clearly your decision; with Anders they've coded in a "decide your character is a homosexual/bisexual" or "stay straight/just not into Anders and get rivalry points" conversation gate, which is really kind of stupid - there should absolutely be a way to be nice to the guy without making players playing a male Hawke as a straight male pick the jackass response to stay straight in-game. The way it is now, Bioware seems to equate "being a straight male" with "being a jerk" - as a straight male myself, that kind of offends me.

 

So yeah, it's not so much that the designers pushed Anders onto the player, it's that they force the issue of whether or not your character would even want to consider a relationship with Anders onto the player, and don't give you a nice way to let him down.

 

 

This is how I remember it.  I could have remembered it wrong, but I don't think so.

 

The thing I remember so vividly is that there was no nice way to reject him, and doing so gained 'rivalry points'.  I remembered it as 'loss of friendship points' but now I remember it was rivalry points that are gained. I was quite irritated by that.  And I really didn't like the way the writers portrayed Anders in DA2 either.

 

As for DrowsyEmperor's comment on Bioware, I don't think he was arguing against the inclusion of LGBTQ+ romances exactly, but I may have misunderstood his words.

 

Anders "flirt" deal is generic enough that it didn't strike me as being romantic. I *didn't pick the romance option* and I went on with my game; me and Anders stayed best bros fighting Templars together and it was never an issue. It's virtually impossible not to pick up some rivalry points with everybody, so that didn't bother me. It seemed to me less about my character being a jerk and more about Anders being miffed at getting rejected, which seems perfectly okay to me. Lots of people get a little pissy at being rejected, doesn't mean they can't still be best friends who bond over a mutual hatred of Templars.

 

Almost every character in that game has a dialogue at some point that seems a little iffy--it could be flirtatious it could be not--and that's generally the point where you get the option of clicking the "heart" icon or not doing so. With Anders the difference is that he comes right out about it and you have more "romance" options in the dialogue then "not romance" options, so you have to actually pay attention. The point is it's still just an *option*. You can choose to romance him or you can choose to *not* romance him; the choice is *entirely* up to you. It's not a forced relationship; at no point does the game *make* you be gay. You can be in a homosexual relationship, a straight relationship, or no relationship at all--your characters sexuality is *up to you*.

 

 

What you said was 'romance never came up'.  That's clearly not the case with myself and all the people I quoted: romance does come up, and not only that but it is handled extremely poorly, in that the only option to turn him down is a particularly cold, heartless one, and then he has a hissy fit and gains rivalry points.

 

So romance does come up without any sexual interest being shown by the player.

 

Not saying any more than that, merely that what you said was inaccurate.

 

For the record I agree totally that even this doesn't represent the romance being 'forced down your throat'.

 

I actually think a lot of the hate Anders gets is simply because he is such a whiny bitch.  Zevran is way flirtier than he is but I distinctly remember turning down Zev and him being really cool with it, which contrasts sharply with Anders responds.

Edited March 28, 2018 by Yosharian

[Katarack21]

 

 

 

From a forum thread I found:

 

 

 

It's only forced in the sense that, by simply being nice to him, playing as a male Hawke you will be confronted with a dialog wheel response tree consisting only of "Flirt with" or "Completely end any pretense of a relationship" responses (this may be true while playing as a female Hawke as well, but in that case I was actively trying to pick those responses so I might have "pre-empted" it).

 

Or in other words, Anders, alone among the various npcs you can "romance", actually initiates that conversation himself, even if you were not necessarily trying to flirt with him, and forces you to make a decision right away (and not flirting back gets you rivalry points). Isabella might be far more openly flirtatious pretty much all the time, but she doesn't force you to decide to start pursuing a romance with her or shut her down completely in the second bloody proper conversation you have.

 

So yes, I guess I would say that his romance felt forced, because all of a sudden through no desire on my part my male character was being hit on by another dude. With Fenris, the option is there but you have to actually pick it first, if you decide to pursue that it is clearly your decision; with Anders they've coded in a "decide your character is a homosexual/bisexual" or "stay straight/just not into Anders and get rivalry points" conversation gate, which is really kind of stupid - there should absolutely be a way to be nice to the guy without making players playing a male Hawke as a straight male pick the jackass response to stay straight in-game. The way it is now, Bioware seems to equate "being a straight male" with "being a jerk" - as a straight male myself, that kind of offends me.

 

So yeah, it's not so much that the designers pushed Anders onto the player, it's that they force the issue of whether or not your character would even want to consider a relationship with Anders onto the player, and don't give you a nice way to let him down.

 

 

This is how I remember it.  I could have remembered it wrong, but I don't think so.

 

The thing I remember so vividly is that there was no nice way to reject him, and doing so gained 'rivalry points'.  I remembered it as 'loss of friendship points' but now I remember it was rivalry points that are gained. I was quite irritated by that.  And I really didn't like the way the writers portrayed Anders in DA2 either.

 

As for DrowsyEmperor's comment on Bioware, I don't think he was arguing against the inclusion of LGBTQ+ romances exactly, but I may have misunderstood his words.

 

Anders "flirt" deal is generic enough that it didn't strike me as being romantic. I *didn't pick the romance option* and I went on with my game; me and Anders stayed best bros fighting Templars together and it was never an issue. It's virtually impossible not to pick up some rivalry points with everybody, so that didn't bother me. It seemed to me less about my character being a jerk and more about Anders being miffed at getting rejected, which seems perfectly okay to me. Lots of people get a little pissy at being rejected, doesn't mean they can't still be best friends who bond over a mutual hatred of Templars.

 

Almost every character in that game has a dialogue at some point that seems a little iffy--it could be flirtatious it could be not--and that's generally the point where you get the option of clicking the "heart" icon or not doing so. With Anders the difference is that he comes right out about it and you have more "romance" options in the dialogue then "not romance" options, so you have to actually pay attention. The point is it's still just an *option*. You can choose to romance him or you can choose to *not* romance him; the choice is *entirely* up to you. It's not a forced relationship; at no point does the game *make* you be gay. You can be in a homosexual relationship, a straight relationship, or no relationship at all--your characters sexuality is *up to you*.

 

 

What you said was 'romance never came up'.  That's clearly not the case with myself and all the people I quoted: romance does come up, and not only that but it is handled extremely poorly, in that the only option to turn him down is a particularly cold, heartless one, and then he has a hissy fit and gains rivalry points.

 

So romance does come up without any sexual interest being shown by the player.

 

Not saying any more than that, merely that what you said was inaccurate.

 

For the record I agree totally that even this doesn't represent the romance being 'forced down your throat'.

 

I actually think a lot of the hate Anders gets is simply because he is such a whiny bitch.  Zevran is way flirtier than he is but I distinctly remember turning down Zev and him being really cool with it, which contrasts sharply with Anders responds.

 

Even so that only happens if you deliberately foster a relationship with him--you have to get to a certain point of friendship before he'll start that. If you don't talk to him and just use him as a fighting companion, that'll never happen; you also get several options to flirt with him before that starts. It's totally possible to play through the game with Anders as your companion and literally never have romance come up.

 

As a side note, I didn't even realize it was possible to romance Fenris and I *never* went without him in my party, because he's just a total badass. Just made me sad when I had to kill him at the end. ****ing Templars.