Player sexual companion

[Beyond The Sea]

If you talk about video game romance, Bioware will come up automatically. It's the only developer to consistently have romance in big mainstream titles. A big number of overall game romance is found in Bioware games. Mind you this isn't a generic romance discussion thread. This topic is about player-sexual i.e. same-sex romance in particular. And in terms in same-sex romance there is very little outside of Bioware games.

 

Mass Effect romances consist of just talking to your chosen option, flirting and having sex before the big finale. Dragon Age will additionally throw in gifts, reputation, friendship/rivalry. I have yet to play a romance that doesn't utilize something similar. Occasionally there is some dramatic tension like when your lover Anders blows up the Chantry and some of your companions demand you execute him or when Zevran will betray you if he doesn't like you enough. But generally it's rather tranquil. These romances are not for "fapping." They fulfil an emotional fantasy of sometimes an ideal relationship and true love. For gay and lesbian players this is rare in itself and addtionally it's a fantasy of acceptance and respect, which can be very powerful if you live in a place or have a family that doesn't accept you.

[MortyTheGobbo]

 

 

As far as "demands" go... fandoms have certainly become teeth-shatteringly obnoxious and supremely entitled nowadays. But let's not swing the other way and act like developers can just do whatever they want and no one can judge them. They put forward a product, and people will have expectations of it. Fair or otherwise. Desiring that they handle inter-character relationships a certain way is no different than desiring that they don't reduce party size to 5.

 

Of course they can do what they want. It's their thing and your expectiations dont matter. You don't have to buy it. Seeing everything as a product is a sickness. Is Game of thrones a product? No, it's a book, it's Martins story and if he had no interest in finishing it, nobody has the right to force him. Do you think if James Joyce had written Ulysses in a way his potential "customers" would have liked, anyone would give a **** about that book today?

 

If you want to see computer games as an art (which a lot of people claim they already are), than you have to trust the ****ing artist and dont interfere with his or her ideas. If you knew how to make a computer game you would do so, wouldn't you? But you dont.

 

 

Going by this "reasoning", we might as well shut this whole forum down. Because who are we to talk about how we'd like (or not) to have a five-person party, a walk toggle or a better stealth system, just to pick a few examples from the front page?

 

Or we can realize that saying how we'd like the game to have something, or even saying the game should have something, isn't the same as demanding anything.We're not sending them angry emails, we're discussing on their own, official message board.

[Lord_Mord]

 

Going by this "reasoning", we might as well shut this whole forum down. Because who are we to talk about how we'd like (or not) to have a five-person party, a walk toggle or a better stealth system, just to pick a few examples from the front page?

 

Or we can realize that saying how we'd like the game to have something, or even saying the game should have something, isn't the same as demanding anything.We're not sending them angry emails, we're discussing on their own, official message board.

 

That's easy. How many party members there are is a creative decision. So it's not up to us and I find the discussions about it as pointless as the discussion here. If that decision affects gameplay, you can complain about that. Bad gameplay is not a creative decision. But it's up to the devs to decide how to solve that problem.

Same for stealth. The stealth system hasn't much to do with creativity. Other than the writings of the characters. You could argue, that romances are just another subsystem, but even viewing it that way kills creativity instantly. See it more as a hypertext novel or something. You wouldn't want to interfere with the writing of a novel, wouldn't you? Like telling Mark Twain to not use the word ****, because it offends you? It wouldn't be the same book anymore.

 

Of course are discussions and demands not the same. But statements like: If the game does not have this or that, I feel offended, are just stupid. Pointing out that Lovecraft was a racist **** is totally valid. But demanding that he should not write like that or discussing in a forum how nice it would be if he wouldn't is pointless (Even more since he is dead ).

 

So why don't we concentrate on constructive things? In the case of romances: Instead of telling those people what to do with their creative content, why don't you make proposals on how to implement it. Or better: Don't make proposals. Discuss previous implementations of such a system and what went wrong there. I for one am more interested in how such a thing could be implemented in a way that does not feel like clicking through a lot of dialogue and triggering if-conditions than in the question if Pallegina would **** with me.

[Wormerine]

 

Point out the constructive discussion.  Comparing Bioware romances and saying which are worse is like comparing different types of poop, and the discussion here seems to be consisting of personal attacks and demands dressed up as 'requirements'.  If you actually want decent relationships in the game then the best thing would be to steer clear of anything Bioware related.  If all you want is gratuitous fap fantasy then at least have the guts and decency to admit to such.

 

 

Algroth, Beyond The Sea and I, among others, were discussing the inclusion, or lack thereof, of different kinds of romances. Romances from BW games were used as examples, mostly in terms of approach. If anything here is a personal attack, I'd say it's storming in and demanding everyone shut up. I haven't attacked anyone, nor have I felt attacked, until that point.

 

I understand not liking games by a particular developer, but the degree to which BioWare seems to set people off is... odd, to say the least.

 

As far as "demands" go... fandoms have certainly become teeth-shatteringly obnoxious and supremely entitled nowadays. But let's not swing the other way and act like developers can just do whatever they want and no one can judge them. They put forward a product, and people will have expectations of it. Fair or otherwise. Desiring that they handle inter-character relationships a certain way is no different than desiring that they don't reduce party size to 5.

Haha true, I am happy to admit that I have a broken heart relationship with Bioware (bioware-like) products. For a long time they used to be my go-to company. Baldur's Gate2 had a huge impact on me, and defined what I believed games could one day be. However, as the time went on and they increased their budget I started to like their games less and less. KOTOR was ok, but it felt like an RPG for people who dont want to play RPGs, with very constrained story (but a good one) and unengaging mechanics. Setting of Jade Empire was fresh but game itself was quite average. I did enjoy Mass Effect one and two but Dragon Age Origins was were my fanboism was broken. While hailed as return to Baldurs Gate roots I found the game to have much more in common with KOTOR than BG. Unlike KOTOR DA was very long and after an impressive opening act the game became boring. The story lacked good hook, darkspawn made of unengaging nemesis. The world tried to be "mature" but all it came down to was lots of lore dump and all fun sucked out of it. And sadely lore was very generic.

 

So yeah Dragon Age gets much more hate from me, than it probably deserves as after all it is a solid product. After DA went ever farther downhill (didn't play Inquisition. Heard it is ok) and Mass Effect fall flat on its face with ME3 plus a horrid idea of making KOTOR3 into MMO I lost any hope of seeing western RPG I will actually enjoy. Anthem demo looked pretty but I see nothing of interest in it, even if it is not a complete fake.

 

And there kickstarter comes in, Wasteland 2 turned out flawed but enjoyable enough, Pillars was pretty great. None of those had romances. Romances were a staple of Bioware ever since BG2 and one player choice they seemed to expend with every game was who you can sleep with. It might be unrelated with the fact that companions were gradually become less and less interesting to me. It is possible they would be just as bland if romance was never implemented. But if you say romance RPG I think Bioware just as when you say StarWars and love story I think "I don't like sand". Sure, it wasn't the reason prequels sucked and Han&Leia relationship was fun. But some scars don't heal that easily.

 

Of course, Obsidian might do justice to the idea of relationship and romance and it might end up being my favourite feature of Deadfire. I was horrified when CD Project RED announced Witcher 3 to be openworld as I don't enjoy those. Just like romances they always seem like a good idea on paper but usually turns out to shallow, or limited to really work. I, of course, has been proven wrong and I hope to be surprised by Deadfire. Until that timehowever, I will keep claiming that it is a bad idea, which brings little to the table but opens entire can of worms.

[LLaney]

 

Seriously: You don't mind if your fans take all that you've invented and break it down to a simple "cute or not"?

 

 

Nope

 

They're emotionally engaged. It makes me feel like I've done a good job. The alternative is they could just not care at all and say nothing, which means not only do I have no idea what people are interested in one way or the other, but I don't have fun threads like this to read.

[MortyTheGobbo]

 

 

Going by this "reasoning", we might as well shut this whole forum down. Because who are we to talk about how we'd like (or not) to have a five-person party, a walk toggle or a better stealth system, just to pick a few examples from the front page?

 

Or we can realize that saying how we'd like the game to have something, or even saying the game should have something, isn't the same as demanding anything.We're not sending them angry emails, we're discussing on their own, official message board.

 

That's easy. How many party members there are is a creative decision. So it's not up to us and I find the discussions about it as pointless as the discussion here. If that decision affects gameplay, you can complain about that. Bad gameplay is not a creative decision. But it's up to the devs to decide how to solve that problem.

Same for stealth. The stealth system hasn't much to do with creativity. Other than the writings of the characters. You could argue, that romances are just another subsystem, but even viewing it that way kills creativity instantly. See it more as a hypertext novel or something. You wouldn't want to interfere with the writing of a novel, wouldn't you? Like telling Mark Twain to not use the word ****, because it offends you? It wouldn't be the same book anymore.

 

Of course are discussions and demands not the same. But statements like: If the game does not have this or that, I feel offended, are just stupid. Pointing out that Lovecraft was a racist **** is totally valid. But demanding that he should not write like that or discussing in a forum how nice it would be if he wouldn't is pointless (Even more since he is dead ).

 

So why don't we concentrate on constructive things? In the case of romances: Instead of telling those people what to do with their creative content, why don't you make proposals on how to implement it. Or better: Don't make proposals. Discuss previous implementations of such a system and what went wrong there. I for one am more interested in how such a thing could be implemented in a way that does not feel like clicking through a lot of dialogue and triggering if-conditions than in the question if Pallegina would **** with me.

 

 

Okay, so you're essentially moving the goalposts and drawing arbitrary lines in order to keep telling people what they're allowed to discuss and how.

 

It doesn't matter if something is a "creative" decision. If Obsidian were to move towards stark good and evil lines in Deadfire, rather than murky morality, it'd be a creative decision. It's their story, their characters and their world, right? But I'd call it a bad decision and I would not hesitate to do it. Nor would a legion of other people.

 

Saying that including romances, but not including any same-sex ones, sends a particular message is not being "offended". It's making an expectation of a game. You can disagree with it, but trying to paint it as silly people getting offended over nothing, and dredging up irrelevant controversial issues, is pretty low.

 

We have been concentrating on constructive things for most of this thread already, discussing if and how same-sex romances should be included. Including using previous attempts at such systems as examples... which got people mad, because BioWare is bad. How is that not constructive?

Edited August 10, 2017 by MortyTheGobbo

[Lord_Mord]

 

Okay, so you're essentially moving the goalposts and drawing arbitrary lines in order to keep telling people what they're allowed to discuss and how.

 

I'm not allowing or disallowing anything. I just said it's pointless and proposed to have a more constructive discussion.

 

 

Saying that including romances, but not including any same-sex ones, sends a particular message is not being "offended". It's making an expectation of a game. You can disagree with it, but trying to paint it as silly people getting offended over nothing, and dredging up irrelevant controversial issues, is pretty low.

 

This discussion is even more pointless, as there are seven companions. Not all of them are "romancable", the wording "or even love" on Josh Sawyers Whitboard tells me, that it will not be very likely for most of the companions to have a romance. Considering what Obsidian said about relationships, I think it's also very unlikely that they go with a solution like a "player sexual companion", as this a very generic thing. So there is room for just a few romances and simply not possible to satisfy everyone.

I even think that the relationship system will work in a different way than previous systems from other games, so the usual concepts will not fit in there. But maybe I'm expecting too much here. So I think, as we don't know **** about what they are building there, discussing it in that way is silly and people getting offended over nothing, before that nothing even happened are definitely silly. Me pointing that out is just obvious, not low.

 

 

We have been concentrating on constructive things for most of this thread already, discussing if and how same-sex romances should be included. Including using previous attempts at such systems as examples... which got people mad, because BioWare is bad. How is that not constructive?

 

That was the most constructive part of the discussion and it ended up in Bioware-Bashing, without someone even noticing the point you made. Does that sound constructive to you?

 

 

Nope

 

They're emotionally engaged. It makes me feel like I've done a good job. The alternative is they could just not care at all and say nothing, which means not only do I have no idea what people are interested in one way or the other, but I don't have fun threads like this to read.

 

Then you are a very positive and patient person. If I was to read this, I would do the exact opposite of what people want me to. Like for example a heterosexual, unhappy marriage with an alcoholic, abusive Eder or something.

[Lord_Mord]

P.S.: Did anyone play BG with the Breagar Mod installed? I think something like that could be what Josh meant in the relationship video. If I'm correct, it would simply not matter whom Aloth/Pallegina/XY is "into", as it would be more about friendship/companionship and character development. Making him '"romancable" would weaken his character and make him less believable. And it would certainly not be possible to write Breagar as "player sexual" without ruining him totally.

[kierun]

My main issue with romances in computer games -- not that anyone cares for my opinion -- is that it cheapens relationships to "do X, Y, and Z to get laid". That is not how relationships works in real life, unless there is a money exchange⸮

 

I would like to see the reverse for one: an NPC trying to romance the PC… Do you respond? If so, how?… What consequences of your acceptance/rejection occur? This would maybe make the whole thing more interesting.

[Fluffle]

What I have always failed to understand is why quite so many people fear that Obsidian Entertainment would do romances the same way (the new) Bioware has done.
You really think Sawyer would look at modern Bioware titles for how to do romance? I would guess he would look at them for how NOT to do them.

 

Seriously why do you (if this applies to you) think there either can only be modern Bioware romances in a video game or none?

 

Does Obsidian Entertainment mean so little to you that you would think they cannot do romance in a better way?

Obsidian is not Bioware. Disliking Bioware romances and then concluding that no game should have romances... I do not understand this line of reasoning.

 

That's the one point. My other point is that I can understand if some people are simply fed up with this demanding attitude. There are so many people who do not only say that they like romances. They directly, outrightly demand romances in a game and get angry or offended if they don't get what they - in their eyes - rightfully deserve.

 

Expressing that someone likes or dislikes romances is fine. But this demanding attitude is so annoying at least to me.

 

I myself I do enjoy modern Bioware romances but - here comes the catch - in modern Bioware games only. They would not work in Pillars of Eternity, in my opinion. They would in fact ruin the characters, I fear. But I have no reason to believe that Obsidian would make their romances just the same way as modern Bioware has done.
 

I would be very grateful to the devs at Obsidian Entertainment if they found a new way mechanism to incorporate romances into a game. And if I was asked where they could find inspiration from other games I would point them to Planescape:Torment and Mask of the Betrayer (Safiya) for once.

[Juodas Varnas]

You know what? I'm kinda disappointed.

 

I mean, we're getting possible romance with companions in PoE 2, but GRIEVING MOTHER ISN'T RETURNING?!... What? I'd totally romance her.

[smjjames]

She doesn't seem like a particularily great romance target, but your opinion is your opinion, *shrug*.

[Fluffle]

Now I'd like to share my view on same-sex romances and relationships.

When you do go the romance way, what I often found is that players actually expect LBGT characters to be treated in the respective fantasy world the very same way as in our world.

 

Meet a transgender person in Baldur's Gate? Has to be treated like transgender persons in our world. Meet one in a futuristic setting of Mass Effect? She has to act and feel the same way as transgender persons do here on earth in our time. Meet a gay character in a fantasy world? They have to be treated like in medieval times on our world.

 

What many, many, many people fail to understand is that fantasy worlds and science fiction worlds do not have to abide by how we treat "different" people here on our world or how we treated them in the past EVEN IF the fanatsy/sci-fi world may have been inspired by our world. The designers of fantasy/sci-fi worlds are free to set up their own rules how LBGT characters are treated in their worlds.

 

And that is what the developers should do first. Because players from this world do have certain expectations how LBGT characters and LBGT topics should be treated. Because they have witnessed how they are treated here. So please, as a developer, make sure to deliver that message clearly, how LBGT characters are treated in your world. And do that first. And only then, afterwards you can think of designing such a character.

 

And in any case it might be quite helpful to talk to authors/designers who are familiar with designing/telling the stories of LBGT characters.

 

Over the years I have heard so many many arguments how that LBGT character CANNOT act that way in that fantasy/sci-fi setting because they would never act that way here in our world in our time. Ugh. Or they would never be treated that way by other people because that's not what we do here on earth. Ugh.

 

Anyway, another topic would I find worth exploring is same-sex relationships (as in friendship, "bro"). Especially between males, I would like to see that. The reason is that, to my opinion, two males in a very very close and deep friendship (but not romance) are in danger of being stigmatized for being gay.

 

In our world women seem to be fine cuddling with other women, or holding hands and what not (maybe even sharing some few innocent kisses) and few would think they might be lesbians. But guys doing that? Must be gay! Has to be! Can't be another explanation!

 

If the developers would first set up and define the rules how these things work in their world (respectively in the different cultures in their world) and then manage to play a bit intelligently with the expectations from our world. That would intrigue me.
 

Also please don't include anything just for the sake of inclusion. If you include an LBGT character just so you can say you are inclusive the chances are high the character and their story feel artificially tagged on. I don't think anyone would like that

[algroth]

Now I'd like to share my view on same-sex romances and relationships.

 

When you do go the romance way, what I often found is that players actually expect LBGT characters to be treated in the respective fantasy world the very same way as in our world.

 

Meet a transgender person in Baldur's Gate? Has to be treated like transgender persons in our world. Meet one in a futuristic setting of Mass Effect? She has to act and feel the same way as transgender persons do here on earth in our time. Meet a gay character in a fantasy world? They have to be treated like in medieval times on our world.

 

What many, many, many people fail to understand is that fantasy worlds and science fiction worlds do not have to abide by how we treat "different" people here on our world or how we treated them in the past EVEN IF the fanatsy/sci-fi world may have been inspired by our world. The designers of fantasy/sci-fi worlds are free to set up their own rules how LBGT characters are treated in their worlds.

 

And that is what the developers should do first. Because players from this world do have certain expectations how LBGT characters and LBGT topics should be treated. Because they have witnessed how they are treated here. So please, as a developer, make sure to deliver that message clearly, how LBGT characters are treated in your world. And do that first. And only then, afterwards you can think of designing such a character.

 

And in any case it might be quite helpful to talk to authors/designers who are familiar with designing/telling the stories of LBGT characters.

 

Over the years I have heard so many many arguments how that LBGT character CANNOT act that way in that fantasy/sci-fi setting because they would never act that way here in our world in our time. Ugh. Or they would never be treated that way by other people because that's not what we do here on earth. Ugh.

 

Anyway, another topic would I find worth exploring is same-sex relationships (as in friendship, "bro"). Especially between males, I would like to see that. The reason is that, to my opinion, two males in a very very close and deep friendship (but not romance) are in danger of being stigmatized for being gay.

 

In our world women seem to be fine cuddling with other women, or holding hands and what not (maybe even sharing some few innocent kisses) and few would think they might be lesbians. But guys doing that? Must be gay! Has to be! Can't be another explanation!

 

If the developers would first set up and define the rules how these things work in their world (respectively in the different cultures in their world) and then manage to play a bit intelligently with the expectations from our world. That would intrigue me.

 

Also please don't include anything just for the sake of inclusion. If you include an LBGT character just so you can say you are inclusive the chances are high the character and their story feel artificially tagged on. I don't think anyone would like that

 

I am in agreement with this, but I also want to point out again that fantasy is never written or created in a vacuum. The setting may not correspond to reality but it is written within a certain period for a playerbase that has a certain exposure to a topic or other. We as writers don't choose what is a controversial subject for our society and what isn't, and when it comes to their inclusion in any narrative piece, videogame or otherwise, we have to treat it with some awareness to that fact. If you want to make a society that doesn't bat an eye at homosexuality, that's fine, but as you mention it has to be set somehow first, you have to ease a sensitive audience into the fact first, and secondly you must address the 'why'. Any addition to a world that creates a exception or difference to our own (or to genre expectations) is bound to call attention to itself, and so when it just happens casually and without an apparent motive as is the inclusion of so many LGBT characters in videogames, it is bound to clash and feel forced. The ideal that sexuality should not matter and that it's the same if you love a man or woman only goes so far as a defense for what will normally be regarded as an exception to the norm, as by its exceptional status alone it'll call one's attention to the fact (we mustn't forget that, ultimately, we are still the exception to the rule, and for that matter a clear minority) - the inclusion isn't an invisible one, in the end you will be telling something by your choice of representing it, and the better you justify it, integrate it into a setting and work with it *directly*, the better it'll work.

 

Or so I see it, anyways. I still hold, however, that the character and theme must come before a relationship. A relationship, heterosexual or otherwise, will only work so long as it involves an interesting character with whom romance is both a natural progression and an aspect that can inform us better of their conflicts, anxieties and the ideas that drive them to exist in a story in the first place. This is, after all, ultimately a narrative work, and so everything we choose to include in it, it's because we want to tell something with it. Every trait informs us of who that character is and what they are meant to tell us as an audience. A character that only serves as a vessel for a romantic experience, which itself only exists because of fanbase pandering, is not a good character, and will not lead to a good romance.

Edited August 11, 2017 by algroth

[rjshae]

My main issue with romances in computer games -- not that anyone cares for my opinion -- is that it cheapens relationships to "do X, Y, and Z to get laid". That is not how relationships works in real life, unless there is a money exchange.

 

Yes, romantic interaction run via a state engine pretty much takes all the romance out of it. Developers probably need to find a way to create it using emergent gameplay mechanics. Not sure how you'd make that feel immersive in a cRPG though -- it might be too much like the Sims.

[Beyond The Sea]

A guy raged that a male romance option made the first move on him in Dragon Age 2. He wrote that games are for straight guys and he shouldn't have to deal with this gay stuff. He thought he was entitled that all games be made to suit him, because they always had been. Entitlement comes from privilege. Minorities asking for a piece of the cake is not entitlement, it's a call not even for equality, but to no longer be ignored, to acknowledge that we exist, and to be treated with some respect.

 

Relationships are a reached strech goal. Sawyer has confirmed there will be romantic relationships. Unless they are cut at some point. For now, they are coming. Hence all the talk and speculation. If this thread bothers you, don't read it.

Even if you don't want homosexuals in games, Obsidian already had gay and lesbians characters and even companions years ago. White March has a lesbian companion. Most importantly, you will not stop the discussion from happening. You will not stop games from becoming ever so slowly more inclusive and diverse.

[Wormerine]

What I have always failed to understand is why quite so many people fear that Obsidian Entertainment would do romances the same way (the new) Bioware has done.

You really think Sawyer would look at modern Bioware titles for how to do romance? I would guess he would look at them for how NOT to do them.

 

Seriously why do you (if this applies to you) think there either can only be modern Bioware romances in a video game or none?

 

Does Obsidian Entertainment mean so little to you that you would think they cannot do romance in a better way?

Obsidian is not Bioware. Disliking Bioware romances and then concluding that no game should have romances... I do not understand this line of reasoning.

Because some people have limited imagination. When I hear romance in Deadfire I think of other romances in RPGs I know and red light goes off in my head. To be honest we so little about the system, characters, and structure of the game anything we are writing is just second guessing and pointless venting. You must stop say, though, that it's lots of fun.

[Beyond The Sea]

My main issue with romances in computer games -- not that anyone cares for my opinion -- is that it cheapens relationships to "do X, Y, and Z to get laid". That is not how relationships works in real life, unless there is a money exchange⸮

 

I would like to see the reverse for one: an NPC trying to romance the PC… Do you respond? If so, how?… What consequences of your acceptance/rejection occur? This would maybe make the whole thing more interesting.

This is interesting. Trying to come up with improvements or alternatives is much harder than complaining.

 

Stardew Valley has you giving gifts. Fallout 4 has you doing quests. Whatever the game, you have to put at least some effort in. Work for it, get reward. Basic game principle. Is there any game that does it differently?

 

Come to think of it there are choose your own adventures/interactive fiction from Choice of Games. They usually have romance in some form. Some are more generic than others. Two I remember being above average. In particular Affairs of the Court: Choice of Romance did some interesting things. You go to court and get approached by men or women or both. You are courted. You have to navigate your admirer's advances. As the name suggests, it presents choices. An affair with the married king, the security of a wealthy, older gentleman or a handsome and passionate but impoverished man. You get some pros and cons. Your family tries to persuade you to get influence and chose the king or to shore up the family estate with some money. At the very least it's a change from the usual romances in interactive media.

[TheisEjsing]

My main issue with romances in computer games -- not that anyone cares for my opinion -- is that it cheapens relationships to "do X, Y, and Z to get laid". That is not how relationships works in real life, unless there is a money exchange⸮

Have you ever been in a relationship where there is no money exchange? I call balderdash.

[Beyond The Sea]

Because some people have limited imagination. When I hear romance in Deadfire I think of other romances in RPGs I know and red light goes off in my head. To be honest we so little about the system, characters, and structure of the game anything we are writing is just second guessing and pointless venting. You must stop say, though, that it's lots of fun.

Well, we know a bit. Romances are part of the relationship system. We know how they work from Backer Update 13.

 

 

Relationships are based on likes and dislikes, love and hate for certain attitudes or behaviours. This will give reputation in some way, since there are breaking points for conversations. One of the listed option is actually "let the sparks fly." Down below are "feelings of intense loathing, or even love."

 

Edér likes it when you or your companions are nice to animals. He dislikes cruelty towards animals and zealots.

 

"We're not setting out to say, we're gonna have this many relationships of this type, or this many relationships of another type. What we wanna do is develop these companions organically in a way that feels true to the character, and the sort of interactions that they will have."

 

I assume this means that relationships are not predetermined and can develop depending on how the Watcher behaves. It may refer to what he said on tumblr, that not all companions are available for romance. Or he could mean something entirely different, not sure.

Edited August 13, 2017 by Beyond The Sea

[rjshae]

A guy raged that a male romance option made the first move on him in Dragon Age 2. He wrote that games are for straight guys and he shouldn't have to deal with this gay stuff. He thought he was entitled that all games be made to suit him, because they always had been.

 

Hmm. He pays for the games. Why shouldn't he expect that games be made for him? It's the same with every other consumer product. Calling it "entitlement" makes it sound like he's just supposed to accept whatever he is given without complaint. No, it doesn't work that way.

[Beyond The Sea]

 

A guy raged that a male romance option made the first move on him in Dragon Age 2. He wrote that games are for straight guys and he shouldn't have to deal with this gay stuff. He thought he was entitled that all games be made to suit him, because they always had been.

 

Hmm. He pays for the games. Why shouldn't he expect that games be made for him? It's the same with every other consumer product. Calling it "entitlement" makes it sound like he's just supposed to accept whatever he is given without complaint. No, it doesn't work that way.

 

That guy wanted to removed gay content because he didn't want to deal with it.

Should women be removed from games because sexist customers ask for it?

Should people of colour be removed from games because racist customers demand it?

[injurai]

When I went to The Force Awakens, I went expecting Star Wars and an honest effort at creating a good film that respects that established universe. I didn't go in expecting it to cater to me. I don't want it to cater to me, I want it to tell a story that unfolds before me.

 

So why does a game have to be a mirror that caters to me. It's almost insulting. You don't buy a game because you know every plot point and mechanic, you buy it to experience something unknown. No part of the consumer process promises everything that you are going to get. It's a voluntary transaction of which there are unknowns.

 

Never mind, sales exist to recoup expenses and risk. Movies and games are all funded ahead. So with Pillars, you aren't just representing any single backer anyways. When you backed, you backed knowing that things would be out of your control. That certain unknowns would remain unknown until launch.

 

I don't think entitlement comes from just privilege. I think entitlement comes from a lack of perspective and often willful ignorance. People are certainly entitled over things they shouldn't be, especially luxuries like games.

 

Man speaking about representation. Everyone is so transfixed on identities. But were are the traditional Turkish, Indian, non-diaspora Blacks that aren't historic set pieces? Entitlement even exists in the less represented but still represented identity groups. Very few people want to embody a universal ideal, they just want to live in an epoch of their own golden age. It's a bad mentality, entitlement.

[rjshae]

 

 

A guy raged that a male romance option made the first move on him in Dragon Age 2. He wrote that games are for straight guys and he shouldn't have to deal with this gay stuff. He thought he was entitled that all games be made to suit him, because they always had been.

 

Hmm. He pays for the games. Why shouldn't he expect that games be made for him? It's the same with every other consumer product. Calling it "entitlement" makes it sound like he's just supposed to accept whatever he is given without complaint. No, it doesn't work that way.

That guy wanted to removed gay content because he didn't want to deal with it.

Should women be removed from games because sexist customers ask for it?

Should people of colour be removed from games because racist customers demand it?

 

Oh sure, use straw man tactics.     

 

Right then, for the sake of discussion, I'll say yes. Sure it can be ugly... possibly even very ugly. But I think the player should be given a certain amount of leeway to customize a game experience to their preferences. The developers already have to take into account certain national preferences when developing their games. Why not convert that into a set of configurable options? Why shouldn't a man of African heritage have the option to convert the entire cast into people of color? He paid for the game. Why shouldn't a lesbian have the option to convert all romances into lesbian romances?

[MortyTheGobbo]

Are we really going to equate "I would like to play a character with the same sexual orientation as mine" with "I don't want a male character to express interest in my male PC, even though I can tell him to buzz off and he's a jackass anyway"? Because, like. If we want to talk about strawman arguments, treating a simple request for non-heterosexual romance options on the same level as rewriting characters' sexual orientation or ethnic backgrounds is... up there.

Edited August 13, 2017 by MortyTheGobbo