Same gender relationships clarifications?

[AquaSky]

I know that Star Wars isn't the epitome of realism, but the majority of people have a defined gender attraction (predominantly heterosexual or homosexual). Making all of the companions suddenly bisexual is kind of a cop-out.

 

I think it would be interesting if they implemented a system where at an earlier level you could opt for an alternate companion with a same-gender preference (New companion "X" instead of Vector, for example, for a male-male interest). That way, rather than turning all companions insta-bi or making those options endgame content, it would be a way to incorporate new companion romances into earlier levels.

[gekko_s]

Option 3 wouldn't mean the character has Straight stamped on their forehead. As far as I understand, it's always the character that initiates a flirt. Just like the class choice sometimes affects what options occur to the character to say in a certain encounter, the straight/bi/gay/asexual would customize in what situations it could occur to that character to flirt.

 

And also, it doesn't in the character's world have to mean that all these companions are bi. Mmorpgs are strange that way because you have all these parallell universes somehow connected together. In some of them, the villagers are dead, in others they've been rescued by our hero. In some X companion is straight and in others he could be gay. I don't see a problem with that.

Edited January 27, 2012 by gekko_s

[DarkPara]

And also, it doesn't in the character's world have to mean that all these companions are bi. Mmorpgs are strange that way because you have all these parallell universes somehow connected together. In some of them, the villagers are dead, in others they've been rescued by our hero. In some X companion is straight and in others he could be gay. I don't see a problem with that.

 

That is right, to a certain extent. But what bothers people opposed to the "every romancable available to both gender" principle is that, given a companion named X, the relationship involving "straight X" will be exactly the mirror of a relationship involving "gay X".

 

Well, it may suffice to some, but truth is a gay relationship is not born and does not develop the same way a straight one does. Changing the pronouns in the flirty dialog lines is not enough, because there are things one guy would naturally say to a woman, but wouldn't even think of telling a man, be he straight/gay/whatever.

 

Presently, existing romancable companions are built to be straight - their behaviour, their attitude, is in tune with it. Not all of them would be credible as bi, and even given to option to flirt with them being from the same gender, it just wouldn't feel realistic.

 

Of course, option 3 stays the most easy and quick way to allow SGRo, even more since depending of the class you have, you might have only one companion of a given gender potentially romancable. And I suppose anyone would be satisfied just with it, it's still better than nothing.

But that it still would feel like a "repairing" of the original release, and somehow break the precise characterisation (core work of the scenarists of the game) of each companion...

Edited January 27, 2012 by DarkPara

[Xilanada]

Now that I've killed the last 45 minutes of my life slogging through all the replies, two observations.

 

#1:

It seems pretty clear that this thread has not been left open by Bioware because they plan to give an official statement or ETA. It's probably open because of its inherent gameplay-oriented focus. I'd encourage participants to discuss 2a, 2b, or the other proposed variants including the gift approach. They're probably interested in seeing/counting how many people want 2a vs. 2b vs. something else. Given the logistics of implementation differ between those options, the best thing readers and posters can do is post their thoughts on what they'd like to see as a solution. Once they've collected enough data, they'll pick one and that's when you'll see an official statement or ETA.

 

#2:

I continue to be baffled by this reoccurring theme around exclusion. Making gay content is exclusive for hetero players, making hetero content is exclusive for gay players, etc. My proposal: Turn the paradigm around.

 

My hope is Bioware and other game companies make every character they develop potentially romanceable. Let the player decide who they want to hook up with. Let the player decide what it means. Ultimately, whether or not a given NPC is straight, gay or bi is (and should be) irrelevant because they're not a person, they don't need some kind of objective label. Imagine playing KOTOR where a male or female player character could romance Bastilla Shan, leaving it up to the player to decide if that made Bastilla straight, gay or bi.

 

Why do we limit ourselves by demanding some kind of universal objective playing experience where we get 'our way' at the expense of someone else? Is the only way to enjoy your hetero romance with the Atton Rand or your gay romance with Juhani is if you know that no one else can make Atton or Juhani gay or straight?

 

It's 2012, video games have been around for half a century. I think the game development world can move towards a model where every player who plays their game gets to decide who they want to hook up with and leave it at that.

[MusedMoose]

Option 3 wouldn't mean the character has Straight stamped on their forehead. As far as I understand, it's always the character that initiates a flirt. Just like the class choice sometimes affects what options occur to the character to say in a certain encounter, the straight/bi/gay/asexual would customize in what situations it could occur to that character to flirt.

I misunderstood option 3, and for that I apologize. I still dislike the idea of checking a box to determine my character's sexuality, though, because it cuts down on my options. For example, while my male smuggler chooses the [Flirt] option every time it comes up, which has been only with women, he seems to have such a bromance going on with Corso that I'd be half-tempted to pursue the Corso romance if it was available.

 

My hope is Bioware and other game companies make every character they develop potentially romanceable. Let the player decide who they want to hook up with. Let the player decide what it means. Ultimately, whether or not a given NPC is straight, gay or bi is (and should be) irrelevant because they're not a person, they don't need some kind of objective label. Imagine playing KOTOR where a male or female player character could romance Bastilla Shan, leaving it up to the player to decide if that made Bastilla straight, gay or bi.

 

Why do we limit ourselves by demanding some kind of universal objective playing experience where we get 'our way' at the expense of someone else? Is the only way to enjoy your hetero romance with the Atton Rand or your gay romance with Juhani is if you know that no one else can make Atton or Juhani gay or straight?

 

It's 2012, video games have been around for half a century. I think the game development world can move towards a model where every player who plays their game gets to decide who they want to hook up with and leave it at that.

*applause* Wholly agreed. I see no reason why my female JK being in a relationship with Kira should have any effect on any male JK's relationship with Kira. BW has touted the story of this game so much (with good reason), so I really hope they'll give us this option to determine this aspect of our own stories.

[stuffystuffs]

Well, it may suffice to some, but truth is a gay relationship is not born and does not develop the same way a straight one does.

 

I'm not sure what you are saying.

 

Really, is there a 'straight way' to start a relationship?

[AquaSky]

By the same token, why not allow a player to alter the companion's voice/attitude/reactions ? Part of the idea behind the companion storylines is that these characters have distinctive views, objectives, and ambitions - they're meant to embody distinct personalities. For better or worse, one's personality does incorporate sexual orientation. Changing that for each player creates inconsistencies and omitting it altogether leaves an incomplete picture. I think it does a disservice to the writers to shoehorn each and every companion into every romance possibility.

 

Do I think everyone should have an option that floats their boat ? Yep. But I don't think that making every companion character pansexual is the right way to go about it.

[MusedMoose]

By the same token, why not allow a player to alter the companion's voice/attitude/reactions ? Part of the idea behind the companion storylines is that these characters have distinctive views, objectives, and ambitions - they're meant to embody distinct personalities. For better or worse, one's personality does incorporate sexual orientation. Changing that for each player creates inconsistencies and omitting it altogether leaves an incomplete picture. I think it does a disservice to the writers to shoehorn each and every companion into every romance possibility.

 

Do I think everyone should have an option that floats their boat ? Yep. But I don't think that making every companion character pansexual is the right way to go about it.

I understand what you're saying, but I fail to see how changing someone's sexual orientation would change their views, objectives, and ambitions. Sexuality is part of what makes up a person, but it's far from all of it. To be a bit more specific with what I know of the companions so far, Corso could still be rugged and chivalrous no matter which way he swung, and Mako's upbeat personality and desire not to be thought of as a kid wouldn't change depending on who she wanted warming her bed.

 

And besides, there's always the option that I mentioned earlier, that the character thought of themselves as straight/gay, but they fell in love with a person of the same sex/opposite sex in spite of that. It happens in real life, it can happen in the game.

[Euripides]

Well, it may suffice to some, but truth is a gay relationship is not born and does not develop the same way a straight one does.

 

Yeah... this doesn't make any sense at all.

 

If there's a gay guy named Frank, and he likes a guy named Joe and Joe likes him back, they DO NOT have a gay relationship, they have a Frank and Joe relationship.

They aren't gay people who happened to be named Frank and Joe. Them being gay is just a sexual preference, not their only character trait.

[StSathar]

I misunderstood option 3, and for that I apologize. I still dislike the idea of checking a box to determine my character's sexuality, though, because it cuts down on my options. For example, while my male smuggler chooses the [Flirt] option every time it comes up, which has been only with women, he seems to have such a bromance going on with Corso that I'd be half-tempted to pursue the Corso romance if it was available.

 

I was also off-put by the way option 3 was worded, and I echo your original concern. Something like a character's sexuality, or even their general personality, may be something that develops over time, and it's not really fair to pigeon-hole them at birth. My characters were created with rough concepts of what they'd be like, but evolved quite differently as they "grew."

 

Rather than option 3 as written, I'd be more in favor of a pair of checkboxes on the settings screen, right under the profanity filter, one saying something like "Hide same gender flirtation/romance" and the other being "Hide opposite gender flirtation/romance." If you really want to pander to the majority, you can even default the first one to On (if you want to pander to over-protective parents, default both -- I think the profanity filter starts out enabled).

 

Oh, and yeah, Corso could switch teams in a heartbeat.

[DarkPara]

Yeah... this doesn't make any sense at all.

 

If there's a gay guy named Frank, and he likes a guy named Joe and Joe likes him back, they DO NOT have a gay relationship, they have a Frank and Joe relationship.

They aren't gay people who happened to be named Frank and Joe. Them being gay is just a sexual preference, not their only character trait.

 

Of course that is not what I meant.

 

A sensible point of view would be to say that each couple is different ; noneless, there are some archetypes, the reason why most people can rely (to a certain extent) to a sentimental comedy-type movie, or to a fairy tale. BUT the dynamics described by such archetypes are not *exactly* the same in a couple formed by two men, than in a couple formed by two women, or a couple formed by a man and a woman. Only a straight one could imagine that family roles of each in a same gender couple are inspired by the cultural model of the average straight married couple, and that one of the two "plays the male" and the other "plays the female".

 

What I mean is, gender and sexual/romantic orientation both have consequences on someone's personnality and behaviour, and thus, whatever orientation is concerned, you don't flirt with a man *exactly* the way you flirt with a woman. [Of course gender and orientation are only a part of the numerous elements that define a personnality, and you can't simplify things saying all men (resp. women) likes to be courted the same way - that does not make my precedent comment less relevant].

 

The reason I stressed that is, some people on this thread considered it would be OK to use whatever dialog lines already exist, and simply make them available to the other gender ; well no, that would not necessary work.

 

I don't mean either that will never work, of course, but some adjustements are necessary in the way companions address the player when it comes to expressing feelings : we all know guys are less explicit that girls on this matter, less talkative ; aware of this, a boy might force himself to tell his girlfriend phrases she feels in right to hear from him, but would rather keep in an implicit complicity with his boyfriend.

And to take a more blatant exemple, well, most sexual innuendos in a conversation are absolutly gender-oriented.

I'm pretty sure (not certain though) Anders and Fenris in DA 2 don't tell the same things to a fem Hawke that they tell a male one, and that companions' banter (which is not relevant in TOR since we only have one at a time) vary as well.

 

 

My hope is Bioware and other game companies make every character they develop potentially romanceable. Let the player decide who they want to hook up with. Let the player decide what it means. Ultimately, whether or not a given NPC is straight, gay or bi is (and should be) irrelevant because they're not a person, they don't need some kind of objective label. Imagine playing KOTOR where a male or female player character could romance Bastilla Shan, leaving it up to the player to decide if that made Bastilla straight, gay or bi.

 

Why do we limit ourselves by demanding some kind of universal objective playing experience where we get 'our way' at the expense of someone else? Is the only way to enjoy your hetero romance with the Atton Rand or your gay romance with Juhani is if you know that no one else can make Atton or Juhani gay or straight?

 

These high hopes need applause, and of course that is what shall be - but in a realistic way, meaning, straight Bastila having a slightly different dialog tree that lesbian Bastila - same for Juhani, Atton, etc.

Take Atton: there is a conversation between him and Bao-Dur regarding his feeling with the female Exile. Would this conversation have happen identically about a male Exile ? Would it even have taken place, considering Atton might want to ask for someone else's opinion than Bao Dur's on such a subject ?

I mean, yeah - gay romance and "bromance" are absolutely not the same, and yet, boys will be boys !

Edited January 27, 2012 by DarkPara

[Zandilar]

Toggles are a bad idea.

 

In essence, they allow a person to erase the existence of any group or groups they don't like from the Star Wars universe as portrayed in TOR for which there is a toggle.

 

If someone doesn't like or doesn't want a same gender romance, they are free to avoid using flirtatious responses to same gender NPCs. That is all the toggle that is needed in the game.

 

What is good for the goose (me, avoiding flirt options with male NPCs), is good for the gander (prejudiced* person avoiding same gender romances).

 

(*I mean this totally non-judgementally.)

 

On principle, I would have to walk away from this game if any form of toggle was introduced. And I would have to seriously reconsider any further purchases of games from Bioware.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Zandilar

[Pink_Saber]

Toggles are a bad idea.

 

Not only are they a bad idea just on principal, but there's already a toggle on every single flirtatious interaction in the game, so it'd be completely redundant. Honestly, if someone doesn't want to flirt with anyone, of the same gender or not, all they have to do is not flirt with that person. The options are clearly marked and, if someone happens to flirt with someone by mistake (God forbid), there's always the escape key.

 

On the subject of the moment: Personally, I'd be fine with every companion being able to swing either way, and agree with the idea stated earlier that it's perfectly fine to let the player decide who's romanceable and who isn't. There's no reason I can think of that their sexual preference needs to be set in stone for "story" reasons, and I don't see giving players a little freedom as any kind of "cop-out," even if it probably would be the easiest solution to implement. And, really, there's just no need for a drastic difference between the way relationships develop in-game. They aren't really the most true-to-life depictions of relationships, anyway, and I don't see a reason why the "girl flirts with guy" and "guy flirts with guy" options, as one example, need to be different. It's not like there's gratuitous grabbing of any gender-specific body parts involved in any of the flirt options I've seen so far.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Pink_Saber

[Innocentone]

SGR would make gameplay interesting. Especially if you have a character that is bi . Male and female companions fighting over them. :

[Xilanada]

Gay and lesbian relationships can be distinct from straight relationships, sure. Gender roles have a lot to do with it, whether one embraces or rebels against it. Two lipsticks are likely to behave in ways few hetero couples will. I take DarkPara's point and illustration to heart.

 

There's at least two decent ways to go about it.

 

1. The expensive way. This means investing in and developing distinctly different content. This fits the overall unique playthrough experience each time you play but takes a lot more work, careful writing and costs more.

 

2. The cheap way. Write the character inclusively. Maybe for Atton Rand, that means he'd talk to Bao Dur about the Exile regardless of if the Exile was male or female. Some men can be like that. Some women can be like that. Leave it to the player to interpret and enjoy their behavior. Perhaps some players may like Atton when they play a female character but won't like him when they play a male character, because they don't like the gay or possibly what interests the player about male male relationships is different than female male relationships.

 

My point is both of these scenarios are better than industry standard. The expensive way is obviously more ideal. So is providing a greater pool of choices so you can have the sensitive guy option AND the stoic option with different characters. But the cheap way still offers a bit of promise. Most of us read books as kids and developed our imagination, most of us are decent at filling in the blanks. Just getting rid of those things that break immersion (like the wrong gender pronoun, damnit) would be an improvement.

 

If all I can get is Atton Rand acting like he's dating a girl when he's dating a guy, that's still better than what I actually got.

[Vodalus]

It just occurred to me that there may be another factor in the missing SGRAs- Legacy System.

 

One of the long-running rumors of what is to come in the legacy system includes PC/companion offspring. They may be having difficulty figuring out how to integrate the two here.

 

Of course, there's also the inter-species offspring issue to contend with anyway, so, if offspring is one of the sticking points, I would suppose the species hurdle solution would be able to be applied to the same-gender hurdle.

 

Hmm, ok, now that I've written this, I may be just over-thinking this rumor.

[Pink_Saber]

It just occurred to me that there may be another factor in the missing SGRAs- Legacy System.

 

Making babies with companions? Seems pretty far-fetched to me. And I'm not just saying that because I forgot to subscribe and rate this thread last time I was here.

 

OK, that really is the only reason I said it.

[Vodalus]

Making babies with companions? Seems pretty far-fetched to me. And I'm not just saying that because I forgot to subscribe and rate this thread last time I was here.

 

OK, that really is the only reason I said it.

 

Supposedly some of the data-mining has turned up dialog that could indicate such a thing. Add to that the "family tree" talk from the devs (which is the only thing they are really saying about it). . . I don't know, the species issue seems to be a pretty big counter-point to that, I just figured I'd toss it out there since the thought popped into my head earlier.

 

(And. . . I had forgotten to rate the thread, too. )

[Rayla_Felana]

I think one of many problems here is many people are expecting Liara T'soni level romance arc, but from experience of the OGRAs I can tell you we are definitely not going to get that, look more at DA: Origins than Mass Effect, in case you have massive expectations on them.

[gekko_s]

Toggles are a bad idea.

 

In essence, they allow a person to erase the existence of any group or groups they don't like from the Star Wars universe as portrayed in TOR for which there is a toggle.

 

If someone doesn't like or doesn't want a same gender romance, they are free to avoid using flirtatious responses to same gender NPCs. That is all the toggle that is needed in the game.

 

What is good for the goose (me, avoiding flirt options with male NPCs), is good for the gander (prejudiced* person avoiding same gender romances).

 

(*I mean this totally non-judgementally.)

 

On principle, I would have to walk away from this game if any form of toggle was introduced. And I would have to seriously reconsider any further purchases of games from Bioware.

 

Personally, I think that attitude is counterproductive and can reduce the chances of me getting a romance storyline that I like, because I really doubt they can make any kind of relatively wide selection of same gender romance characters encountered on a regular basis without losing too many paying customers on the other side, not to mention the public outcries. Unfortunately I think that's the reality, although I wish I'm wrong.

 

If they make no toggle at all, I'm afraid we'll be stuck with a Zevran (Dragon Age: Origins) type bi character late in the game. While I enjoyed the flirt with Zevran, it still left much to be desired.

 

 

 

@AquaSky

I agree that for some companions and some story lines it won't work well to just swap out pronouns. For me, the ideal would be that some romance arcs are gender specific, if the story or personality clashes if the gender is swapped, for others, the arc would exist in two slightly different versions if it's easy to change, and for some, the romance story would be universal enough that a pronoun change is the only thing that's needed.

Edited January 27, 2012 by gekko_s

[GengisKahn]

It just occurred to me that there may be another factor in the missing SGRAs- Legacy System.

 

One of the long-running rumors of what is to come in the legacy system includes PC/companion offspring. They may be having difficulty figuring out how to integrate the two here.

 

Of course, there's also the inter-species offspring issue to contend with anyway, so, if offspring is one of the sticking points, I would suppose the species hurdle solution would be able to be applied to the same-gender hurdle.

 

Hmm, ok, now that I've written this, I may be just over-thinking this rumor.

 

I dont see a problem.

 

There are people that haven't even romanced any of their companions, so they wont have offspring.

 

Also, we are in a futuristic game, today in the world gay couples can have offspring by many methods, i'm sure in a futuristic game where there are starships they would figure some way out since its even simpler than a cross species offspring.

Edited January 27, 2012 by GengisKahn

[thegrognard]

It just occurred to me that there may be another factor in the missing SGRAs- Legacy System.

 

One of the long-running rumors of what is to come in the legacy system includes PC/companion offspring. They may be having difficulty figuring out how to integrate the two here.

 

Of course, there's also the inter-species offspring issue to contend with anyway, so, if offspring is one of the sticking points, I would suppose the species hurdle solution would be able to be applied to the same-gender hurdle.

 

Hmm, ok, now that I've written this, I may be just over-thinking this rumor.

 

imo the inter-species thing could be done like with the elves in the DA universe where the child is half-human yet they still look elven. That's my suggestion for inter-species and with same sex we have artifical insemination in this day and time, though with their technological advancements both parents could be the genetic parent.

 

I do love the idea of the Legacy system and would love to see it implimented. A friend of mine thought it already was but seems I'm right saying that it hasn't been added yet.

 

Since I havn't cast my revote I'm not sure about option 3 or 2a. I'll have to re-read some posts to understand it.

[StSathar]

Also, we are in a futuristic game, today in the world gay couples can have offspring by many methods, i'm sure in a futuristic game where there are starships they would figure some way out since its even simpler than a cross species offspring.

 

I think Jango Fett holds the record for most children conceived through non-traditional methods, though admittedly that doesn't happen for a few thousand years after the game setting.

 

 

I was surprised to get so much push-back from the "Toggle" idea. I thought of it simply as a way to disable mature content. Like many, I consider the profanity filter unnecessary and immediately disable it, but it exists as a tool for some who are unable/unwilling to tolerate the unfiltered environment. Similarly, much of the advanced interpersonal exchanges, including the sexual aspects, fall pretty firmly on the "Mature" side of the fence. Offering a way to disable it is not unreasonable. Now, it is true that a single toggle to shut off all romance regardless of gender/orientation would be more "Egalitarian," splitting it into two is a very practical convenience. A lot of people would probably bypass both filters, possibly many of the same people who don't mind the occasional dirty word in the chat channel (even if they themselves don't usually speak/type that way).

[Cythereal]

I think Jango Fett holds the record for most children conceived through non-traditional methods, though admittedly that doesn't happen for a few thousand years after the game setting.

 

For f/f couples, look no further than artifically induced human (or twi'lek or what have you) parthenogenesis, which allows two women to reproduce. Some critters in nature here on Earth do it naturally and we've induced it artificially in mice already. No reason at all the biologists of Star Wars wouldn't have figured out how to do it for sentient races. M/m, however, is a bit more troublesome.

 

Unless you take the simpler option: you and your companion adopt a child. Especially if your species can't normally reproduce together even in a m/f situation like Vette indicates.

[gekko_s]

Yeah, F/F children and cross species children are quite easy to imagine in a science fiction setting. Look at the Asari in Mass Effect. The children are essentially a clone of the mother but with genetic inspiration from a "father". The father can be another male, female or another species entirely.