GamePlanet Interview with Mike Gamble Dec 22'16

I wouldn't worry too much. I think you might be taking it farther than what they meant. Think about this, for instance: in the OT you play as Shepard, who for the different choices in back story and class behaves the same. You have several options of how you play (generally Paragon, Renegade, or Paragade). This limits your roleplay-ability they same way as Mike is describing. At no point can you make Shep break down and cry in fear or run and hide from enemies screaming because that's not who he/she is. He/she is an Alliance Marine and can never be Shep the Scientist or Shep the Scholar because that's not the character. Besides whatever choices you make, there is a base character personality there.
Now you aren't picking between a male and female version of the same character, but between two different characters. Each with there own base personality. But it never says certain options won't be available (I don't think, correct me if I'm wrong) but that other characters will react differently to Scott vs Sarah. But even if it did mean different options, that's OK. Maybe Sarah can seduce a character Scott can't to get an agreement or to betray them, or maybe certain Andromeda cultures see either men or women as inferior and that's something Ryder must deal with (like being a Dalish elf in Dragon Age: Inquisition).
So before you "abort the thread" realize that you have never had complete control over your Mass Effect protagonist's personality and that this could be fun for replayability because it's not just a voice actor change, but a different feel with different reactions as well! It also makes sense because women and men are not treated the same by everyone all the time, so different reactions from other characters makes sense.

And remains idiotic because it flies in the face of the fact that someone with an omnitool and a biotic amp can do exactly what ryder and his Legion-like powers cannot.

It's like when they tried (and miserably failed) to justify thermal clips.

To be honest I'm not reading that comment in such a concerning way.

This was discussed in various Dragon Age panels in previous years.

They write a range of characters and based on the writer's understanding of each character as a whole, they deem that only a particular orientation 'suits' them, or that different orientations might work.

As an example, when discussing Solas later, they were very clear that his orientation and indeed racial preferences were very specific to him.
Similarly, does it make sense for Dorian, Sera and Cassandra to be bisexual, given what we know of them? No it doesn't.

If they were bisexual we wouldn't second guess it, but only because they would be written a differently and have slightly different stories.

Thinking of the characters in Mass Effect Andromeda, which Mike Gamble knows about, do some characters not make sense as being bisexual, I'm thinking yes.
(we'll know for sure when the game's out)

I don't think that'll be a problem as I think each character will have their own moments of humour or feel a bit emotional over something or whatever like with the Inquisitor during Trespasser DLC when their mark starts flaring up in the briefing and then do the we asve Fereldean and their angry we save Orlais and their angry speech and all that. There's always a little bit of homour in al lthese games asnd based on Sara's reaction when SAM tells her about Sloane and she says "A hothead great" in a rather sarcastic tone made me smile as well as it seemed to me that she does have a bit of a sarcastic/homoorous personality that I might like.

I really don't think the differences between Scott and Sara as the PC will be all that different. I could see us having a few unique lines here and there, or maybe sometimes the auto-dialogue is different. But I don't think, as some fear, we're going to have entirely different personalities for each character. The resources to do that would be ridiculous - two different scripts, with different dialogue that would be written and recorded in response for the other characters, plus the animation tweaks for the individual cutscenes... I don't see Bioware investing that much into it. I'm sure 95% of the dialogue will be identical. I'm wondering though if the two twins will have backgrounds which would explain that bit of difference - so that it's not so much a gender swap so personality swap, as it is our past experiences being different? Just a thought... Regardless, with the many different dialogue paths you can apparently take in each situation, I'm sure we'll have ample opportunity to shape our character from the moment we take control of them. Kind of like how we could play an Earthborn Ruthless Shepard, which meant specific things happened in our past, but we have the option to decide what that means to our Shepard now.

As for the whole 'being trained in all things' issue: We do know that we get Pathfinder training, and we learned a while ago that the twins are both biotics. And that N7 Dad has likely been preparing the whole family for this journey for some time. So it makes sense that both Ryder twins would have some combat training and rudimentary tech knowledge. I think how we choose to level those skills will determine whether we become pretty good at everything, or really good at a few and just passable at the rest. If anything it would be less immersive for our Ryder, with all his/her supposed training, to not know how to shoot a gun well or overload a shield.

Hard to trust A single word out of Gamble. He did say MP wasn't required for "the best ending" in vanilla ME3 or "you won't get bespoken endings" for the exact same game.

But this doesn't make sense.  How else can a sexuality "suit" someone unless you refer to stereotypes?  

Oh, of course he can't be bisexual. He's a no-nonsence warrior, not a promiscuous rogue!

Oh, of course he can't be straight, he's fashion conscious!

Stereotypes. 

Personality and sexuality are two different things.  Character X,  Character Y, and Character Z could all have virtually the same personality, and one could be straight, the other gay, and the other bisexual.  There is nothing that says they can't be.  

IRL, a beefy lumberjack with a beard who drives a pick up truck and loves football could be gay. They exist too. 

How would Sera's story be different if she was straight or bisexual than what it is now?  Her story doesn't have anything to do with her sexuality.

How would Cassandra's story be different?  Her's doesn't have anything to do with her sexuality.  I'm obviously not talking about the romance paths here. I'm talking about their overall story.

Dorian yes, his sexuality is tied in with his story, but he could have been straight or bisexual and still had the same personality.  

I don't know, I actually kinda liked being rejected by Dorian, same with Cassandra (I know it sounds weird ). So while he would've retained his personality, it just wouldn't be the same if he was bisexual. Being able to get rejected by characters simply because they are not into you is great and makes them feel more real...at least in my opinion >_>

Yeah, that sentence is formulated in mildly stupid way
Maybe he meant that as that's what the writer imagined that character being like, so it wouldn't make sense to push bisexuality on them? I don't know 

I agree, that's true...guess they need better spokesperson, or give everyone allowed to talk in public courses in rhetoric

I don't do MP.  Always get the breath scene.

Even with the dlc and a save import, with galactic readiness at 50%, it wouldn't be enough to get the breath scene if ems was at 5000 with TIM shooting Anderson. 4000 was needed if TIM doesn't shoot Anderson.

If a person were to do a default ME3 playthrough without  playing any dlc, and has the extended cut installed, it would not be enough to get the breath scene even with the requirement being at 3100. The most the player will get is about 2970 at 50%. The only way to get the breath scene is to not have TIM shoot Anderson. Anderson will give 200 war assets which won't be effected by the player's galactic readiness no matter what.