Is the whole "no-gender required for romance" thing confirmed? [No, debunked]

It's been confirmed that there are gender-restrictions. (The site that stated otherwise was mixed-up and I'm not sure if they've yet fixed that article.)


Nat @dank_Dragons
@macwalterslives So wait... is it true that all romances will be available regardless of Ryder's gender?

Mac Walters ‏@macwalterslives
No. Romance options vary depending on whether you play as Scott or Sara.

Yeah, the article that mis-stated it has still not been fixed as far as I know, but as you can see the devs have confirmed that gender does matter in who is available to you. Like you, I like to plan my playthrough and who I romance is part of it. Unfortunately it doesn't look like they'll release that info before launch (except for Cora *grumble grumble*). Anyhow, there's been quite a lot of talk on this in the romance section of the forums here - which is really where this thread belongs. Actually there's already a thread on this very topic over there. Along with some leaked stuff in another thread if you're interested, and it's a good place to keep an eye out for info on potential options before they're officially revealed (just be sure to read the forum rules on discussing those, since you're new here).

As opposed to the realism that a squad of three is capable of wiping out entire divisions of baddies.

Of course it is realistic, they do what it feel right dont you guys know that already.

Lol nothing is very realistic in these games I agree but you could then turn it around and say why should the option "bi for EVERYONE" make the most sense? And yes, also turn it around and say it the other way around but that's why "realism" gets into play, because otherwise you can't choose between the two and cater to everyone, so you gotta go with realism on some aspects of the game, at least that's my take on it.

Besides, even if all romance options are bi/player/pansexual, there are still maaaaany characters in the game that have a set sexuality. It's actually quite simpel: They could give characters set orientations who aren't romanceable and our romance options would be available to everyone. It would be much better this way, because otherwise there will always be a group that gets better or worse options. Most important for me, is, to have the story relevant options bisexual. I couldn't play Dragon Age Inquisition more than one time, because Solas was such a prominent character and I couldn' romance him... I know some people think that's childish, but it always felt wrong to be stuck with Dorian and Bull. I always wanted a story relevant, intelligent, philosophical character. He was soooo close and still unreachable to me. : /

And I wanted to romance Dorian... but isn't it like that in real life also? Sometimes you just can't get the one you truly want. This is why I like it when all characters aren't automatically bi.

Yeah, totally understand and the logical guy in me agrees, but it's just a little piece of fantasy.  Seeing the volume of threads in the romance section (a bit scary actually) people apparently care immensely for the romances.  But given the number of sexualities (I really had know idea there were so many distinctions) and requests that line up with any given persons' preferences, I don't know how Bioware hopes to keep up.  Throw in racial distinctions and it's big, damn mess.  At what point does trying to satisfy every subset diminish the rest of the game?  I don't have an answer...maybe it already has.

I tried it, but couldn't finish the game because it always felt wrong to romance him with a female character...it's difficult to explain. I know there are people who can change the gender and romance everyone they want but I think I'm not one of them. : / And that's why I think at least story relevant characters should be bi, because - as you said - the perspective is another one...you feel more linked to the plot. It's a different experience. DA2 wasn't a great game, but from the romance perspective it was perfect in my eyes, because I could finally enjoy a romance with an important character who was integrated to the plot. But I think I sshould lower my expectations....Since they won't go to the "all characters being bi" approach back, it's far more likely that straight characters will be story relevant....or maybe an Asari. I think it's just better I don't expect too much.  

I kind of hate the playersexual thing.  And not because of "realism".  But instead because it, essentially, will greatly reduce or even eliminate gay characters from the series.  To date, pretty much every single major character in a Bioware game that is LGBT has been a romance option (notable exceptions include Aria and Celine, but almost always female).  If those characters became "playersexual", then it would totally remove gay characters unless the player chose to include them.

Imagine what the gay male character list would like if the LI's were "playersexual"?  It would be zero outside of a few background characters and very minor NPCs (like Wade/Herren).  Look at Dorian -- he was overwhelmingly a positively received character (yes, some people complained about his quest being "forced", but him as a character -- usually positive).  If he were "playersexual", in most playthroughs he'd be "straight".  Instead, I see a bunch of people talk about how Dorian opened their mind about gay characters and many straight guys saying that they liked him so much that they either did or were planning to do their first m/m playthrough specifically to romance him.  That would all be lost if the LI's were playersexual.

So, for me, I am firmly against "playersexuality" in these games.  There's a time and place for them (like text based games like Choice of Games), but I don't think that Bioware's games are right for it.

It's probably because we are invested in this in different ways.  LGBT representation in media directly impacts LGBT individuals in meaningful ways.  I've seen it shift dramatically just in my adulthood and I attribute it to the representation that happens in media.  So I think there is a value in not being able to just "toggle" gays into straights because you don't want to see them.  I know that this is not how you are viewing it, but I can guarantee that there would be many people who do so.  Just go to IGN or any other major gaming site and read the comments on any article that is related to LGBT characters/stories.  By including LGBT characters, people start to see LGBT people as a more varied group.  I strongly believe that the lack of LGBT representation in games is one of the reasons why there are still such silly notions (like the "promiscuous bisexual" and "sassy gay guy" tropes and the "It has to 'make sense' for the character" thing) that are prevalent in gaming.  For example, if 10 major AAA games over the few years had these roughneck, masculine, tough gay guys in them, we likely wouldn't be seeing people saying stuff "I just don't see <insert masculine character here> as gay." stuff.  Gaming is a legitimate form of media and media shapes popular opinion.  If you add the ability for the few gay characters to "become straight", people who need to change their views, but don't want to will definitely lose that chance.  Will it work perfectly?  Of course not.  But it works.  I've seen enough anecdotal evidence right here on this board to suggest that it could and does have that affect.

With regard to having the "straight" and "gay" versions of a character be different from each other.....I'm super hesitant about that.  Not because it couldn't be interesting.  Because it could -- for all of the reasons that you mention.  But I think it I don't trust most writers to do this well.  It could very easily get questionable quickly.  You list "playboy straight Steve" and "caring gay Steve" as examples.  That could easily skew as "manly straight Steve" and "feminine gay Steve" or other really stupid tropes.  If it were don't right, I'd check it out.  But I suspect that in 9 out of 10 times, it wouldn't be done right and would just reinforce silly notions.

And, YES, I'd love to see more gay characters that aren't romances.  But that's also a double edged sword.  Imagine this:  six squaddies in ME: A (Cora, Liam, Pee Bee, Drack, Vetra, and Jaal); four of them are LIs (Cora and Liam are straight, Jaal and Pee Bee are bisexual); there are two gay NPCs that are romances (let's say Kallo and Foster, just to put them out there); and then Drack is gay and Vetra is straight (neither romanceable).  Can you already hear people screaming about how "forced" and "unrealistic" it is that there are so many LGBT characters?  Unfortunately, we are damned if do and damned if we don't in this regard.  If there are LGBT romances, but not major NPCs, then we end up needing those romances in order to see any LGBT characters.  If there are LGBT NPCs but not romances, then we end up losing the ability to have s/s romances in the game.  If we have both LGBT romances and major LGBT NPCs, then people will throw fits about how unrealistic and forced and SJW and shoving it down our throats and blah blah blah.  There's no winning. 

But, (after wall of text), this is just my thoughts on it.  Your thoughts are, undoubtably, different.