@Carfax - It's obviously not a contradiction at all that you say yourself BG2 romances are a very minor part of the game and the major part is "the quest, fighting monsters, getting loot, character development etc" and still getting all worked up about ONE romance OPTION you miss by your rigid choice of charnames. Don't your actions seem strange to you? I mean, come on, subterran trees? Do you think it's totally not fair that Mazzy isn't a romance option at all? Or that Rasaad won't romance your male charname? Probably not. So why be so bothered you can't romance Hexxat? Why can't you just take her along in your party like Mazzy or Rasaad - for skills, class, personality, quest? There's no difference.
I think you're underplaying it, while sounding a lil like you're on a high horse. You can roleplay as a female, that's good and there isn't anything wrong with that. When playing your character, you define how they are. I can get into a century old elf because it's my character. If a person can't connect on that roleplaying level to a female, that doesn't say anything bad about them, just that the dissonance will be there and they prefer to play as males. I've met women who can't/don't find as much enjoyment roleplay as men because of that. Doesn't say much about them other than they prefer to play as female characters. Any century year old elf is going to be more mentally like me than human girl will because it's going to be my character, resulting in no dissonance even if there is an age/experience gap.
While some might get over it as they get older, the idea that many guys aren't seeing women as "humans, who happen to be female" and that's whats holding them back is, in my opinion, generalizing and holding those you're talking to in an almost negative light. You might've gone through this and coming to that realization is what helped you, but I've known that statement and it doesn't change that I can't get into roleplaying as a girl. I can do bisexual/heterosexual/homosexual male, but not a female.
I think it's the freshness. Mazzy has been around for years, she's like an old bicycle no one wants to ride. Hexxat though, she's fresh and new. She's mysterious and sexy. People like that, they want it. It's all about greed and a sense of entitlement.
They can protest all they want, but that's all it is. If you dig down far enough it basically comes to greed and a sense of entitlement. Carfax just wants the new shiny hotness and is pissed that he can't get it without putting in just a 'teensy' bit more effort than mindlessly playing the game.
Also gotta agree with Arthain. Do I want to romance her? Sure. Gonna do the same thing I did when I wanted to romance various men/women I couldn't in other games...get a mod or mod it myself. Great thing about PC gaming? I can mod the game to my liking. Already got bg2 tweaks ready and edited her appropriately, tomorrow (when I'm not as tired) I'm going to find out whether or not it worked.
I hope that every person disappointed by Hexxat being lesbian realizes how it sucks to be a gay gamer and have few options in any game for romance content. What you're experiencing now with this one character in one game is how it is for almost every character in every game, from a gay perspective.
Personally I think they should have just made them romanceable to all because, as @Carfax says, BG2s romance content is really very basic, it wouldn't have mattered.
@ KidCarnival, no I don't find it contradictory, or ironic or anything. Nor am I contrary to your opinion, getting worked up. What I do find it is ridiculous and nonsensical. I would not care if every NPC was romanceable by any gender, because as I mentioned previously, the romances are nothing more than minor props with no real substance. However I can respect Beamdog's decision to leave the original romances as they are, and not tamper with them.
But the new ones? They should have all been romanceable by all PCs. Not everyone has the time or inclination to create numerous CHARNAMES and experience every permutation of the game. And with the romances being as superficial as they are to begin with, having such artificial limitations is silly.
I mean we're talking about a few lines of script here..
Also, playing a female NPC is out of the question for me, mostly because of my characters. I have two, a Cavalier and a Blackguard. Both are highly armored, greatsword wielding badasses that just wouldn't feel right if they were female.
Viconia would make a good match for my Blackguard, but I already romanced her when I played the game originally.... I wanted to try something new for that playthrough, but due to this ridiculous artificial limitation, my Blackguard won't be able to.
KidCarnival, no I don't find it contradictory, or ironic or anything. Nor am I contrary to your opinion, getting worked up. What I do find it is ridiculous and nonsensical. I would not care if every NPC was romanceable by any gender, because as I mentioned previously, the romances are nothing more than minor props with no real substance. However I can respect Beamdog's decision to leave the original romances as they are, and not tamper with them.
If they are such minor props, why does it matter that you cannot get one?
But the new ones? They should have all been romanceable by all PCs. Not everyone has the time or inclination to create numerous CHARNAMES and experience every permutation of the game. And with the romances being as superficial as they are to begin with, having such artificial limitations is silly.
Unless you would romance each and every possible NPC, you would still need more than one character to experience all the romances. Also, with this logic we should be able to do far more things (character respecc, getting all of the strongholds (even the three temples) at once and so on)), since not everyone has the time to create numerous Charnames and explore them.
Viconia would make a good match for my Blackguard, but I already romanced her when I played the game originally.... I wanted to try something new for that playthrough, but due to this ridiculous artificial limitation, my Blackguard won't be able to.
Viconia would make a good match for my Blackguard, but I already romanced her when I played the game originally.... I wanted to try something new for that playthrough, but due to this ridiculous artificial limitation, my Blackguard won't be able to.
Who cares whether your blackguard can partake in a "minor prop with no real substance"? If it doesn't matter, then you have no complaint. If it does matter, then it's more than a minor prop and the devs are justified in making artistic choices about who the NPCs are attracted to. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I think it's the freshness. Mazzy has been around for years, she's like an old bicycle no one wants to ride.
@Arthain: If a romance (or, not to think: friendship or rivalry) path was added, it would also be new content. But that's not really what I meant. Hexxat does provide new content to every charname, simply by existing and having a quest. What I don't understand is why people are so upset about Hexxat not romancing their charname, while no-one complains about Mazzy or Nalia not romancing anyone. Mazzy, from what I read here, is a quite popular NPC and Nalia is hated for being an inferior version of Imoen, not because she's not a romance option.
Aint this thread dead already, didnt the devs say it out clear enough?
"we added restrictions to make a political statment" "we could have gone all bi but we didnt becouse we wanted to please our LGBT players" "we are putting a restriction to make up for the past, becouse everyone that making things unequal is the road to equality"
Not much more to say,
Except that somewhere else a dev will use the same argument to lock it the other way around.
And then people like @Nic_Mercy will get screwed all over again...
Poor choice Beamdog... Poor Choice
Maby people like me will try to defend his rights then.. but many wont....
@War_Lord I think you're twisting statements (probably intentionally). No one has said those things you quoted; all that has been said is that there are still more romance options for male players than there are for female players, and there are still more romance options for straight players than for non-straight players.
I honestly don't see any more valuable discussion coming from this thread. We're not going to apologize for making Hexxat the way that she is, and if you haven't played through her romance yet, I suggest you do so before making blanket statements about what we did or why we did it.
Comments
*wheelies the hell out of this bioware romance simulator thread*
I think you're underplaying it, while sounding a lil like you're on a high horse. You can roleplay as a female, that's good and there isn't anything wrong with that. When playing your character, you define how they are. I can get into a century old elf because it's my character. If a person can't connect on that roleplaying level to a female, that doesn't say anything bad about them, just that the dissonance will be there and they prefer to play as males. I've met women who can't/don't find as much enjoyment roleplay as men because of that. Doesn't say much about them other than they prefer to play as female characters. Any century year old elf is going to be more mentally like me than human girl will because it's going to be my character, resulting in no dissonance even if there is an age/experience gap.
While some might get over it as they get older, the idea that many guys aren't seeing women as "humans, who happen to be female" and that's whats holding them back is, in my opinion, generalizing and holding those you're talking to in an almost negative light. You might've gone through this and coming to that realization is what helped you, but I've known that statement and it doesn't change that I can't get into roleplaying as a girl. I can do bisexual/heterosexual/homosexual male, but not a female.
I think it's the freshness. Mazzy has been around for years, she's like an old bicycle no one wants to ride. Hexxat though, she's fresh and new. She's mysterious and sexy. People like that, they want it. It's all about greed and a sense of entitlement.
They can protest all they want, but that's all it is. If you dig down far enough it basically comes to greed and a sense of entitlement. Carfax just wants the new shiny hotness and is pissed that he can't get it without putting in just a 'teensy' bit more effort than mindlessly playing the game.
Personally I think they should have just made them romanceable to all because, as @Carfax says, BG2s romance content is really very basic, it wouldn't have mattered.
But the new ones? They should have all been romanceable by all PCs. Not everyone has the time or inclination to create numerous CHARNAMES and experience every permutation of the game. And with the romances being as superficial as they are to begin with, having such artificial limitations is silly.
I mean we're talking about a few lines of script here..
Also, playing a female NPC is out of the question for me, mostly because of my characters. I have two, a Cavalier and a Blackguard. Both are highly armored, greatsword wielding badasses that just wouldn't feel right if they were female.
Viconia would make a good match for my Blackguard, but I already romanced her when I played the game originally.... I wanted to try something new for that playthrough, but due to this ridiculous artificial limitation, my Blackguard won't be able to.
Sorry the game disagrees with your notions of what it "feels right" for a female to do. Who cares whether your blackguard can partake in a "minor prop with no real substance"? If it doesn't matter, then you have no complaint. If it does matter, then it's more than a minor prop and the devs are justified in making artistic choices about who the NPCs are attracted to. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I'm happy to have a lesbian-romance here
Also, I'd be all for expanding the existing characters (especially the BG1 ones) if it were possible for Beamdog to do so, but it isn't, so...
"we added restrictions to make a political statment"
"we could have gone all bi but we didnt becouse we wanted to please our LGBT players"
"we are putting a restriction to make up for the past, becouse everyone that making things unequal is the road to equality"
Not much more to say,
Except that somewhere else a dev will use the same argument to lock it the other way around.
And then people like @Nic_Mercy will get screwed all over again...
Poor choice Beamdog... Poor Choice
Maby people like me will try to defend his rights then.. but many wont....
I think you're twisting statements (probably intentionally). No one has said those things you quoted; all that has been said is that there are still more romance options for male players than there are for female players, and there are still more romance options for straight players than for non-straight players.
I honestly don't see any more valuable discussion coming from this thread. We're not going to apologize for making Hexxat the way that she is, and if you haven't played through her romance yet, I suggest you do so before making blanket statements about what we did or why we did it.
Thread closed.