Sfdebris.net

I think you should have been able to at least TRY to romance all of the party members except barkspawn. I mean like, even if the reactions range from "I'm flattered but I don't feel that way about you" to *instant violence*, but...I'd like to have the options.

Fuzzy Necromancer wrote:I think you should have been able to at least TRY to romance all of the party members except barkspawn. I mean like, even if the reactions range from "I'm flattered but I don't feel that way about you" to *instant violence*, but...I'd like to have the options.

I remember Jim Sterling was ectastic about the fact you could romance all of the Fallout 4 companions simultaneously.

That is great. Honestly there are a lot of characters I want to hit on just to see their reactions to it. I'm still annoyed that I can't ask Bella for a kiss as a reward for saving the village if I'm playing a gal.

That could be considered harassment. Sex, sexuality and romantic advances in a Bioware-game and probably any game these days, must be strictly consentual in every conceivable way. Hence you can only make advances on people who want to be advanced upon.

Madner Kami wrote:That could be considered harassment. Sex, sexuality and romantic advances in a Bioware-game and probably any game these days, must be strictly consentual in every conceivable way. Hence you can only make advances on people who want to be advanced upon.

Which is everyone because Hawke is a sexy MF.

Madner Kami wrote:That could be considered harassment. Sex, sexuality and romantic advances in a Bioware-game and probably any game these days, must be strictly consentual in every conceivable way. Hence you can only make advances on people who want to be advanced upon.

No. I'm pretty sure that's not how sexual harassment is defined at all. You don't know who's straight or gay or ace or bi until it comes up in dialogue or deduce it from their storylines and subplots. Simply asking "hey wanna share a tent and a bottle of wine" in a situation where the character is not coerced and is free to say "No" and then backing off if refused is not harassment.

If simply asking someone if they are or would be interested is harassment by virtue of not already knowing the answer before you ask, consensual non-harassment relationships could never exist at all.

The difference is in how and when you ask, not in whether on not you ask.

But how do you figure out when or if a particular person is ok with you asking, when the very act of asking already is intruding in their personal space? You are pushing assumptions about the person onto the person itself, which is in an of itself, an act of agression and opression. You should pay more attention to recent developments in the fields of SJWisms.

Basic social skills includes such things as "reading the room", and "tact". There is no one size fits all legalistic formula, and anyone asking for one is shadowing their own inability to employ practical empathy in real time situations, as well as demanding the rest of the world to bend around their handicap so they can avoid admitting to or fixing it.

No one is expected to trace their way through a giant org chart of ritual rules. It is simply expected that one pays attention to the individual personality of the person you're talking to. Use your basic human empathy to accumulate an impression of their personality, and use that as your map for talking to that specific person. It only only becomes byzantine and impossible if you are trying to craft a single generic map to apply to everyone.

This is what the "SJWs" are trying to get at. They are tired of seeing people who can't or won't empathize with others or "read the room" do or say mind-bendingly stupid shit, then blame the other person or the world in general for not following their imaginary script when said stupid shit predictably blows up in everyone's faces.

Most people don't need "SJWisms" to not do such stuff. The "SJWisms" are directed at that unfortunate vocal minority who for whatever reason can not or will not admit that they might in fact actually have really terrible social skills. If you are instinctively capable of perceiving other people's emotions and personalities, or are aware of not being so, and sanely cautious while trying to learn, then the "SJWisms" aren't relevant to you, and you don't need to get defensive about them.

Millions and millions of people manage this stuff just fine. It's only the jackasses who're catastrophically Dunning-Kruger about their own "people person"-ness that most "SJWs" are concerned with. The "SJWs" you see raged about in anti-SJW echo chambers are a weirdo extremist minority inflated into a big scary straw man for the sake of rallying. It's as accurate as the idea of "the Right" being mostly klansmen and Westboro Baptist-types. Every side indulges in this kind of BS "daily hate" caricaturization, and frankly it's incredibly GD tiresome. I REALLY like to hope people are smarter than that, much as they often disappoint.

Some of the reactions to rejection for Dragon Age 2 was a bit extreme. You're either into the guy or if you reject him, he hates you.