51 réponses à ce sujet

[andar91]

I thought of this the other day and I love the idea. It would be so cool. What if Bethany falls in love with somebody and you, as her brother/sister, can support or discourage her.

[SirOccam]

Felfenix wrote...

Collider wrote...

Jorkan wrote...
Wouldn't it be cool if the player's character could foster romances between two of the members in your group?  What'ya think?

Yes.
Romances between party members should only occur if
a) The player steers two party members together
or
The two party members are not romanceable.

Why those conditions?

I think two party members coming together without you "forcing" them together is more natural and emmersive. I also think a love triangle without the main character in the center would be very interesting.

Because it would suck if your planned love interest was taken off the market by another companion. Not that it wouldn't provide a bunch of fun dramatic, angsty story opportunities. Maybe you could pull a David & Bathsheba and arrange for your rival to die.

But the "steering" he mentions can be very indirect and subtle. It doesn't have to be "Hey you two, hook up." Maybe it could be like Oghren & Felsi where they express the feelings and you have a chance to encourage or discourage the romance. Not in the sense that they're waiting for your approval, though.

[Dick Delaware]

Felfenix wrote...
Why those conditions?

I think two party members coming together without you "forcing" them together is more natural and emmersive. I also think a love triangle without the main character in the center would be very interesting.

Yeah. Why can't they already be a couple without your influence? Seriously, screw this dating sim, matchmaker bullsh*t. If the game wants to be taken seriously as a dark fantasy game (not that it really is one to begin with) it needs to have this kinda nonsense as far away from the game as possible.

If anything, I think a more convincing angle would be that you have two party members who are already in a relationship together, and trying to pull a move on one of them will come across as very unprofessional and lead to them getting mad at you. Think about it - Hawke and his crew are on an important mission, then he starts making passes at the girlfriend of the guy who's spent the last few years fighting alongside him? That's a pretty nasty betrayal. If someone did that to me in real life, I'd probably want to kick their ass.

This could be OK, but absolutely no "playing matchmaker".

[Firky]

I like the idea of it happening by itsself. In BG II, when I realised I was about to lose Haer'Dalis I was like "noooo" but then, "Hey, this is kind of cool that they are going to let me level him all the way up and then have him walk out because of my romance." Not sarcasm. That's real dedication to a companion NPC!



Also, weren't Sten and Shale getting a little close by the end? (I travelled with both most of the way.)

[Dick Delaware]

SirOccam wrote...
Because it would suck if your planned love interest was taken off the market by another companion. Not that it wouldn't provide a bunch of fun dramatic, angsty story opportunities. Maybe you could pull a David & Bathsheba and arrange for your rival to die.

But the "steering" he mentions can be very indirect and subtle. It doesn't have to be "Hey you two, hook up." Maybe it could be like Oghren & Felsi where they express the feelings and you have a chance to encourage or discourage the romance. Not in the sense that they're waiting for your approval, though.

This is exactly my problem with it. I really don't need to see whiny video-game characters acting like retards when they're supposed to be skilled warriors, expert thieves and powerful mages who have learned how discipline themselves through years of training and have survived through a terrible war as well as personal hardships, but apparently cannot master basic interactions with the opposite sex. It makes the characters a lot less believable.

I don't think the Oghren and Felsi sidequest was subtle. The whole point was that you were nudging him along to whatever you wanted.

[Felfenix]

SirOccam wrote...

Felfenix wrote...

Collider wrote...

Jorkan wrote...
Wouldn't it be cool if the player's character could foster romances between two of the members in your group?  What'ya think?

Yes.
Romances between party members should only occur if
a) The player steers two party members together
or
The two party members are not romanceable.

Why those conditions?

I think two party members coming together without you "forcing" them together is more natural and emmersive. I also think a love triangle without the main character in the center would be very interesting.

Because it would suck if your planned love interest was taken off the market by another companion. Not that it wouldn't provide a bunch of fun dramatic, angsty story opportunities. Maybe you could pull a David & Bathsheba and arrange for your rival to die.

But the "steering" he mentions can be very indirect and subtle. It doesn't have to be "Hey you two, hook up." Maybe it could be like Oghren & Felsi where they express the feelings and you have a chance to encourage or discourage the romance. Not in the sense that they're waiting for your approval, though.

Who says somebody is off the market just because they're already in a relationship? You could convince two characters to break up, to move in on one of them. You could have an affair, secretly romancing one party member behind the other's back. I think it's more interesting, emmersive, and varied than every single party member being there, waiting for you and only you to romance them, with eyes and considerations for no other but you.

I don't disagree with being able to influence or impact a relationship. Maybe two characters only hook up if you frequently have them together in your party, afterall, they wouldn't hook up if they didn't spend any time together. Maybe their party banter becomes more and more flirty, maybe you get random kinda cutscenes where they are flirting and you can tell them to get a room and stop flirt/bantering. However, I don't like the idea that characters simply won't hook up unless they get your approval. Nothing in the entire world happening without your deciding it happens takes a lot away from emmersion, IMO.

[SirOccam]

Dick Delaware wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
Because it would suck if your planned love interest was taken off the market by another companion. Not that it wouldn't provide a bunch of fun dramatic, angsty story opportunities. Maybe you could pull a David & Bathsheba and arrange for your rival to die.

But the "steering" he mentions can be very indirect and subtle. It doesn't have to be "Hey you two, hook up." Maybe it could be like Oghren & Felsi where they express the feelings and you have a chance to encourage or discourage the romance. Not in the sense that they're waiting for your approval, though.

This is exactly my problem with it. I really don't need to see whiny video-game characters acting like retards when they're supposed to be skilled warriors, expert thieves and powerful mages who have learned how discipline themselves through years of training and have survived through a terrible war as well as personal hardships, but apparently cannot master basic interactions with the opposite sex. It makes the characters a lot less believable.

I don't think the Oghren and Felsi sidequest was subtle. The whole point was that you were nudging him along to whatever you wanted.

I don't think they're supposed to be what you wrote there. Alistair wasn't exactly an elite warrior. Remember he's also a virgin. Morrigan was powerful but you have to admit her social interaction skills are less than stellar. You could make that argument for Leliana and Zevran, as deceit and manipulation were part of their skillsets, but even then, that doesn't mean that a "real" romance wouldn't affect them just as strongly, since they're so used to "fake" romances.

I think none of the companions would be nearly as compelling if they didn't have vulnerabilities. This picture of an elite, totally self-confident, all but perfect hero sounds incredibly boring. There is 0 room for personal growth there, and personal growth is an essential part of any good story. In fact it's a big reason why lots of people don't like ME's story...Shepard doesn't undergo any sort of change or growth in his personality. Before you mention Paragon vs. Renegade...keep in mind that due to the way that's set up, you basically have to stick to one or the other if you want to be able to make certain P or R choices later. So essentially you're one or the other the whole way through, or muddling along in the middle, which is no better.

Anyway, I don't think the Oghren and Felsi thing was that subtle either, but at least it was indirect. And let's face it, nothing about Oghren is subtle.

Modifié par SirOccam, 14 juillet 2010 - 11:27 .

[SirOccam]

Felfenix wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Felfenix wrote...

Collider wrote...

Jorkan wrote...
Wouldn't it be cool if the player's character could foster romances between two of the members in your group?  What'ya think?

Yes.
Romances between party members should only occur if
a) The player steers two party members together
or
The two party members are not romanceable.

Why those conditions?

I think two party members coming together without you "forcing" them together is more natural and emmersive. I also think a love triangle without the main character in the center would be very interesting.

Because it would suck if your planned love interest was taken off the market by another companion. Not that it wouldn't provide a bunch of fun dramatic, angsty story opportunities. Maybe you could pull a David & Bathsheba and arrange for your rival to die.

But the "steering" he mentions can be very indirect and subtle. It doesn't have to be "Hey you two, hook up." Maybe it could be like Oghren & Felsi where they express the feelings and you have a chance to encourage or discourage the romance. Not in the sense that they're waiting for your approval, though.

Who says somebody is off the market just because they're already in a relationship? You could convince two characters to break up, to move in on one of them. You could have an affair, secretly romancing one party member behind the other's back. I think it's more interesting, emmersive, and varied than every single party member being there, waiting for you and only you to romance them, with eyes and considerations for no other but you.

I don't disagree with being able to influence or impact a relationship. Maybe two characters only hook up if you frequently have them together in your party, afterall, they wouldn't hook up if they didn't spend any time together. Maybe their party banter becomes more and more flirty, maybe you get random kinda cutscenes where they are flirting and you can tell them to get a room and stop flirt/bantering. However, I don't like the idea that characters simply won't hook up unless they get your approval. Nothing in the entire world happening without your deciding it happens takes a lot away from emmersion, IMO.

Well it would suck if you wanted to play the kind of character who would never do something so shady. Interesting, story-wise, yes, but only consistent with a specific type of personality.

You captured pretty well what I meant by indirect and subtle with your ideas. Way better than I did, anyway. Putting them in group to encourage a romance is exactly the sort of subtle and indirect thing I'm talking about. It's still YOUR decision, but it's not like "Hey Hawke, we were thinking of seeing each other. Is that okay with you?"

[Wowlock]

I actually asked about this earlier too.



There was a good hint between Velanna and Nathaniel. I actually wanted to take them everywhere I go just so they can tease eachother.



it can be a great concept if you ask me. Rivaling a male companion for a female party member, nice way to compete

[BigOzzie]

SirOccam wrote...

Felfenix wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Felfenix wrote...

Collider wrote...

Jorkan wrote...
Wouldn't it be cool if the player's character could foster romances between two of the members in your group?  What'ya think?

Yes.
Romances between party members should only occur if
a) The player steers two party members together
or
The two party members are not romanceable.

Why those conditions?

I think two party members coming together without you "forcing" them together is more natural and emmersive. I also think a love triangle without the main character in the center would be very interesting.

Because it would suck if your planned love interest was taken off the market by another companion. Not that it wouldn't provide a bunch of fun dramatic, angsty story opportunities. Maybe you could pull a David & Bathsheba and arrange for your rival to die.

But the "steering" he mentions can be very indirect and subtle. It doesn't have to be "Hey you two, hook up." Maybe it could be like Oghren & Felsi where they express the feelings and you have a chance to encourage or discourage the romance. Not in the sense that they're waiting for your approval, though.

Who says somebody is off the market just because they're already in a relationship? You could convince two characters to break up, to move in on one of them. You could have an affair, secretly romancing one party member behind the other's back. I think it's more interesting, emmersive, and varied than every single party member being there, waiting for you and only you to romance them, with eyes and considerations for no other but you.

I don't disagree with being able to influence or impact a relationship. Maybe two characters only hook up if you frequently have them together in your party, afterall, they wouldn't hook up if they didn't spend any time together. Maybe their party banter becomes more and more flirty, maybe you get random kinda cutscenes where they are flirting and you can tell them to get a room and stop flirt/bantering. However, I don't like the idea that characters simply won't hook up unless they get your approval. Nothing in the entire world happening without your deciding it happens takes a lot away from emmersion, IMO.

Well it would suck if you wanted to play the kind of character who would never do something so shady. Interesting, story-wise, yes, but only consistent with a specific type of personality.

You captured pretty well what I meant by indirect and subtle with your ideas. Way better than I did, anyway. Putting them in group to encourage a romance is exactly the sort of subtle and indirect thing I'm talking about. It's still YOUR decision, but it's not like "Hey Hawke, we were thinking of seeing each other. Is that okay with you?"

If you have high enough persuasion you can prusuade them to have and affair or tell lies about the npc.  Or you can settle it the mans way fight them ending in a option of killing them or sparing their life but the girl is yours.  Or you can break them up.  Also i like this idea you break up with someone and then another npc romances them then you want them back giving you a second chance and the relationship.

[Dick Delaware]

SirOccam wrote...
I don't think they're supposed to be what you wrote there. Alistair wasn't exactly an elite warrior. Remember he's also a virgin. Morrigan was powerful but you have to admit her social interaction skills are less than stellar. You could make that argument for Leliana and Zevran, as deceit and manipulation were part of their skillsets, but even then, that doesn't mean that a "real" romance wouldn't affect them just as strongly, since they're so used to "fake" romances.

I think none of the companions would be nearly as compelling if they didn't have vulnerabilities. This picture of an elite, totally self-confident, all but perfect hero sounds incredibly boring. There is 0 room for personal growth there, and personal growth is an essential part of any good story. In fact it's a big reason why lots of people don't like ME's story...Shepard doesn't undergo any sort of change or growth in his personality. Before you mention Paragon vs. Renegade...keep in mind that due to the way that's set up, you basically have to stick to one or the other if you want to be able to make certain P or R choices later. So essentially you're one or the other the whole way through, or muddling along in the middle, which is no better.

Certainly. Characters need to have flaws, but they need to act in a competent, mature manner enough of the time to be believable as well. For instance, Morrigan could be a bit more tight-lipped when it comes to talking about manipulating people. I'm no expert on manipulating people, but I have a distinct feeling that it involves not telling everyone that you're manipulative. She's usually convincing, and I liked her romance since I was always ambivalent about her, but I think this could have been handled better.

Alistair is really shy and romantic, and that makes perfect sense because he was raised in the Chantry, but at the same time, it seems a bit weird that a guy who got picked out to be a Grey Warden (who are elite warriors), survived a nasty secret initiation, and is on a quest to save Ferelden that he's completely dedicated to, could be so immature and afraid of responsibility. It felt like a convenient excuse for giving the PC control of the party and not Alistair. I know the whole innocent and goofy thing is part of his appeal with the women here, but a guy who's lived through stuff like that doesn't seem like the kind of guy who'd fold as soon as he became in charge of something.

I love the fact that he's naive and idealistic, but those aspects I can see a strong, young warrior dedicated to his country as having. It's the "immature and afraid of responsibility" parts that I don't get and feel mutually exclusive at times.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 14 juillet 2010 - 11:44 .

[C9316]

This actuallly is a good idea however I was thinking a potenial romance option should also include a rival for you so that you'll both end up competing for his/her affection

[Orogun01]

C9316 wrote...

This actuallly is a good idea however I was thinking a potenial romance option should also include a rival for you so that you'll both end up competing for his/her affection

That would be an excellent way to make the romances subplots interesting without resorting to the old personal quest narrative. But I really doubt that they are going to do it.

[MaxQuartiroli]

andar91 wrote...

I thought of this the other day and I love the idea. It would be so cool. What if Bethany falls in love with somebody and you, as her brother/sister, can support or discourage her.

I was just thinking the same thing...

Night in the camp...

Male companion: "Hey Hawke.. Could we talk a little?"
Hawke: "Yes of course"
Male companion:"Well..I'd like to talk to you about... Bethany"
Hawke: "So, what's the matter?"
Male companion:"Herrrr... Yes, see... I trust you should know that we are becoming a little..closer..yes?"
Hawke: "Closer? What the hell do you mean for "closer"?!"
Male companion: "Well... it means that.. yes.. I have feelings for her..."
Hawke: "You have feelings for my LITTLE SISTER? And does she know this?"
Male companion: "Yes, she does and...I trust she has feelings for me, too"
Hawke "Oh Hell !!! And.. what do you have in your mind?"
Male companion: "I am sure that I love her.. and I wanted you to know it..."
Hawke "Yes.. I see.. And.. Something already happened between you?"
Male companion: "What does it mean?"
Hawke "I mean.. You know.. During the night.. In your tent"
Male companion: "Ah.. I see.. No no !! Don't worry. You know I am an old-fashioned person.. I am going to respect her"
Hawke "Well.. Good to know! Do you see this HEAVY iron mace? You know what would happen to your legs if only I should know..."
Male companion: "errr... I...I won't forget it.. I swear !!"
Hawke: "It's better for you.. And now go away.."
(after two seconds)
Hawke: "HEY.. AND STEER CLEAR FROM BETHANY'S TENT !!! DON'T FORGET I AM KEEPING AN EYE ON YOU !!!!

It's so fun to have a sister !!!!!!

[joriandrake]

Jorkan wrote...

Wouldn't it be cool if the player's character could foster romances between two of the members in your group?  What'ya think?

yes, especially if the main charactger /player doesn't start a romance with one of them itself, even then a companion could be rival of hawke in tryint go get the same person

[Nhadalie]

Personally, I only like full out NPC romances when neither of the NPCs are the least bit interested in the PC. I don't like getting irritated with characters of the same gender as my PC because I feel like they're flirting with the PC's love interest. And honestly, it can cause a lot of players to dislike certain NPCs needlessly.

Now if another NPC has one sided feelings for a romanceable NPC, that's different. I just don't like being in the position where I can't get the NPC flirting with my PC's romantic interest to back off. And usually when they include stuff like that, you have no control over their interactions. You can't take the NPC aside and tell him/her what a jerk he/she is being for pursuing someone that you already have a claim on.

In certain cases, it really does work out well.(Like Jaheira and Khalid in BG1, or Kulyok's modded NPC party for IWD.) But for the most part, it fosters a lot of irritation between players and certain characters.(Like part of the reason why I hate Velanna is because she gets to flirt with Nathaniel. When I want him and my femCousland to end up together in an angsty drama ridden romance.)

Modifié par Nhadalie, 16 juillet 2010 - 01:05 .

[HighMoon]

Hellz yeah. I've always loved this idea. I also agree with the people who say it would interesting for Bethany to get romantically involved. It could potentially create a lot of tension, especially if the person Bethany is making the moves on is an love interest for Female Hawkes.

[ganstamaori]

If you can play as them, then they are not npcs.



Duh.

[dan107]

What a waste of resources this would be. I would much rather have an extra PC romance instead.

[Kranaos]

dan107 wrote...

What a waste of resources this would be. I would much rather have an extra PC romance instead.

Seriously?? There is always like 5 for the main character. And not everything can be about the PC. I get really sick of everything being about the PC when the party members have alot of potential for relationships.

And Not just relationships but closer friendships too. Maybe two party members might hate each other at first but by the end of the game it's possible for them to become the best of friends. Or not.

Oh and thanks for this topic. I mentioned the idea on the Romances topic and this much feedback about this idea is cool.

[Soruve]

Felfenix wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Felfenix wrote...

Collider wrote...

Jorkan wrote...
Wouldn't it be cool if the player's character could foster romances between two of the members in your group?  What'ya think?

Yes.
Romances between party members should only occur if
a) The player steers two party members together
or
The two party members are not romanceable.

Why those conditions?

I think two party members coming together without you "forcing" them together is more natural and emmersive. I also think a love triangle without the main character in the center would be very interesting.

Because it would suck if your planned love interest was taken off the market by another companion. Not that it wouldn't provide a bunch of fun dramatic, angsty story opportunities. Maybe you could pull a David & Bathsheba and arrange for your rival to die.

But the "steering" he mentions can be very indirect and subtle. It doesn't have to be "Hey you two, hook up." Maybe it could be like Oghren & Felsi where they express the feelings and you have a chance to encourage or discourage the romance. Not in the sense that they're waiting for your approval, though.

Who says somebody is off the market just because they're already in a relationship? You could convince two characters to break up, to move in on one of them. You could have an affair, secretly romancing one party member behind the other's back. I think it's more interesting, emmersive, and varied than every single party member being there, waiting for you and only you to romance them, with eyes and considerations for no other but you.

I don't disagree with being able to influence or impact a relationship. Maybe two characters only hook up if you frequently have them together in your party, afterall, they wouldn't hook up if they didn't spend any time together. Maybe their party banter becomes more and more flirty, maybe you get random kinda cutscenes where they are flirting and you can tell them to get a room and stop flirt/bantering. However, I don't like the idea that characters simply won't hook up unless they get your approval. Nothing in the entire world happening without your deciding it happens takes a lot away from emmersion, IMO.

That sounds pretty interesting. Hawke and the couple begin travelling together for a while, soon enough Hawke's flirty behavior sort of makes the man/woman of the relationship think Hawke is interested in them. Not long after resorts to either one coming to Hawke and expressing that they have felt a sort of tension or have feelings for Hawke, could even go as far as to break up a relationship just to be evil and once the relationship is broken up, Hawke severs all ties to the unfaithful spouse.

No limits when it comes to Hawke. Her influence is enough to woo a man already in a relationship and cause dischord between him and his significant other.
Is it wrong that I would find that incredibly amusing to watch? 

[Kaiser Shepard]

I believe I have seen Ms. Kirby (Can I just call her Mary? Please?) say something about this and the difficulty involved in successfully implementing it.



I don't remember in which thread she said so, though, just that she also told us that she wrote one for The Old Republic but didn't know if it would actually get in.

[SirGladiator]

I really like the idea of being able to play matchmaker. In ME2 lots of people liked the idea of hooking Joker up with EDI, and hooking Miranda up with Jack, of course Tali and Legion was a bit extreme, but you get the idea . Why not let the main character 'influence' who some of the other characters end up with? I imagine, for example, that most players wouldn't want to set their 'sister' up with another male party member, but probably would be willing to steer her toward whichever of his own female LIs he wasn't pursuing that particular playthrough. Or perhaps, as an 'evil' alternative, steer her toward the 'same' LI he is planning to pursue, so that he could steal the LI from her .



Certainly in DAO they gave us a small taste of that type of choice, when they gave us the opportunity to set Allistair and Anora up, if we so chose. I never did, because I didn't care enough about Allistair to want him as King, but if I liked Allistair I would've set him up with her. They should've given us the chance to set Morrigan up with Allistair if we were romancing Leliana, or Leliana up with Wynne if we were romancing Morrigan, and other combinations also. And you could make some of them harder to achieve than others, for example Morrigan and Sten might be easier to get together than Morrigan and Allistair. Maybe you'd have to use your 'persuasion' ability on a higher level for one than the other, and/or make them spend more time together in your group. It all sounds like lots of fun to me, it'd be like a mini-game, maybe even more fun than Pazaak! (the KOTOR minigame)



So many interesting possibilities, I say give us the chance make those choices, after all more choices equals more fun! And that sounds like a ton and a half of fun to me!

[Wowlock]

MaxQuartiroli wrote...

andar91 wrote...

I thought of this the other day and I love the idea. It would be so cool. What if Bethany falls in love with somebody and you, as her brother/sister, can support or discourage her.

I was just thinking the same thing...

Night in the camp...

Male companion: "Hey Hawke.. Could we talk a little?"
Hawke: "Yes of course"
Male companion:"Well..I'd like to talk to you about... Bethany"
Hawke: "So, what's the matter?"
Male companion:"Herrrr... Yes, see... I trust you should know that we are becoming a little..closer..yes?"
Hawke: "Closer? What the hell do you mean for "closer"?!"
Male companion: "Well... it means that.. yes.. I have feelings for her..."
Hawke: "You have feelings for my LITTLE SISTER? And does she know this?"
Male companion: "Yes, she does and...I trust she has feelings for me, too"
Hawke "Oh Hell !!! And.. what do you have in your mind?"
Male companion: "I am sure that I love her.. and I wanted you to know it..."
Hawke "Yes.. I see.. And.. Something already happened between you?"
Male companion: "What does it mean?"
Hawke "I mean.. You know.. During the night.. In your tent"
Male companion: "Ah.. I see.. No no !! Don't worry. You know I am an old-fashioned person.. I am going to respect her"
Hawke "Well.. Good to know! Do you see this HEAVY iron mace? You know what would happen to your legs if only I should know..."
Male companion: "errr... I...I won't forget it.. I swear !!"
Hawke: "It's better for you.. And now go away.."
(after two seconds)
Hawke: "HEY.. AND STEER CLEAR FROM BETHANY'S TENT !!! DON'T FORGET I AM KEEPING AN EYE ON YOU !!!!

It's so fun to have a sister !!!!!!

I hope there will be somekind of dialogue like this !

I really do. These scenerios adds great fun and enjoyment. It may even effect your Approval from your sister '' You cannot deny our love ! '' -10 approval and such.

My hopes are high this time since there is no ''ancient Threat'' and no boundaries as ''Grey Warden''. You are a normal human you destined to do great things and I think normal events like this is fit with the story ( especially with 10 year span )


Male Hawke - '' Sis , why are you crying ? ''
Bethany  - '' I broke up with Male Companion ''
Male Hawke -  '' Really ? Can I broke his legs now ? ''
Bethany - '' Do as you wish ''

*Grabs his iron mace and runs off after Male Companion *

[Wonderllama4]

I always thought Alistair and Morrigan would be perfect together. They clearly have feelings for each other.

Modifié par Wonderllama4, 16 juillet 2010 - 01:07 .