685 réponses à ce sujet

[Ziggeh]

Liable****sman wrote...
Shouldn't the mere fact that they are entirely optional prove that they aren't "important", though?
I'm not saying nobody find romances a nice addition to the gamplay of Dragon Age: Origins, I'm just saying it is not *important*.

Define "important"? I think they're important. Many of the people in this thread think they're important. They have to remain optional because they can't impose a specific one upon you, not because they're not a valuable element of the story.

[Liablecocksman]

catabuca wrote...
No, claiming it is important to everyone would be wrong, claiming it is important to no one is wrong, claiming it is important to some people is not wrong.

Again, your opinion is not the same as objective fact. It is your subjective fact, but it is not mine, and vice versa.

But isn't that exactly what I'm doing?
I'm claiming it is important to some, while not being important to the game as a whole.

And yes, that is a fact.

Ziggeh wrote...
Define
"important"? I think they're important. Many of the people in this
thread think they're important. They have to remain optional because
they can't impose a specific one upon you, not because they're not a
valuable element of the story.

Look what I wrote above.

I'm talking about inherently important to the game, meaning that the game and/or plot requires you to behave into a romance in order to sufficiently care about the plot or sufficiently immerse yourself into the gameworld.

The only games doing that, are games based entirely on relationships, as I imagine (for instance) dating simulators.

Modifié par Liablecocksman, 15 janvier 2011 - 06:35 .

[catabuca]

Liable****sman wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...
They're also about the only people who approach it with the perspective of a writer, rather than the plot being something that glues all the explosions together. I suspect theres a correlation.

Shouldn't the mere fact that they are entirely optional prove that they aren't "important", though?
I'm not saying nobody find romances a nice addition to the gamplay of Dragon Age: Origins, I'm just saying it is not *important*.

It is optional whether you pick up Zevran or not. It is optional whether you do the DR or not. It is optional whether you do all sorts of things in DAO. Being optional does not negate importance. And again, what is not important to you may be important for someone else. I'm really confused as to why anyone would argue otherwise. It has no bearing on your play throughs whether or not someone else on the other side of the world thinks the romance options in DAO are important to their experience of the game or not. I can accept they are not important to you, why not the other way around?

[AlexXIV]

Ziggeh wrote...

Liable****sman wrote...
Shouldn't the mere fact that they are entirely optional prove that they aren't "important", though?
I'm not saying nobody find romances a nice addition to the gamplay of Dragon Age: Origins, I'm just saying it is not *important*.

Define "important"? I think they're important. Many of the people in this thread think they're important. They have to remain optional because they can't impose a specific one upon you, not because they're not a valuable element of the story.

Would you buy the game if there were no romances in it? That's how important they are.

[Ziggeh]

AlexXIV wrote...

Would you buy the game if there were no romances in it? That's how important they are.

That's not a very good metric. I would buy the games if there were not combat in them, but they'd be far weaker for it.

[Liablecocksman]

catabuca wrote...
It is optional whether you pick up Zevran or not. It is optional whether you do the DR or not. It is optional whether you do all sorts of things in DAO. Being optional does not negate importance. And again, what is not important to you may be important for someone else. I'm really confused as to why anyone would argue otherwise. It has no bearing on your play throughs whether or not someone else on the other side of the world thinks the romance options in DAO are important to their experience of the game or not. I can accept they are not important to you, why not the other way around?

Please read my previous post.

Add to that, that companions are also (With the exception of Alistair and Morrigan) not important.

[AlexXIV]

Ziggeh wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Would you buy the game if there were no romances in it? That's how important they are.

That's not a very good metric. I would buy the games if there were not combat in them, but they'd be far weaker for it.

My point is, more or less, importance of features depends on how they reflect in sales. I wouldn't know a better way to define importance than the way features increase Bioware's profit. Of course it does not just depend on one person. As you said you don't need combat, if a majority would think so we would see far less combat, maybe even only optional combat.

[Annarl]

DaySeeker wrote...

omearaee wrote...

I think its a strange idea. Everyone bisexual...it's silly. Bioware does the love interest very well.

Don't think of everyone as bisexual, instead think of each character's sexuality as decided bu the character.  There's no reason the npc's can't be everything they are written to be AND any sexuality.  On'e sexuality does not preclude any talent, attitude or personality trait.

Aside from the added cost and the extra content( taking away from game play) it would take to develop the game this way, of course.  You, the player, can't decide everything.  The game's writers picture and envision characters a certain way.  And create them to their vision. It's their story too.

Let's be clear there is nothing wrong with being bisexual. But not everyone in real life is. 
I do believe Bioware gives us great choices.  We have gay options available.  Not every developer does this.  I think we don't give Bioware enough credit for what they do give us.

Modifié par omearaee, 15 janvier 2011 - 06:40 .

[AngelicMachinery]

Also, to be serious for a moment. I would buy DA2 without a second thought if it was lacking romance. It's not that big of a feature to me, but, I will also say it is a feature I really enjoy. So, I would find that something was lacking and it would affect how I rated the game personally.

[catabuca]

Liable****sman wrote...

catabuca wrote...
No, claiming it is important to everyone would be wrong, claiming it is important to no one is wrong, claiming it is important to some people is not wrong.

Again, your opinion is not the same as objective fact. It is your subjective fact, but it is not mine, and vice versa.

But isn't that exactly what I'm doing?
I'm claiming it is important to some, while not being important to the game as a whole.

And yes, that is a fact.

What on earth is this 'game as a whole'? It does not exist in a vacuum. It exists through the people who wrote and developed it, and through the people who play it. I'm really not sure where you're coming from.

Of course the plot can still occur without romance being involved, but the plot can still occur without Sandal being in camp, or without a bunch of side quests, or without, for that matter, different origin stories. But we're not talking about the mere existence of the game and a plot. We're talking about the ways in which various players experience it. And for some, the added layer of a romance storyline improves their experience of that game, just as being able to rp their PC with a specific origin does.

I don't know whether you've ever played as a female warden and romanced Alistair, but in that particular instance the romance is written in such a way as it can have a huge impact on the final story, and the way you decide to complete the game. Of course, you can still complete the game having not romanced Alistair, but if you do romance him, and you choose to go down this path, your romance with him might be the very reason why you choose to make him or Anora ruler of Ferelden. I'd call that pretty important, from a game perspective. So what if it's optional? That doesn't mean it's any less important for those people who do choose to access that content.

When it comes down to it, perhaps the only concrete thing we can say on this matter is that if the developers decided to include it in the game then it is important, for one reason or another. This could be for a narrative reason, a gameplay experience reason, or as just another 'hook' to engage some players with a particular aspect of the game world.

[AlanC9]

Ziggeh wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Would you buy the game if there were no romances in it? That's how important they are.

That's not a very good metric. I would buy the games if there were not combat in them, but they'd be far weaker for it.

You could do an RPG like that. Isn't Portal an FPS with no shooting?

[AlexXIV]

AlanC9 wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Would you buy the game if there were no romances in it? That's how important they are.

That's not a very good metric. I would buy the games if there were not combat in them, but they'd be far weaker for it.

You could do an RPG like that. Isn't Portal an FPS with no shooting?

Huh. 'First Person Shooter' without shooting, isn't that just 'First Person'?

[Annarl]

AngelicMachinery wrote...

Also, to be serious for a moment. I would buy DA2 without a second thought if it was lacking romance. It's not that big of a feature to me, but, I will also say it is a feature I really enjoy. So, I would find that something was lacking and it would affect how I rated the game personally.

I too would buy DAO and DA2 without romances because there are very few developers who write and make better games than Bioware 

Modifié par omearaee, 15 janvier 2011 - 06:44 .

[catabuca]

Liable****sman wrote...


Look what I wrote above.

I'm talking about inherently important to the game, meaning that the game and/or plot requires you to behave into a romance in order to sufficiently care about the plot or sufficiently immerse yourself into the gameworld.

The only games doing that, are games based entirely on relationships, as I imagine (for instance) dating simulators.

I just saw this.

Apart from the example I talked about above with Alistair ... you do not need to be in a romance to experience this game. I wouldn't argue otherwise. You earlier said romances were not a hook. They are for some. The fact that some people say 'romances work as one of many hooks to help me engage with the game in extra ways' proves that those people see romance as one of many hooks that help them engage with the game in extra ways. The point here is 'extra'. They are not necessary to play the game. People can still feel an emotional connection with their PC, and with other characters, without romance. But when romance is present, for some people it does provide an extra layer of connection, an extra hook that provides extra depth. That is all anyone is arguing. You appear to be caught up with some definition of the word 'important' that in itself isn't actually relevant or 'important' to the discussion.

[Liablecocksman]

catabuca wrote...

What on earth is this 'game as a whole'? It does not exist in a vacuum. It exists through the people who wrote and developed it, and through the people who play it. I'm really not sure where you're coming from.

We need to zoom in on my use of "important", since you appear to still not really get what I'm trying to say.
I'm saying "Could we cut romance from the game completely, and still have the same game, with the same plot, the same characters and the same setting?" the answer is "Yes".
Romances do not matter. They do nothing. They are an added incentive for some, sure, as I've already said, but they are just that. Added incentive. They aren't crucial or integral parts of the gameplay or the plot.

Of course the plot can still occur without romance being involved, but the plot can still occur without Sandal being in camp, or without a bunch of side quests, or without, for that matter, different origin stories. But we're not talking about the mere existence of the game and a plot. We're talking about the ways in which various players experience it. And for some, the added layer of a romance storyline improves their experience of that game, just as being able to rp their PC with a specific origin does.

"And for some, the romance improves their experience". That doesn't mean it was "Important".
And you're very correct! Sandal isn't "Important" either, and neither are the "Sidequests".
I would argue though, that the "Origin stories" are a central part of the plot in that they show how your character joined the wardens, aside from functioning as a tutorial.
If the tutorial was moved, and the player having a set background... Then they wouldn't be important either.

I don't know whether you've ever played as a female warden and romanced Alistair

I haven't.

But in that particular instance the romance is written in such a way as it can have a huge impact on the final story, and the way you decide to complete the game.

Okay.

Of course, you can still complete the game having not romanced Alistair, but if you do romance him, and you choose to go down this path, your romance with him might be the very reason why you choose to make him or Anora ruler of Ferelden. I'd call that pretty important, from a game perspective.

Given that it holds no other importance than what the player infers in it, no, it isn't inherently important.
I'm an example of that.
Everything you're describing isn't important to me at all, meaning it isn't inherently important, which is essentially the whole point I'm making.

So what if it's optional? That doesn't mean it's any less important for those people who do choose to access that content.

Nope, but when did I state that such was the case?
Please quote my directly.

When it comes down to it, perhaps the only concrete thing we can say on this matter is that if the developers decided to include it in the game then it is important, for one reason or another.

No. That is wrong.

This could be for a narrative reason, a gameplay experience reason, or as just another 'hook' to engage some players with a particular aspect of the game world.

No. That is wrong.

"Optional content" is "Optional" because it isn't important.
It is *Optional*.

catabuca wrote...
I just saw this.

Apart from the example I talked about above with Alistair ... you do not need to be in a romance to experience this game. I wouldn't argue otherwise. You earlier said romances were not a hook.

I never said romances didn't add to the incentive of some for caring for the story or the plot, I merely arguing that they weren't crucial components.

Modifié par Liablecocksman, 15 janvier 2011 - 07:00 .

[Razaroh]

Liable****sman wrote...

RPGs defined by the choices given to the players?
What kind of choices?

Depends on the developer and what kind of RPG they want to present. RPG is such a loaded term these days, mainly what is and isn't an RPG. An RPG video game will always be limited by the choices the devs choose to include despite any illusion to the contrary. I suppose table top and pen + paper would be less constraining on the player but - No. Never mind.  This is a headache I'm not willing to walk into.

Liable****sman wrote...

Romances are not important. Not at all.

Bioware is the only developer I can think of, who are trying to (and have) included them in all of their recent releases.

Play Divinity 2: Ego Draconis.
Play Risen.
Play The Witcher (Sex does not equal romance)
Play whatever other roleplaying game you wish. "Romance" certainly isn't important.

I'm not saying it's not an added incentive for some people to buy or
game, or that it is inherently bad - but claiming it "important" is
simply wrong.

It's because Bioware is one of the only developers who include multiple - and optional - romances that they've developed the reputation for doing so. Would it be unkind of me to say they brought that onto themselves by making it a staple of their games? I'm going to take a leap and say most people don't notice the optional part, not until they run into something they don't like and get to choose to kill him.

I'll take another and say that one of the features that attract players to Bioware games opposed to games like The Witcher or Divinity are the romances. It may not the the most important aspect to them, but then again, it may be. Not to say they couldn't enjoy all three games for different or similar reasons. I'm generalizing, which is fairly useless. More often then not you find yourself going around in circles.

However, I think I understand your point. I will agree that romances aren't *essential* to the gameplay or to what defines an RPG. It's a bonus, at least in Biowares case, for the players to enjoy. But still part of me believes that romances are more important than sidequests or the loot system. Or rather, it should be handled like they are. Which I think Bioware does and for the better. I can handle a crappy looting system, but terribly executed romances would kill the characters. For me anyhow, others might feel different or would choose to avoid the romance in the first place.

[Liablecocksman]

Razaroh wrote...
SNIP

I'm "Snipping" your post here not because I don't like it, or find it unreasonable, but because you appear to have understood what I was trying to say, and can agree with it (if not completely).

I'm happy, I was beginning to think I couldn't convey thoughts to writing anymore, and that you were all misunderstanding me because I was an idiot.
It turns out I may still be an idiot, but at least not entirely

As a sidenote, I didn't care for the way the romances were done in DA:O. I thought they were contrived and unreal - but that is another discussion for another thread.

[Jimmy Fury]

Liable****sman wrote...
Please read my previous post.

Add to that, that companions are also (With the exception of Alistair and Morrigan) not important.

You seem to be confused over the definition of important. 
It is:
"1: marked by or indicative of
significant worth or consequence : valuable in content
or relationship"
(Merriam-Webster, 2010)

"significant worth" and "value in content" can be determined two ways.
Objectively it can be determined by what the developers used resources on. Anything unimportant wouldn't be in the game at all because it didn't provide enough value to warrant using resources on.

Subjectively it can be determined by what each individual player enjoys. We are talking about an entertainment medium here. Therefore enjoyment is the ultimate determining factor yet is simultaneously different for each individual player.

Basically this entire debate over what is and isn't important is useless. Opinions are being argued as facts. If you want facts you have to go with the objective perspective of importance. In that case everything in the game is important to the game by virtue of existence. It has a quantifiable value and would never have been included if it didn't.

[Ziggeh]

Jimmy Fury wrote...
Basically this entire debate over what is and isn't important is useless.

"Critical" and "valuable" would be more useful terms.

[Ziggeh]

Liable****sman wrote...
Look what I wrote above.

I'm talking about inherently important to the game, meaning that the game and/or plot requires you to behave into a romance in order to sufficiently care about the plot or sufficiently immerse yourself into the gameworld.

The only games doing that, are games based entirely on relationships, as I imagine (for instance) dating simulators.

As above, they are not critical. Indeed, it could be argued that no single element is critical. But they are of value.

[Liablecocksman]

Jimmy Fury wrote...
You seem to be confused over the definition of important. 
It is:
"1: marked by or indicative of
significant worth or consequence : valuable in content
or relationship"
(Merriam-Webster, 2010)

"significant worth" and "value in content" can be determined two ways.
Objectively it can be determined by what the developers used resources on. Anything unimportant wouldn't be in the game at all because it didn't provide enough value to warrant using resources on.

Subjectively it can be determined by what each individual player enjoys. We are talking about an entertainment medium here. Therefore enjoyment is the ultimate determining factor yet is simultaneously different for each individual player.

Basically this entire debate over what is and isn't important is useless. Opinions are being argued as facts. If you want facts you have to go with the objective perspective of importance. In that case everything in the game is important to the game by virtue of existence. It has a quantifiable value and would never have been included if it didn't.

Your should take not of the use of "significant", guy.
"Significant worth" is not something that can be applied to an optional, non-integral, part of Dragon Age: Origins such as the romances.

Your entire post is what is meaningless, and your attempt to close a discussion that you are no part off, with one single post, to show everyone up, and display your awesomeness, has failed entirely.

You could have a point if I hadn't, from the start, been talking about important in relations to the game, and not important in relation to each individual player.

Ziggeh wrote...
As above, they are not critical. Indeed, it could be argued that no single element is critical. But they are of value.

Yes. I could argue a lot of different things weren't "important".
The reason we are talking about romances however, are because people appear to find it some sort of integral part of the game, and that the game as a whole would be damaged if romances were omitted.

If someone were to tell me that Dragon Age couldn't function without Sandal standing in the camp, or companions as a whole(apart from Alistair and Morrigan), I would also make an argument.

Nobody seems to create that sort of debate, though, so I'm not

Modifié par Liablecocksman, 15 janvier 2011 - 07:36 .

[Jimmy Fury]

Liable****sman wrote...
Your should take not of the use of "significant", guy.
"Significant worth" is not something that can be applied to an optional, non-integral, part of Dragon Age: Origins such as the romances.

Your entire post is what is meaningless, and your attempt to close a discussion that you are no part with one single post, to show everyone up, and display your awesomeness has failed entirely.

You could have a point if I hadn't, from the start, been talking about important in relations to the game, and not important in relation to each individual player.

I apologize if I somehow offended you. It was never my intent to shut down a conversation or show you up. If that's what you perceived then I apologize for not being more clear.
I was simply pointing out the utter futility of the debate because you were arguing a definition that was not being argued by others. You were attempting to argue objective importance instead of subjective importance which is what was being used originally when whoeveritwas said romances were "important".

Again, apologies for whatever offense you perceived. I shall attempt to be more clear next time I enter an open public topic...

[Liablecocksman]

Jimmy Fury wrote...
I apologize if I somehow offended you. It was never my intent to shut down a conversation or show you up. If that's what you perceived then I apologize for not being more clear.
I was simply pointing out the utter futility of the debate because you were arguing a definition that was not being argued by others. You were attempting to argue objective importance instead of subjective importance which is what was being used originally when whoeveritwas said romances were "important".

Again, apologies for whatever offense you perceived. I shall attempt to be more clear next time I enter an open public topic...

But "whoeveritwas" argued the objective importance, guy, and not the subjective importance.
Maybe others mistook my "objective importance" when answering my posts, but the one I originally answered myself was very much so arguing that romances carried "objective importance".

Again, you would certainly have a point, if you had a point, but you sadly do not.

Don't worry, there is no offense taken - I just thought your post as a bit to smarmy for my tasted, and reacted as such.

[In Exile]

Liable****sman wrote...
What on earth is this 'game as a whole'? It does not exist in a vacuum. It exists through the people who wrote and developed it, and through the people who play it. I'm really not sure where you're coming from.
We need to zoom in on my use of "important", since you appear to still not really get what I'm trying to say.
I'm saying "Could we cut romance from the game completely, and still have the same game, with the same plot, the same characters and the same setting?" the answer is "Yes".

Well, no. A female Warden who refused the DR and took Alistair with her to the archdemon will always be overruled by Alistair who sacrifices his life to kill the archdemon. Removing the romance actually removes ths potential ending. It isn't the same plot.

The plot is reactive. If you remove romances, you remove some of the endgame threads.

Modifié par In Exile, 15 janvier 2011 - 08:05 .

[Sjofn]

I'd prefer gay characters to "everyone's bi!" characters, but I don't see that happening any time soon, alas. I do find the thought of some of the LI's being gay or straight depending on what gender you're playing sort of interesting, but I think I would be a little weirded out that in THIS Hawke's timeline, suchandsuch is gay, but in THAT Hawke timeline, they're straight.