685 réponses à ce sujet

[thegoldfinch]

prazision wrote...

pixieface wrote...

I see what you're saying OP. And even if I did like the idea, which I do not, then it would still be a waste of resources to pander to a relatively minor aspect of the game when work could be put into another area, like combat or the main storyline.

I would fully support removing romances entirely if it meant the RPG system were restored to complex, traditional roots and not "mass effected", and the gameworld were as large, reactive and immersive as, say, New Vegas (which had no romances and, as far as I know, has outsold any BioWare game to date).
For the time being, however, BioWare's primary focus appears to be on relationships with party members. Mass Effect 2's plot is literally "assemble a crew and bond with them", and 2 months from release we know basically nothing about DA2's story - we know more about the companions than the plot. So if that's the focus, then it should be really focused on.

Immersion is subjective. Desiring the game to be more reactive, yeah, I can agree with that. The developers have said essentially that by focusing their vision in regards to the character choice and locations, the world can be more reactive to your choices. The setting of New Vegas never changed because of a choice you made. The only reactive part was who wanted to shoot you and what a faction said in the closing speech. Still cool, but DA2 ought to have a different flavor of reactivity in that sense.

And trust me - the story, or lack thereof, in Mass Effect 2 bothered me just as much as it did you. However, DA:O championed its companions prior to release just as much as DA2 is doing now. I suspect that we can't know too much about the story because the story is central, just as it always has been in this franchise. Learning about the companions doesn't spoil much about the plot and it also drives up hype for the game in the process. Either way, I think it's futile to drag ME2 into the argument because they were not made by the same team. If you liked the writing in Origins, it stands to reason that you will enjoy the writing in its sequel.

I think the main draw of the DA franchise is adventure - it's drawing yourself into a beautiful fantasy world where you can also feel powerful by killing bad guys and being a martyr or a hero or the ultimate jerkass in a way that reality just does not warrant. Finding romance on the side is a side-effect of the adventure. If it weren't, BioWare would be making some kind of love simulator and I highly, highly doubt the writers or the animators or the project lead or programmers or what have you will want to go down that dark and sticky path... because they are still trying to make the game they want to make.

I respect wanting to romance everyone out of curiosity or for desiring LGBT equality, but characters are characters. Once you can change their orientation on a whim, they cease to become fantasical people and instead become love simulators. Sorry. That's it. End of line. Once you go there, you might as well change their hair, their skin color, their height. They're not defined people anymore, after all. They are just simulators.

If that's the game you want, then Dragon Age is probably not right for you. Or, perhaps modding might be the better road to go down.

[Wittand25]

Ziggeh wrote...
Indeed, and I'm not suggesting it's something they could or should do; I'm interested in the extent that meta information effects people's understanding of a character from one playthrough to the next, as most of the objections raised here and elsewhere are based on the effect it would have rather than resources (which is, we are to understand, the main issue).

Ok if we disregard the resource cost and assume that all versions of an NPC are equally well done and all of them fit in the larger story equally well, then I would see no problem because it is already common that the behavior or the existence of NPCs depend on the PC´s sex,class,back-story ...  .

But as long as the limitations apply I rather have some straight and some bi options amongst the romance-ables, (a fully gay one is apparently considered to nice for a triple A title for the resources required).

[The Lesser Evil]

Why is bisexual in quotation marks? You want them all to be bisexual, but actually not so much? This topic confuses me with its title and the content in general.

[Thiefy]

Ziggeh wrote...

Thief-of-Hearts wrote...

Alistair isn't gay. He can become close to a male warden and form a deep friendship or brotherhood (storge, phileo) but he is only attracted to females (eros). It's the same with Morrigan, except with males, while Leli and Zev can feel all three with both male and female.

Out of curiosity, would people have a problem with a toggle? (I know, I know, not suggesting, just interested in response) If, for example you could set the entire playthrough to gay, straight or bisexual.

I guess what I'm asking is to what extent that potential, and other peoples experience affects your own, would the fact that for other people a character might be gay change your opinion of a character who for you was entirely straight?

Please do not try to play that card. That's almost insinuating that I would be against gay marriage because I'm straight.  Someone else's experience does not affect my own but that is what the MOD community is for.

There is something called game cannon that most people try to stick to even with divergant paths. You basically want to force a character to behave a certain way, to your liking because it's what you want. No. Sexuality is only a part of a person's character. Why not ask for a toggle switch to make Morrigan more nice? Or Zevran to be more conservative?

Characters are the way they are for a reason, this is fanboy/girl world where we get to manipulate everything to own very own personal desire. We may be the main character that drives the story forward but Dragon Age is a play written by someone else other than us - we are there to observe and interact but not to regulate.

More over I have to wonder if the people asking this question realize that there is a difference between how straight/gay/bi people act when it comes to someone they are attracted to and someone they aren't. For example, how a gay guy acts around women is completely different from how he acts around men. And how a gay guy acts around men is completely different depending on whether or not he is attracted to him.

There is no "one size fits all" option.

[AngelicMachinery]

marshalleck wrote...

Bioware needs to go cold turkey on the romances.

I'm beginning to agree.

[eucatastrophe]

The Lesser Evil wrote...

Why is bisexual in quotation marks? You want them all to be bisexual, but actually not so much? This topic confuses me with its title and the content in general.

Romancable by the PC regardless of the PC's chosen sex. Not that hard to understand. 

[In Exile]

Ziggeh wrote...
Out of curiosity, would people have a problem with a toggle? (I know, I know, not suggesting, just interested in response) If, for example you could set the entire playthrough to gay, straight or bisexual.

I guess what I'm asking is to what extent that potential, and other peoples experience affects your own, would the fact that for other people a character might be gay change your opinion of a character who for you was entirely straight?

Yes. Because then the romance is, effectively, sex-neutral and sexuality has to be designed to not be a particular feature of who a character is. Personally, I felt that Zevran's "I love you man, but I totally like girls more" while potentially off-putting made him at least seem like a real person. He wasn't just bisexual with a switch - he had real preferences, and real reasons for them.

If you have characters flip a switch, they're not actually "really" bisexual. They're situationally heterosexual or homosexual, and a toggle encourages the game to just swap romance dialogue based on the toggle. I think we ought to have unique romances that represent who the character is, bisexual, gay or straight.

More broadly, I am just flat out against allowing players to define who NPCs are.

ETA:

Whoah, I did not notice that part in bold.

Dude, that's an uncalled for leap. It has nothing to do with them being gay.

It would bother me just as much (and I see it equivalent too) having a toggle that changes Morrigain's morality or Alistair's relationship with Duncan in each playthrough. I don't think characters should have variable traits determiend by the player. Implying it has to do with feelings toward sexuality is uncalled for.

Modifié par In Exile, 11 janvier 2011 - 03:13 .

[Ziggeh]

LadyJaneGrey wrote...

I want the characters to be who they are, not who I set them to be in the CC screen;

Me too, as it happens, but I suspect I'd be slightly peeved if that was the reasoning used if they, for example, didn't include any female interests. It complicates and changes the relationship with the world we thrust outselves into, so it's not like it's a solid solution, and this is one of several entirely valid flaws with it, I just bring it up out of curiosity.

LadyJaneGrey wrote...
Zevran would not be Zevran if he didn't hit on the Warden.

No reason he couldn't continue to do so across the "toggle" settings, if that was imortant to his character.

[Zombievarning]

prazision wrote...
Many psychologists believe that everyone is bisexual. Google the "kinsey scale".

Off topic, but isn't that somewhat of a misquote of the scale? There is after all a 0/6/X rating on it, so I'd say that it's more that a majority of people will have some bisexual tendencies (both on the ******- and heterosexual end of the spectrum, although not the asexual obviously), and to emphasise that sexuality isn't a binary issue, so to speak.

Modifié par Zombievarning, 11 janvier 2011 - 03:16 .

[LadyJaneGrey]

Ziggeh wrote...

LadyJaneGrey wrote...

I want the characters to be who they are, not who I set them to be in the CC screen;

Me too, as it happens, but I suspect I'd be slightly peeved if that was the reasoning used if they, for example, didn't include any female interests. It complicates and changes the relationship with the world we thrust outselves into, so it's not like it's a solid solution, and this is one of several entirely valid flaws with it, I just bring it up out of curiosity.

LadyJaneGrey wrote...
Zevran would not be Zevran if he didn't hit on the Warden.

No reason he couldn't continue to do so across the "toggle" settings, if that was imortant to his character.

Maybe I'm missing something, but then it seems the toggle wouldn't be toggling anything.

[In Exile]

Zombievarning wrote...

Off topic, but isn't that somewhat of a misquote of the scale? There is after all a 0/6/X rating on it, so I'd say that it's more that a majority of people will have some bisexual tendencies (both on the ******- and heterosexual end of the spectrum, although not the asexual obviously), and to emphasise that sexuality isn't a binary issue, so to speak.

If we want to get into the science of it, recent findings actually show a gender split in terms of sexuality and arousal to sexually explicit material, which suggests that women moreso than men are likely to be bisexual.

[Ziggeh]

Thief-of-Hearts wrote...
Please do not try to play that card. That's almost insinuating that I would be against gay marriage because I'm straight.

I'm insinuating nothing of the sort. I'm asking if people are able to dissociate external information.

Thief-of-Hearts wrote...
Characters are the way they are for a reason, this is fanboy/girl world where we get to manipulate everything to own very own personal desire. We may be the main character that drives the story forward but Dragon Age is a play written by someone else other than us - we are there to observe and interact but not to regulate

And I've no doubt that if written exclusively for each audience, they'd make different choices. The issue at hand is apparently mutually exclusive positions that affect people enjoyment of the medium. Resources aside I wouldn't object at all to a game containing both a Origins style silent protagonist at the same time as the DA2 system, as it would increase peoples enjoyment, by allowing people control over how they relate to the game, and I think it's worth exploring why we would see this element differently.

[Saibh]

AngelicMachinery wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Bioware needs to go cold turkey on the romances.

I'm beginning to agree.

If they removed every aspect of the game we obsessed and nitpicked over, they're wouldn't be a game.

[Zombievarning]

In Exile wrote...

If we want to get into the science of it, recent findings actually show a gender split in terms of sexuality and arousal to sexually explicit material, which suggests that women moreso than men are likely to be bisexual.

Hadn't read that actually, would be quite interesting to know why that is, but there are probably cultural or evolutionary factors to it. That's going way off-topic though.

I wonder how long it will take for someone to try and justify a greater ratio of female bisexual LI:s with that though.

[Ziggeh]

In Exile wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...
I guess what I'm asking is to what extent that potential, and other peoples experience affects your own, would the fact that for other people a character might be gay change your opinion of a character who for you was entirely straight?

Dude, that's an uncalled for leap. It has nothing to do with them being gay.

It would bother me just as much (and I see it equivalent too) having a toggle that changes Morrigain's morality or Alistair's relationship with Duncan in each playthrough. I don't think characters should have variable traits determiend by the player. Implying it has to do with feelings toward sexuality is uncalled for.

Sorry, that's exactly what I am saying there, I wasn't trying to imply that being gay affected peoples opinion, but the fact that they weren't exactly the same character you had been introduced to, sexuality was just the topic at hand.

[s0meguy6665]

It's never going to happen.

Modifié par s0meguy6665, 11 janvier 2011 - 03:28 .

[Ziggeh]

In Exile wrote...

Yes. Because then the romance is, effectively, sex-neutral and sexuality has to be designed to not be a particular feature of who a character is. Personally, I felt that Zevran's "I love you man, but I totally like girls more" while potentially off-putting made him at least seem like a real person. He wasn't just bisexual with a switch - he had real preferences, and real reasons for them.

If you have characters flip a switch, they're not actually "really" bisexual. They're situationally heterosexual or homosexual, and a toggle encourages the game to just swap romance dialogue based on the toggle. I think we ought to have unique romances that represent who the character is, bisexual, gay or straight.

Very much so, and I think it would, in effect involve writing three distinct characters or one bland enough to accomodate all three. Both problematic.

In Exile wrote...
More broadly, I am just flat out against allowing players to define who NPCs are.

I was trying to think of a more elegant way to ask if other peoples experience effects ones own, but I found the idea that "toggles solve everything" amusing.

[Thiefy]

Ziggeh wrote...
I'm insinuating nothing of the sort. I'm asking if people are able to dissociate external information.

Of course they can, that's just a silly question. But that's like asking if we have a problem with the 'free love' mod the community made. That's an option. Bioware making everyone bisexual isn't an option - it would be something I play through everytime unless I mod it and have, essentially, a non-cannon game. More specifically, a game that could never be cannon.

Ziggeh wrote...
And I've no doubt that if written exclusively for each audience, they'd make different choices. The issue at hand is apparently mutually exclusive positions that affect people enjoyment of the medium. Resources aside I wouldn't object at all to a game containing both a Origins style silent protagonist at the same time as the DA2 system, as it would increase peoples enjoyment, by allowing people control over how they relate to the game, and I think it's worth exploring why we would see this element differently.

Italics: Tha'ts not what a toggle implies though. A toggle is merely turning on and off a switch, just like the lighting and water effects. If they were actually written mutually and exclusively for each audience, then they would *be* bisexual and not just a character who we could command our convienance.

I wouldn't mind MORE bisexual characters and that would add to more playthroughes for me, but a character actually being bisexual and just having a flip switch so they could be straight/gay/bi is two entirely different things.

[Zombievarning]

Ziggeh wrote...
Ibut I found the idea that "toggles solve everything" amusing.

And an idea that, as far as I recall, makes the developers very sad indeed.

[Shepard Lives]

In Exile wrote...
 I am just flat out against allowing players to define who NPCs are.

This right here. Let me shake hands with you, ser.

[Onyx Jaguar]

shepard_lives wrote...

In Exile wrote...
 I am just flat out against allowing players to define who NPCs are.

This right here. Let me shake hands with you, ser.

I agree with this line of reasoning

Also please I would not want to worry about my lover potentially getting stolen by lady parts.  Gay guys are hard enough to find in games as it is.

Much less me having to worry about them having straight streaks.

[errant_knight]

I'd prefer not, myself. Sexuality is part of character, not separate from it. Some people are straight, some gay, and some bi. I think it would be better for them to add characters who are strictly gay than to make everyone bisexual. Too many people think that sexuality can be changed with the right impetus as it is without the notion appearing in video games.

Modifié par errant_knight, 11 janvier 2011 - 03:44 .

[the_one_54321]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

shepard_lives wrote...

In Exile wrote...
 I am just flat out against allowing players to define who NPCs are.

This right here. Let me shake hands with you, ser.

I agree with this line of reasoning.

Agreed.

[Matchy Pointy]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

shepard_lives wrote...

In Exile wrote...
 I am just flat out against allowing players to define who NPCs are.

This right here. Let me shake hands with you, ser.

I agree with this line of reasoning.

Agreed.

Agreed third.

[Cuthlan]

If it fits the character, they should be bisexual. Or heterosexual. Or homosexual.



But the sexuality should fit the character. It should not be assumed that every character will romance anyone. It cheapens the concept that the characters are who they are and will interact with the actions of your character based on their personality, rather than just being balls of clay that you can mold around your playstyle.