6813 réponses à ce sujet

[TJPags]

pallascedar wrote...

TJPags wrote...
I just find it lazy to put romances in the game, choose 4 characters to be romanceable, but make all 4 available to everyone.

Considering it takes work to make the romances bi instead of straight (and available to the larger audience) I'm confused as to how that is lazy. Isn't lazy when you don't do work?

No, it takes less work to make one character bi then to make one character a straight female and another bi.

To make a character bi, you wrote/record the same lines twice, once with "him", once with "her"  You take the romance animations you already made for a character, and use them twice.

To make one character straight and another bi, you need to write a separate set of lines, make new animations, etc.

So, yes, IMO, making characters bi is lazy.

[Taleroth]

TJPags wrote...

pallascedar wrote...

TJPags wrote...
I just find it lazy to put romances in the game, choose 4 characters to be romanceable, but make all 4 available to everyone.

Considering it takes work to make the romances bi instead of straight (and available to the larger audience) I'm confused as to how that is lazy. Isn't lazy when you don't do work?

No, it takes less work to make one character bi then to make one character a straight female and another bi.

To make a character bi, you wrote/record the same lines twice, once with "him", once with "her"  You take the romance animations you already made for a character, and use them twice.

To make one character straight and another bi, you need to write a separate set of lines, make new animations, etc.

So, yes, IMO, making characters bi is lazy.

You're saying that not doubling the romanceable companions is lazy.

[MKDAWUSS]

TJPags wrote...

pallascedar wrote...

TJPags wrote...
I just find it lazy to put romances in the game, choose 4 characters to be romanceable, but make all 4 available to everyone.

Considering it takes work to make the romances bi instead of straight (and available to the larger audience) I'm confused as to how that is lazy. Isn't lazy when you don't do work?

No, it takes less work to make one character bi then to make one character a straight female and another bi.

To make a character bi, you wrote/record the same lines twice, once with "him", once with "her"  You take the romance animations you already made for a character, and use them twice.

To make one character straight and another bi, you need to write a separate set of lines, make new animations, etc.

So, yes, IMO, making characters bi is lazy.

The lazy path would be to avoid gender related pronouns. Then you could just use a mod to activate the romance for the other gender and still have everything be 100% VO and gender correct.

[pallascedar]

TJPags wrote...

pallascedar wrote...

TJPags wrote...
I just find it lazy to put romances in the game, choose 4 characters to be romanceable, but make all 4 available to everyone.

Considering it takes work to make the romances bi instead of straight (and available to the larger audience) I'm confused as to how that is lazy. Isn't lazy when you don't do work?

No, it takes less work to make one character bi then to make one character a straight female and another bi.

To make a character bi, you wrote/record the same lines twice, once with "him", once with "her"  You take the romance animations you already made for a character, and use them twice.

To make one character straight and another bi, you need to write a separate set of lines, make new animations, etc.

So, yes, IMO, making characters bi is lazy.

So what they should have done is just made 6 romances, and then made 2 of them straight? What would you say if every character was bi and romanceable?

You're not making seeeeeense.

[tmp7704]

TJPags wrote...

I just find it lazy to put romances in the game, choose 4 characters to be romanceable, but make all 4 available to everyone.

The other two characters are your own sibling and Varric, though. Varric is just too good for Hawke and the sibling, well.

edit: well, there's also Aveline but her writer was pretty firm romance didn't seem to fit where he was taking the character.

Modifié par tmp7704, 02 mars 2011 - 05:11 .

[Ryzaki]

TheCreeper wrote...

Well there was also a matter that Merrill was had her arms out like she was trying to wrap her arms around male hawke. I have yet to hear of any unfakeable artificats.

Yeah but her lips wouldn't be meeting FemHawke's so perfectly if it was for Male Hawke. 

Or she's be meant to kiss Male Hawke's chin. 

Just look at the Leliana x FemWarden scene. It's somewhat odd when you look at it (like it was designed for M!Warden) yet it for FemWarden. 

Edit: How is giving yourself twice as much work lazy? 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 mars 2011 - 05:08 .

[EscherEnigma]

Not to mention that if you want to have seperate LIs for different orientations you have to branch out into the rest of the cast for eligible people. So you end up putting more constraints on the rest of your cast calculus.

[TJPags]

Taleroth wrote...

TJPags wrote...

pallascedar wrote...

TJPags wrote...
I just find it lazy to put romances in the game, choose 4 characters to be romanceable, but make all 4 available to everyone.

Considering it takes work to make the romances bi instead of straight (and available to the larger audience) I'm confused as to how that is lazy. Isn't lazy when you don't do work?

No, it takes less work to make one character bi then to make one character a straight female and another bi.

To make a character bi, you wrote/record the same lines twice, once with "him", once with "her"  You take the romance animations you already made for a character, and use them twice.

To make one character straight and another bi, you need to write a separate set of lines, make new animations, etc.

So, yes, IMO, making characters bi is lazy.

You're saying that not doubling the romanceable companions is lazy.

No.

What I'm saying is simple.

If you want to have romances in your game, then make them.  I'm fine with that.

If you want to have straight and same sex romances, make them.  I'm fine with that.

Make some characters straight, and make some characters bi.  To make everyone bi is lazy. 

It's not about doubling the options, trippling them, making them even, giving men more options then women, or same sex more options then straight, or anything else.

It's about decide whether a character is straight, gay, or bi, and then writing that character.  And if you decide you want more options, then write them.  Don't just take an already existing option and make them bi.  That doesn't double anything.

[Ryzaki]

And how TJPags do you know all the LIs weren't conceived as bisexual characters?

[EscherEnigma]

You're assuming they designed a character and then tacked on their status as a romance afterwards. I find it more likely that they were designed, from the ground up, with them being romanceable by the player in mind.

[Taleroth]

TJPags wrote...

No.

What I'm saying is simple.

If you want to have romances in your game, then make them.  I'm fine with that.

If you want to have straight and same sex romances, make them.  I'm fine with that.

Make some characters straight, and make some characters bi.  To make everyone bi is lazy. 

It's not about doubling the options, trippling them, making them even, giving men more options then women, or same sex more options then straight, or anything else.

It's about decide whether a character is straight, gay, or bi, and then writing that character.  And if you decide you want more options, then write them.  Don't just take an already existing option and make them bi.  That doesn't double anything.

That does not explain your prior argument, however.

You argued making one character vs. two characters.  But now you're arguing X v X.

Which is it.  Is it lazy to make 4 characters, then animate and script them for 8 scenarios?  Compared to making 4 characters, then animate and script them for 6 scenarios.

Modifié par Taleroth, 02 mars 2011 - 05:14 .

[TJPags]

EscherEnigma wrote...

Not to mention that if you want to have seperate LIs for different orientations you have to branch out into the rest of the cast for eligible people. So you end up putting more constraints on the rest of your cast calculus.

Right, which is why doing it that way is the NON-lazy way.

Honestly, did I say something to offend people?  That wasn't my intent.  But I don't understand some of the comments here.

MKDAWUSS wrote...

The lazy path would be to avoid gender related pronouns. Then you could just use a mod to activate the romance for the other gender and still have everything be 100% VO and gender correct.

That's even lazier then this, yes.  Doesn't make this not lazy.

pallascedar wrote...

So what they should have done is just made 6 romances, and then made 2 of them straight? What would you say if every character was bi and romanceable?

You're not making seeeeeense.

I don't know where you're coming from here.

Why 6?  Who said 6?

Why not just 4, like we have now?  One straight male, one straight female, one gay male, one gay female.  Everyone is now unique, no?  Everyone gets one romance, yes?  What's the problem?

tmp7704 wrote...

The other two characters are your own sibling and Varric, though. Varric is just too good for Hawke and the sibling, well.

edit: well, there's also Aveline but her writer was pretty firm romance didn't seem to fit where he was taking the character.

So, make more characters if they think they need more options.  Origins had what, 9?  Awakening had 6, and that was an ex-pac.  This is a full game, spanning 10 years.  Hawke only hangs out with 6 people?

And if Aveline was designed non-romanceable, why is that?  Why isn't she romanceable?  Not in character?  It's in every other companions character to be bi though?  That makes sense?

EscherEnigma wrote...

Not to mention that if you want to have seperate LIs for different orientations you have to branch out into the rest of the cast for eligible people. So you end up putting more constraints on the rest of your cast calculus.

Which is harder, and more work.  And therefore, not as lazy.

Modifié par TJPags, 02 mars 2011 - 05:20 .

[TJPags]

Taleroth wrote...

TJPags wrote...

No.

What I'm saying is simple.

If you want to have romances in your game, then make them.  I'm fine with that.

If you want to have straight and same sex romances, make them.  I'm fine with that.

Make some characters straight, and make some characters bi.  To make everyone bi is lazy. 

It's not about doubling the options, trippling them, making them even, giving men more options then women, or same sex more options then straight, or anything else.

It's about decide whether a character is straight, gay, or bi, and then writing that character.  And if you decide you want more options, then write them.  Don't just take an already existing option and make them bi.  That doesn't double anything.

That does not explain your prior argument, however.

You argued making one character vs. two characters.  But now you're arguing X v X.

Which is it.  Is it lazy to make 4 characters, then animate and script them for 8 scenarios?  Compared to making 4 characters, then animate and script them for 6 scenarios.

No, I responded to your argument.

Taking an already romanceable character, and making them bi, is IMO lazier than making a new character bi.  What is inconsistent in that?

[MorningBird]

It's not laziness, it's effective use of their resources.

This has been explained before, but I'll try to summarize. Every feature added to the game uses up resources. For this reason, they have to budget their time, money and resources carefully to ensure that they get the most bang for their buck (this does not, however, mean that they will not take the occasional risk.)

They can't make strictly gay characters because only a small portion of their audience would ever see that content (so it would not be an effective use of their resources at this moment in time), which is why we get bi characters (because this content is available to both bi, gay, and straight players.) This is good, but some people would prefer it if the romance content was completely open to everyone instead of there being 2 LI's whose romances are gender specific.

That being said, the devs have said that bi LI's use up more resources than straight. It's not as simple as switching out 'him' for 'her' or vice versa in a few lines of dialogue, because there are more differences between the two genders (and s/s relationships) than that.

Modifié par MorningBird, 02 mars 2011 - 05:27 .

[lucemon22]

Regardless of the bicker of lazyness and whatnot. If its true and everyones Bi, i'm happy. I was concerned my character couldn't romance merril.

[Taleroth]

TJPags wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

TJPags wrote...

No.

What I'm saying is simple.

If you want to have romances in your game, then make them.  I'm fine with that.

If you want to have straight and same sex romances, make them.  I'm fine with that.

Make some characters straight, and make some characters bi.  To make everyone bi is lazy. 

It's not about doubling the options, trippling them, making them even, giving men more options then women, or same sex more options then straight, or anything else.

It's about decide whether a character is straight, gay, or bi, and then writing that character.  And if you decide you want more options, then write them.  Don't just take an already existing option and make them bi.  That doesn't double anything.

That does not explain your prior argument, however.

You argued making one character vs. two characters.  But now you're arguing X v X.

Which is it.  Is it lazy to make 4 characters, then animate and script them for 8 scenarios?  Compared to making 4 characters, then animate and script them for 6 scenarios.

No, I responded to your argument.

Taking an already romanceable character, and making them bi, is IMO lazier than making a new character bi.  What is inconsistent in that?

Because you just disagreed with the concept of doubling romances by making new characters.  The first word of your response is "no."

[mesmerizedish]

This debate is really old. I'm glad now my thread got baselessly locked so it doesn't have to suffer such inanity

[tmp7704]

TJPags wrote...

So, make more characters if they think they need more options.  Origins had what, 9?  Awakening had 6, and that was an ex-pac.  This is a full game, spanning 10 years.  Hawke only hangs out with 6 people?

Inventing entirely new character involves much more work though, doesn't it? Completely different level of work than making existing character available for two romances. And DAO had 7 companions which could possibly work as romance material -- i really wouldn't include dog and Shale into this category... and even Wynne would be acquired taste, making it 6. Which effectively brings us down to DA2 number.

Modifié par tmp7704, 02 mars 2011 - 05:37 .

[TJPags]

MorningBird wrote...

It's not laziness, it's effective use of their resources.

This has been explained before, but I'll try to summarize. Every feature added to the game uses up resources. For this reason, they have to budget their time, money and resources carefully to ensure that they get the most bang for their buck (this does not, however, mean that they will not take the occasional risk.)

They can't make strictly gay characters because only a small portion of their audience would ever see that content (so it would not be an effective use of their resources at this moment in time), which is why we get bi characters (because this content is available to both bi, gay, and straight players.) This is good, but some people would prefer it if the romance content was completely open to everyone instead of there being 2 LI's whose romances are gender specific.

That being said, the devs have said that bi LI's use up more resources than straight. It's not as simple as switching out 'him' for 'her' or vice versa in a few lines of dialogue, because there are more differences between the two genders (and s/s relationships) than that.

Fine.  And using what you already have rather than making something new for the occassion is considered lazy by me.  So we agree. 

Taleroth wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

TJPags wrote...

No.

What I'm saying is simple.

If you want to have romances in your game, then make them.  I'm fine with that.

If you want to have straight and same sex romances, make them.  I'm fine with that.

Make some characters straight, and make some characters bi.  To make everyone bi is lazy. 

It's not about doubling the options, trippling them, making them even, giving men more options then women, or same sex more options then straight, or anything else.

It's about decide whether a character is straight, gay, or bi, and then writing that character.  And if you decide you want more options, then write them.  Don't just take an already existing option and make them bi.  That doesn't double anything.

That does not explain your prior argument, however.

You argued making one character vs. two characters.  But now you're arguing X v X.

Which is it.  Is it lazy to make 4 characters, then animate and script them for 8 scenarios?  Compared to making 4 characters, then animate and script them for 6 scenarios.

No, I responded to your argument.

Taking an already romanceable character, and making them bi, is IMO lazier than making a new character bi.  What is inconsistent in that?

Because you just disagreed with the concept of doubling romances by making new characters.  The first word of your response is "no."

You brought up doubling options.  I'm not discussing doubling options.  I don't care how many options there are.

But, if they are going to double options by re-using one, then see above - I consider it lazy.

Double the options by making new characters.  That's not lazy.
 
And on that note, I'm off to bed, and done with this discussion, since I really don't care about it anyway.

[mesmerizedish]

I'd rather they re-use Isabela for a f/f romance than come up with someone new. I'd rather they bring back Anders than come up with someone new. It's not a matter of laziness, it's a matter if using the characters that best tell the story.

[MorningBird]

TJPags wrote...

MorningBird wrote...

It's not laziness, it's effective use of their resources.

This has been explained before, but I'll try to summarize. Every feature added to the game uses up resources. For this reason, they have to budget their time, money and resources carefully to ensure that they get the most bang for their buck (this does not, however, mean that they will not take the occasional risk.)

They can't make strictly gay characters because only a small portion of their audience would ever see that content (so it would not be an effective use of their resources at this moment in time), which is why we get bi characters (because this content is available to both bi, gay, and straight players.) This is good, but some people would prefer it if the romance content was completely open to everyone instead of there being 2 LI's whose romances are gender specific.

That being said, the devs have said that bi LI's use up more resources than straight. It's not as simple as switching out 'him' for 'her' or vice versa in a few lines of dialogue, because there are more differences between the two genders (and s/s relationships) than that.

Fine.  And using what you already have rather than making something new for the occassion is considered lazy by me.  So we agree. 

lol, I wouldn't say we agree (I personally don't consider it lazy), but we're at least on the same page, I think.

[Thiefy]

wait why is everyone saying all the LIs will be bi?

[mesmerizedish]

Because they totally are. There's lots of evidence suggesting that each individually will be bi. Someone else can talk about it, though, because I need a shower.

[Thiefy]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Because they totally are. There's lots of evidence suggesting that each individually will be bi. Someone else can talk about it, though, because I need a shower.

....right, and some how i completely managed to miss any of it