269 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

Nozybidaj wrote...
It is easy to say "make more characters and not make them ALL bi" right up until you find that one female in the party you think would be just perfect for your straight male character and guess what?  She only digs chicks.

That would be fantastic writing, even if I was thoroughly disappointed.

Filament wrote...
So what wouldn't have been "lazy" in your opinion? Making Merrill and Fenris straight instead of bi? Because with Isabela it totally fits her character, and with Anders... well, I had my suspicions.

I can't even really say that Fenris or Merril were supposed to be any particular way. They are variable. So all I can say is that they shouldn't have been variable. Anders, I don't know. I didn't think he was into guys but folks are being rather insistant that he was so I really don't know. Isabela was obiviously into girls since before this game was even started.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 24 mars 2011 - 05:57 .

[Bluumberry]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Bluumberry wrote...
Funny, because I found Leliana boring since she was so normal.

I guess Aveline would have been your type then

The problem with Aveline is that she is an extreme warrior characterization. "Woman shaped battering ram" is how I believe one of the characters described her.

But you thinking Leliana was borning illustrates my point. This is not about "I want what I want." I know I may not get what I want, but at least present things in a good not-lazy way.

Well all I can say is that I personally don't expect Bioware to make "same type" of characters when they're more the type to try out new things and as such in this case trying out different types of personalities/backstories for the LIs in DA2.

I can't complain anyways, I doubt I'll be able to romance anyone else since Fenris was so well written and voiced in my opinion.

[Monsteroids]

Filament wrote...

So what wouldn't have been "lazy" in your opinion? Making Merrill and Fenris straight instead of bi?.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

That's all I have to say to that.

Modifié par Monsteroids, 24 mars 2011 - 05:55 .

[Merced652]

Saibh wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

What would have added more content in a good way would have been to write more characters that fill more roles. Not make them blank and variable based on your character gender choices.

And if they didn't have enough time to write mroe, well to me this still screams of "rushed."

That's fine, and, I agree, the romances (particularly Anders' and particularly for women) felt rushed and stilted. I was just correcting the idea that they some how "cut corners" by adding to content. 

Did they really add anything though? The romances follow the same lines regardless of gender, a line might change here and there but... ehhhhh

[Thalorin1919]

It didn't fit with the DA2 characters, basically.

In DA:O, Zevran grew up in a brothel and therefore grew up bisexual. It made sense for his character. And with Leliana, she was a seductress and such, and you could just get the vibe from her she was like that.

When I had Anders hit on my male character in DA2, I was just...weirded out. I'm not saying bisexual or gay people weird me out or anything, but it didn't fit for his character. They just put it in there, either cause they were to lazy to really go in depth about it, or just to capture a wider audience in poor fashion, or just both.

This is why ME has done better with the romances, imo. Though Morrigan is one of my top favorites, I didn't get that kind of feeling with either Isabela or Merril.

[Bluumberry]

Merced652 wrote...

Saibh wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

What would have added more content in a good way would have been to write more characters that fill more roles. Not make them blank and variable based on your character gender choices.

And if they didn't have enough time to write mroe, well to me this still screams of "rushed."

That's fine, and, I agree, the romances (particularly Anders' and particularly for women) felt rushed and stilted. I was just correcting the idea that they some how "cut corners" by adding to content. 

Did they really add anything though? The romances follow the same lines regardless of gender, a line might change here and there but... ehhhhh

I haven't tried with different genders, but I've found a lot of enjoyement in trying out different personality types for Hawke in the romances. I can't say they're rushed when wether or not your Hawke is diplomatic/witty/straightforward in combination with whether or not you're going the friendship or rivalry path changes the dialogues nicely.

[City6]

the_one_54321 wrote...

City6 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

City6 wrote...
Nobody loose here.

Wrong. Someone always loses. This time I (and those that share my particular preferences) lost, because I (we) didn't get the kind of romanceable character I wanted and had to deal with a lame writing short cut on top of it. And as it stands, the only thing I am complaining about here is the lame writing short cut.

What kind of romanceable character did you want?

Anything similar to Leliana would have been great. Ideally, I would like a girl/woman who represents a normal everyday person that is thrown into extraordinary circumstances and rises to the challenge.

That was my major problem with all the characters in DAII. They all represent some kind of extreme characterization. Nothing wrong or bad about that in or of itself, but it is not what I was looking for.

By cutting the options of romances down to one for players who want to play gay, can't you see that you're making the liklihood of your problem happening to those players much higher?

In DA:O you better like a ****ty Antonio Banderas, because that's what you're getting. Players were even delighted in that, because they were so used to getting nothing at all.

This is exactly the meaning of "privilege" that Gaider is addressing. Because you usually get 2 options, but this time gay players also got 2 options. So therefore you think you deserve 3.

[Merced652]

Bluumberry wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

Saibh wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

What would have added more content in a good way would have been to write more characters that fill more roles. Not make them blank and variable based on your character gender choices.

And if they didn't have enough time to write mroe, well to me this still screams of "rushed."

That's fine, and, I agree, the romances (particularly Anders' and particularly for women) felt rushed and stilted. I was just correcting the idea that they some how "cut corners" by adding to content. 

Did they really add anything though? The romances follow the same lines regardless of gender, a line might change here and there but... ehhhhh

I haven't tried with different genders, but I've found a lot of enjoyement in trying out different personality types for Hawke in the romances. I can't say they're rushed when wether or not your Hawke is diplomatic/witty/straightforward in combination with whether or not you're going the friendship or rivalry path changes the dialogues nicely.

Changing the dialogue you can't select you mean? Thats a whole other can of worms about immersion and annoyances. 

[the_one_54321]

City6 wrote...
By cutting the options of romances down to one for players who want to play gay, can't you see that you're making the liklihood of your problem happening to those players much higher?

In DA:O you better like a ****ty Antonio Banderas, because that's what you're getting. Players were even delighted in that, because they were so used to getting nothing at all.

This is exactly the meaning of "privilege" that Gaider is addressing. Because you usually get 2 options, but this time gay players also got 2 options. So therefore you think you deserve 3.

That is who the character is. People don't have variable personalities. Good writing simulates life to at least some degree. I'd rather deal with the chance of not getting a romance that I'm not into if the writing will be better.

I don't expect more options for me. I'm willing to accept less options for me. Just present them better than this "all bi" stuff.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 24 mars 2011 - 06:02 .

[Merced652]

City6 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

City6 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

City6 wrote...
Nobody loose here.

Wrong. Someone always loses. This time I (and those that share my particular preferences) lost, because I (we) didn't get the kind of romanceable character I wanted and had to deal with a lame writing short cut on top of it. And as it stands, the only thing I am complaining about here is the lame writing short cut.

What kind of romanceable character did you want?

Anything similar to Leliana would have been great. Ideally, I would like a girl/woman who represents a normal everyday person that is thrown into extraordinary circumstances and rises to the challenge.

That was my major problem with all the characters in DAII. They all represent some kind of extreme characterization. Nothing wrong or bad about that in or of itself, but it is not what I was looking for.

This is exactly the meaning of "privilege" that Gaider is addressing. Because you usually get 2 options, but this time gay players also got 2 options. So therefore you think you deserve 3.

I didn't want 3, give the bisexual or whatever crowd 10 if they are going to be of the quality of merrill and isabella and instead give me 2 decent choices. But subjective topics are subjective. 

[Bluumberry]

Merced652 wrote...

Bluumberry wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

Saibh wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

What would have added more content in a good way would have been to write more characters that fill more roles. Not make them blank and variable based on your character gender choices.

And if they didn't have enough time to write mroe, well to me this still screams of "rushed."

That's fine, and, I agree, the romances (particularly Anders' and particularly for women) felt rushed and stilted. I was just correcting the idea that they some how "cut corners" by adding to content. 

Did they really add anything though? The romances follow the same lines regardless of gender, a line might change here and there but... ehhhhh

I haven't tried with different genders, but I've found a lot of enjoyement in trying out different personality types for Hawke in the romances. I can't say they're rushed when wether or not your Hawke is diplomatic/witty/straightforward in combination with whether or not you're going the friendship or rivalry path changes the dialogues nicely.

Changing the dialogue you can't select you mean? Thats a whole other can of worms about immersion and annoyances. 

OT: You choose the personality you play as, why would it be an annoyance? I much prefer the personalized Hawke that I chose over a blankfaced mute Warden.

[Nozybidaj]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...
It is easy to say "make more characters and not make them ALL bi" right up until you find that one female in the party you think would be just perfect for your straight male character and guess what?  She only digs chicks.

That would be fantastic writing, even if I was thoroughly disappointed.

Well you're a better person than I then, I'd be here asking "why can't she go both ways???"   Of course I'm not asking for characters to be created just to fit a role either.

This also doesn't answer the question was it done by design or was it the result of a short cut?  I'd kinda like to think it was by design and they are intentionally trying to open up more options to a wider range of players, but I don't really have anything to back up that assertion.

I don't see the path of creating more options being mutually exclusive with quality either.  Whether there is quality in the DA2 romances or not I don't think is directly a result of this.

Modifié par Nozybidaj, 24 mars 2011 - 06:08 .

[City6]

the_one_54321 wrote...

City6 wrote...
By cutting the options of romances down to one for players who want to play gay, can't you see that you're making the liklihood of your problem happening to those players much higher?

In DA:O you better like a ****ty Antonio Banderas, because that's what you're getting. Players were even delighted in that, because they were so used to getting nothing at all.

This is exactly the meaning of "privilege" that Gaider is addressing. Because you usually get 2 options, but this time gay players also got 2 options. So therefore you think you deserve 3.

That is who the character is. People don't have variable personalities. Good writing simulates life to at least some degree. I'd rather deal with the chance of not getting a romance that I'm not into if the writing will be better.

I don't expect more options for me. I'm willing to accept less options for me. Just present them better than this "all bi" stuff.

But you've just said you didn't like the "flavour" of the female romances in DA. That has nothing to do with being open to women, just that you don't like those particular archetypes.

[Saibh]

Merced652 wrote...

Did they really add anything though? The romances follow the same lines regardless of gender, a line might change here and there but... ehhhhh

There are different lines depending on gender, just as there was for DAO. More than that, they'd also have to get Hawke to revoice all of the lines for both genders.

Modifié par Saibh, 24 mars 2011 - 06:06 .

[FellowerOfOdin]

Bluumberry wrote...

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

That's not the case. In DA:O, Zevhran was the only gay character and his sexuality fit to his overall character. In DA:RtP, Bioware designed the characters (which did not take a lot of time) and then made everyone bisexual, a cheap advance to all homosexual players out there. It's chea, insulting and immoral to only use one's sexuality to cater to more people.

(and yes, having the option to just ignore some people or even kill Zevhran was AWESOME)

Zevran wasn't the only gay option, Leliana was as well so get your facts right.

Shame on you, Leliana was the most-used love interest for straight male wardens in Dragon Age: Origins. You want to re-read your posts in the future before making fun of yourself...again.

Zevhran was bisexual too? Ridiculous, anyone who believes that is on the wrong track. And to me, personally, any male who has sex with other males is ******-, not bisexual.

Modifié par FellowerOfOdin, 24 mars 2011 - 06:08 .

[casedawgz]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Make a homosex option at character creation, every problem is solved.

Seriously though, David Gaider has no clue. He says that romances are for everyone - and that's not true. It's simple as that. If you are a straight man, you do not have any straight romances in the ENTIRE game as everyone is bisexual. 

So basically, David says that the romances are for everyone...but for straight people.

Eloquent, eh? 

That's possibly one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

[Puzzlewell]

City6 wrote...
By cutting the options of romances down to one for players who want to play gay, can't you see that you're making the liklihood of your problem happening to those players much higher?

In DA:O you better like a ****ty Antonio Banderas, because that's what you're getting. Players were even delighted in that, because they were so used to getting nothing at all.

This is exactly the meaning of "privilege" that Gaider is addressing. Because you usually get 2 options, but this time gay players also got 2 options. So therefore you think you deserve 3.

This is exactly it. I love Baldur's Gate 2 with so much of my heart but without mods I *never* take a romance path since female players get exactly one option (and it's Anomen), while male PCs get three. My imagination can work wonders with putting in relationships were I want them to be where the developer doesn't give me that option, but constantly being pigeonholed into a straight relationship with a character I don't even like? I'll take no relationship or fanmade ones with characters not normally an option (and some are incredibly well written at that) anyday.

[orbit991]

They are bi if you want them to be, otherwise your not forced to peruse a romance. I don't get why this is such a problem unless someones religion or bigotry comes into this and I'm sure underneath it does. I never used a same sex option in the game or in life, but it doesn't mean I'm going to be as self indulgent to tell others that they should not either. This game has lots of problems but this is a non issue unless you have issues.

Their next complaint should be on how the White man has it hard these days.

Modifié par orbit991, 24 mars 2011 - 06:09 .

[Merced652]

Bluumberry wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

Bluumberry wrote...

Merced652 wrote...

Saibh wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

What would have added more content in a good way would have been to write more characters that fill more roles. Not make them blank and variable based on your character gender choices.

And if they didn't have enough time to write mroe, well to me this still screams of "rushed."

That's fine, and, I agree, the romances (particularly Anders' and particularly for women) felt rushed and stilted. I was just correcting the idea that they some how "cut corners" by adding to content. 

Did they really add anything though? The romances follow the same lines regardless of gender, a line might change here and there but... ehhhhh

I haven't tried with different genders, but I've found a lot of enjoyement in trying out different personality types for Hawke in the romances. I can't say they're rushed when wether or not your Hawke is diplomatic/witty/straightforward in combination with whether or not you're going the friendship or rivalry path changes the dialogues nicely.

Changing the dialogue you can't select you mean? Thats a whole other can of worms about immersion and annoyances. 

OT: You choose the personality you play as, why would it be an annoyance? I much prefer the personalized Hawke that I chose over a blankfaced mute Warden.

Because circumstances are everything, the way i choose to RP my character may mean they respond differently to something despite having the same overriding attitude as another. Yet i am railroaded in to some jackass response even if i didn't feel it fit the situation at all. Thus immersion break, and thus annoyance. 

Modifié par Merced652, 24 mars 2011 - 06:09 .

[Bluumberry]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Bluumberry wrote...

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

That's not the case. In DA:O, Zevhran was the only gay character and his sexuality fit to his overall character. In DA:RtP, Bioware designed the characters (which did not take a lot of time) and then made everyone bisexual, a cheap advance to all homosexual players out there. It's chea, insulting and immoral to only use one's sexuality to cater to more people.

(and yes, having the option to just ignore some people or even kill Zevhran was AWESOME)

Zevran wasn't the only gay option, Leliana was as well so get your facts right.

Shame on you, Leliana was the most-used love interest for straight male wardens in Dragon Age: Origins. You want to re-read your posts in the future before making fun of yourself...again.

So? That doesn't change the fact that she will hit on a female warden and you have the option to have a romance with her with a female Warden. That has nothing to do with however popular she might be with male gamers.

[FellowerOfOdin]

casedawgz wrote...

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Make a homosex option at character creation, every problem is solved.

Seriously though, David Gaider has no clue. He says that romances are for everyone - and that's not true. It's simple as that. If you are a straight man, you do not have any straight romances in the ENTIRE game as everyone is bisexual. 

So basically, David says that the romances are for everyone...but for straight people.

Eloquent, eh? 

That's possibly one of the dumbest things I've ever read.

Sorry, I just can't write any slower for you to understand.

Bluumberry wrote...

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Bluumberry wrote...

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

That's not the case. In DA:O, Zevhran was the only gay character and his sexuality fit to his overall character. In DA:RtP, Bioware designed the characters (which did not take a lot of time) and then made everyone bisexual, a cheap advance to all homosexual players out there. It's chea, insulting and immoral to only use one's sexuality to cater to more people.

(and yes, having the option to just ignore some people or even kill Zevhran was AWESOME)

Zevran wasn't the only gay option, Leliana was as well so get your facts right.

Shame on you, Leliana was the most-used love interest for straight male wardens in Dragon Age: Origins. You want to re-read your posts in the future before making fun of yourself...again.

So? That doesn't change the fact that she will hit on a female warden and you have the option to have a romance with her with a female Warden. That has nothing to do with however popular she might be with male gamers.

If she hits on male wardens or rather lets herself get hit by male wardens, she can't be gay. Genius.

Modifié par FellowerOfOdin, 24 mars 2011 - 06:09 .

[Bluumberry]

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Zevhran was bisexual too? Ridiculous, anyone who believes that is on the wrong track. And to me, personally, any male who has sex with other males is ******-, not bisexual.

Maybe you should actually read up before you post.
Because though you imply others to be idiots, the only retard here is you.

[casedawgz]

I love how this guy thinks that having a heterosexual relationship with someone who identifies as bisexual is somehow leaving the heterosexual in the cold. If a woman is down with having a relationship with another woman, but instead chose YOU, it doesn't matter if she identifies as bisexual. She's with you.

[orbit991]

Bluumberry wrote...

FellowerOfOdin wrote...

Zevhran was bisexual too? Ridiculous, anyone who believes that is on the wrong track. And to me, personally, any male who has sex with other males is ******-, not bisexual.

Maybe you should actually read up before you post.
Because though you imply others to be idiots, the only retard here is you.

He cant help it, probably was raised being beaten by a crucifix.

Modifié par orbit991, 24 mars 2011 - 06:13 .