201 réponses à ce sujet

[fluorine7]

Unique Location Vs. additional romancable character/quest

Romance win my money EVERY TIME.

If I only have money to buy one RPG game, I buy bioware game over Bethesda game purely because Bioware RPG has romance, Bethesda (namely Fallout/Elder Scroll) RPGs doesn't.

[Rann]

I like the romances, and they drive quests that are generally interesting. But when I think back on my favorite NPCs -- Minsc, Morte, Neeshka, Alistair, Varric, Aveline -- romance doesn't come into why I might have liked them, so to me it isn't the highest bit. (Aveline was the real surprise for me, incidentally -- for some reason that character just really clicked with me, which actually surprised the heck out of me. It was maybe more of appreciation that, for once, a female NPC was coded up to have an engaging personality, exhibit great competence, and break the usual uber-beauty mold of what an RPG female has traditionally been intended to fit. But even then it was not a romance thing, and I didn't choose any "flirt" choices for her -- she seemed more like a good friend to have.)

Modifié par Rann, 30 mars 2011 - 02:29 .

[Basher of Glory]

@ The Angry One in regard of "Sidequests"
These quests may yield some pieces of eqipment, may lead to other quests and at least there are XP and some coins to gain. So it makes certainly a difference if you do sidequests or not.

@ Rann
Did I understand correctly: You wanted a romance with Morte? How should that work?

[The Razman]

No, they don't need to be part of every RPG. When done well, they add to character development. Remember the difference between Baldur's Gate 1 and 2? Romances were a big part of that, a big part of what made the game a more mature and enriched RPG experience.

The trouble is that Bioware have fallen into the trap of romances only existing for the pleasure of the player. It makes characters all seem like support acts for the player, instead of the individuals they should seem like. I would be much more impressed if NPCs in my company could fall in love with each other than with me.

Modifié par The Razman, 30 mars 2011 - 02:47 .

[Matterialize]

Absolutely not. However, I think in this case, they lend themselves well to the story - Hawke's story. And how Hawke feels about other people is an important part of that, be they friends or enemies. Romance is another facet of that, just as an antagonist is.

[Dasha Dreyson]

The Razman wrote...

The trouble is that Bioware have fallen into the trap of romances only existing for the pleasure of the player. It makes characters all seem like support acts for the player, instead of the individuals they should seem like. I would be much more impressed if NPCs in my company could fall in love with each other than with me.

I would love to see some of the NPCs do that. There is some Fenris/Isabela banter, but I'd like more. I'm glad they gave Aveline a chance to have so much of a life outside of Hawke.

I always wondered what would happen if Lelianna had hooked up with either Alistair or Zevran. They both seemed like options for her for different reasons.

[Basher of Glory]

When I read through the thread, then there seem to be more and more people saying

"Romance yes, if there is something linked, be it just a funny event like Aveline's "courtship" or tensions under the companions (e.g. warden flirts with Leliana and someone else) or even plot-related stuff, such as descisions (Mass Effect 1) or different endings.

But romances because of an unwritten law since BG 2 and / or for the romance's sake: No!"

BTW, some people brought up romances in movies as examples. IMO it's the same: To have a romance without a certain impact, be it plotwise or be it to learn more about protagonsists and antagonists, is certainly in most cases good.
But romances totally out of context... no. Bad movie.

Modifié par Baher of Glory, 30 mars 2011 - 04:54 .

[Oneiropolos]

I'm not... really sure how you're defining romances to be out of context. I felt NONE of the DAII romances were 'out of context' for example... and none of the DA:O ones were out of context. Now, does that mean I think everyone should like every romance in DAII? Nope. But I was irked I couldn't talk to my romantic interest when I wanted to. Limiting the romances in DAII the way they were, in terms of when you could talk to them, seemed to be harken back to "You can go visit them but they're just going to say the saaaammmmme thing" that happened in ME1.

I've seen lots of people in this thread that say they wouldn't see a purpose in buying the game at all if Bioware suddenly ditched the romance angle. But I don't pretend that's a 'majority' of players. The average consumer may very well still buy it. I though the romance in ME1 to be Shallow, frustrating, and pointless. But I still enjoyed the fact that, unlike other games, I COULD pursue a romance. DA:O was much more satisfying when it came to romances. If you're asking if people are generally going to go, "Nah, I just want sex and for it to mean nothing"... well, no. People are rarely going to pick the option that their romantic choices in the game are nothing but playthings on the side.... at least not for an RPG. But if you're trying to say that we need the romantic element to have some HUGE IMPACT on what happens.. again, I wouldn't say that most people do. We enjoy the romance because it adds another level of immersion and they're FUN. I don't need to have a breakdown over a romantic decision in a game. If I want to struggle with my relationship, I can go discuss what the boyfriend's done wrong this time with him. In my gaming, I sometimes do just like romance so my character has a partner to see things through with.

I think if you did a poll, most people would say they try to keep their LI from the game in their party as much as they can. Clearly, they do this because they like the character and they want to hear that character's input in banter and in commentary on quests. But that doesn't mean that Fenris is suddenly going to have a Thedas-shattering impact because I'm in love with him. And I'm okay with that.

[errant_knight]

Zjarcal wrote...

errant_knight wrote...
It didn't matter what kind of person I was, they'd still stick around. It didn't matter what gender I was, because Hawke was so awesome they didn't care. They didn't have any real romantic background that came into play, or made a difference, and none of them had strong enough feelings to be uninterested. It just felt way too easy. Thanks, LIs, but no thanks. My Hawke doesn't want to be entirely interchangable with any other Hawke.

Any Hawke is interchangeable just like the Warden is interchengable as well. Push the right buttons, and the LIs wil like ANY character. This applies to both Origins and DA2. That you didn't like the characters doesn't mean they don't have any romantic background.

Geez, if Alistair had been BI but his romance with a female was still identical, would that have bothered you so much?
t

Yes, because it wouldn't have fit with his more conservative character. It was part of what made him individual, as was Zevran's background which made him more sexually liberal. Their sexuality wasn't divorced from their past histories. It was part of a whole. In DA2 it just felt convenient and not a product of characterization.

They will like any character, but only if that character demonstrates characteristics that they admire. They won't want anything to do with you otherwise. They're capable of leaving. Well, except for the two that can't for plot reasons. But that was everyone in DA2.

Modifié par errant_knight, 30 mars 2011 - 05:54 .

[Zjarcal]

errant_knight wrote...
Yes, because it wouldn't have fit with his more conservative character. It was part of what made him individual, as was Zevran's background which made him more sexually liberal. Their sexuality wasn't divorced from their past histories. It was part of a whole. In DA2 it just felt convenient and not a product of characterization.

They will like any character, but only if that character demonstrates characteristics that they admire. They won't want anything to do with you otherwise. They're capable of leaving. Well, except for the two that can't for plot reasons. But that was everyone in DA2.

Hmm, I would argue that aside from him not hitting on a guy, there is nothing about Alistair's background that suggests that he MUST be straight. But that's an Origins discussion and this is the DA2 forum so...

[Lenimph]

Pfft... yeah sure "licking a lamppost in winter" totally sounds straight.

[Kaylinn]

I prefer the romances. When I'm done killing asexual Locusts and finding Maria for the *50th* time, I like to take a break and have some CG loving for one of my game characters. If Baird can't have the loving, then Amara might as well have it with Anders. Call me cheesy or think its a stereotypical gamer girl answer but the romances add substance to what is otherwise a hack 'n' slash game. Adore DA:O and DA2 and look forward to playing them over and over. My only beef was there were no achievements for romancing specific characters like DA:O. That was a fun party!

[errant_knight]

*Shrugs* I like to feel that the characters have real and varied past histories and that their sexuality isn't divorced from that. It makes them seem more real to me. I like it when some of them find my character unappealing romantically because of those things. It's not like I'm only allowed to play one gender or one type of person. It makes them and my PC seem more real to me. Obviously not everyone feels that way. If you want to decide that Alistair must be secretly gay/bi, it doesn't affect my gameplay, so have at it. Morrigan, too. As long as the gamplay works as it does, with sexuality tied to charaterization, it works for me.

Modifié par errant_knight, 30 mars 2011 - 06:17 .

[Dawnielle]

Thrennion wrote...

I would never have bought DA2 if I hadn't known Bioware would throw a good romance my way. So yes, if they want my girl gamer dollars, give me some emotional substance.

Second that, I'd like some more masculine men too-
That's why Alistair was my be all end all... Sabastian, he had so much possibility-. I didnt care for him at all.  Wasted potential, for the ladies who are a little more traditional.

[Arppis]

Love, huh, yeah!
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing!
Uh-huh!
Love, huh, yeah!
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing!
Say it again, y'all!

[Oneiropolos]

Arppis wrote...

Love, huh, yeah!
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing!
Uh-huh!
Love, huh, yeah!
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing!
Say it again, y'all!

Hah! It may be because it's too late at night but that totally cracked me up. The way some people are talking, it could almost be their theme song though. 

[ThatDancingTurian]

I wouldn't have been able to finish this game without the romance. Those fluffy conversations with Fenris were the only things keeping me from sinking into depression about what a hole Kirkwall became in Act 3.

[Arppis]

Oneiropolos wrote...

Arppis wrote...

Love, huh, yeah!
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing!
Uh-huh!
Love, huh, yeah!
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing!
Say it again, y'all!

Hah! It may be because it's too late at night but that totally cracked me up. The way some people are talking, it could almost be their theme song though. 

  agreed. But then again, I have never really felt like I "need" the romantic love.

For the subject, I'll say it's always a nice thing to have a choice in these matters. I'll usualy enjoy the a-sexual path most, a character who devotes himself for the duty. Without distractions. I just loved the fact that I could choose my epilogue in the DA:O. I always loved the endings where hero just rides alone to the sunset when he is not needed anymore.

Modifié par Arppis, 30 mars 2011 - 07:48 .

[Eranelle]

Bioware got me hooked to dragon age because of that possibility that I have more interaction with my companions whether intimately or just brothers in arms. the game lets you feel that you are part of the game and not just controlling your character and finish quest A-Z. It'll be just another rpg. where I'd be clicking "next, next, next" and won't even bother thinking much of the story you're creating.

[Seagloom]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

No. I think romance should only be included in RPGs if it makes sense for them to exist. And they don't have to be with the PC either.

I don't need a romance to enjoy a game, but have enjoyed games that provide them.

I agree with this stance. Romances in most games are done poorly. That includes most of BioWare's past catalogue. I enjoyed the "Jade Empire" and "Baldur's Gate II" romances in a Hollywood movie sort of way. Origins was the first game where I felt the romances were a deeper experience than that. Well, at least in Alistair, Morrigan, and Zevran's cases. Leliana is one of my favorite characters, but her romance ended too quickly and did not feel as integrated into the plot as the other three.

I think Alistair's romance is the model others should follow. What I mean by that is having them sharing a connection to the overarching plot. Without that connection, it tends to come across as shallow or corny. Since anything approaching a realistic relationship is out for a video game, that is the best I can hope for. Including romances simply to include them is pointless. At the end quality is what I care about.

Maria Caliban made a snarky comment earlier about removing combat too. Thing is, I agree with that. If combat made no sense for a particular story, I would say remove that too. Few things in games annoy me more than filler content; and filler is not limited to killing things or level design.

Modifié par Seagloom, 30 mars 2011 - 11:13 .

[Ushakal]

Do we really need romance in games? No, I don’t think we do. I think relationships play an absolutely vital role in games like Dragon Age, but I think the focus has shifted too much to the sexual side of those relationships (the “romance”).

In KOTOR and KOTOR2 I feel that relationships are more meaningful, they take a while to develop them and they are more immersive; however, in the Dragon Age series (yes, even Origins) I feel that relationships are more like mini games where you fill the “love bar” and you’re “rewarded” with a funny little sex scene (they seem to be much quicker too). In Dragon Age 2, especially, it didn’t feel like relationships were dynamic enough – you just pick the BIG HEART option every time it comes up if you want to sleep with someone. It’s all about the “sexual characters” and other characters seem to take a back seat in development when it comes to their relationships with your character.

To summarise, I think the focus should be on the relationships and the development of those relationships, and far less on the innuendo and “sexy times” that it seems to have shifted to. I think developers should spend more time making each relationship dynamic and interesting (and it doesn’t necessarily has to be sexual), and less time on “romancing” everyone (I tend to agree with people who say that every LI being bisexual diminishes their individuality).

I also think that the way you build your character should be noticed by other characters; in DA2 I made my mage into a Blood Mage and my character was still very anti-blood mage and no one seemed to care I was doing loads of Blood Magic (was this the same in DA:O? I never made a Blood Mage on that). Perhaps Anders should come to hate you for being a Blood Mage, while Merrill should come to respect you more. Perhaps becoming a Blood Mage could make half of your companions leave/attack you, and then another bunch of darker or more practical companions start to follow you (who wouldn’t have otherwise). The possibilities are endless, and I think these avenues need to be explored to really make the most out of in-game relationships.

[Basher of Glory]

Zjarcal wrote "this is about DA II and not DA:O" (anloguosly).

That is very true, because in DA:O even I wanted to know, what happens when I start a romance with this companion and not with that. So, in my eyes these romances HAD impact in the overall gameplay. The character's attitude changed, their converational options changed and their behaviour towards the warden changed.

Perhaps I was not able to play DA II correctly, because I've not noticed a compareable impact due to a romance in this game. I admit, the only romance I started in my three and a half runs through the game was with Isabella, because I thought, she won't run away because of her issues with the Qunari.
The other characters... I don't know why, but I simply don't want to get too close to them, RP-wise. Now, one could say, that this is also a good thing, because the characters are obviously well written, otherwise one would not feel the need to know them closer or to keep distance.

Thus, a non-romance with a romanceable companion is also part of this discussion, right?

[Icy Magebane]

If the romances in future titles are of the same quality as DA2, I say get rid of them. Having 2 unappealing options is annoying... and they aren't even properly developed. You spend more time talking with Aveline and Varric than you do with LI's... and of course, they aren't romancable (Aveline's quest was awesome, and I wouldn't trade that just so that the player can romance her).

Basically, either give us more people to choose from, or get rid of romance. 2 options is not enough, because inevitably I hate one and always pick the other. Or in the case of DA2, I don't pick anybody...

Edit:  One more thing... IMO, combat and questing is always more important than romances.  If it means we can have more of those, then get rid of romance.

Modifié par Icy Magebane, 30 mars 2011 - 11:26 .

[LobselVith8]

ejoslin wrote...

Romances add a lot to games. Love and death are both a part of life. It gives you a more personal stake for saving the world.

I agree. I enjoyed exploring a relationship with Merrill as an apostate Hawke. It added another layer when she was focused on restoring the Eluvian, and her determination to deal with Audacity in her quest to save her people when the cost could mean her life.

[Danjaru]

I think they're somewhat important. It's a good way to make the players care about perticular companions and through that maybe get more connected to the world. At least in DA2 where you didn't care about any of your companions (at least I didn't).

I'd say it was unnecessary in DAO cause those characters were actually good.