201 réponses à ce sujet

[ejoslin]

Baher of Glory wrote...

As it seems, I'm close to be convinced about the necessity of romances.
The argument "a hero needs an anchor, something to defend, a goal for himself" made me reconsider my original position.
I agree, a hero / heroine appears more authentic, if (s)he shows emotions, if (s)he cares about someone.

Nevertheless, some more points to discuss:

1) Years ago I played the Molyneux-RPG "Fable". The protagonist could buy a home and marry someone, who was not related to the plot at all. Ok, it was a bit like in "The Sims", but this is not about the quality of "Fable".
Would you accept a good written and properly enacted romance with someone outside of the team?
It could be sort of a quest to win the heart, the spouse could be involved later, so that  (s)he must be rescued or whatever. Whenever the hero/ine comes home, we'd have lots of converational options and the chance / risk to improve or even destroy the relationship.

2) Instead of the opportunity to flirt and <use your favourite 4-letter-word> with any respectively most of the companions, there is just one really good developed romance-option, be it like in 1) or be it something else. This possible romance won't be sooo obvious like it was in former games, it must be found, it develops parallel to the plot and the protagonist could even fail.

Opinions?

This is an either/or?  I don't like either choice, tbh.  There will never be ONE romance that all people like.  I don't want to play a game where the only romance option, for instance, is female.  But if you look how many people prefer difference romances in both DAO and DA2.  Different people like different things -- having a choice is a good thing.  Had Anders been my only choice, there would have been less drama as well.  Having Fenris and Anders sniping over Hawke was fun.  The love triangles in DAO were fantastic (Morrigan and Leliana were the best in this regard because of the catfights, but any combination of them lead to some great confrontations at least with the warden).

Again, I really liked the DAO romances.  They seemed real.  It seems natural, when you're in a life-or-death situation, that there will be attraction and perhaps a relationship developing.  Would I have wanted an option to have, say Teagan available but not adventuring?  No.  I like that you adventure WITH the person whom you're in a relationship with.  I also don't like the idea of "rescue me and I'll love you," type romance.  What's wrong with comrads in arms falling for each other?  You would have a lot more interaction with them.

Edit: I want to add, in both DAO and DA2, it is possible to be dumped by the romance partner.  Here is an example of one of Zevran's breakups (all have an equivalant).  Here is another. And yet another. In fact, there are quite a few ways to fail in the romances.  Fortunately, it probably is a bit more difficult to get these breakups than it is to take the romance to the end.  In DAO, you can also break up with the romance partner at any time (DA2 fails with this as you can't break up whenever you want, which can lead to some awkward moments, but this is a limitation of the conversation system).

In DA2, it's easier to end up broken up with Fenris than with a successful relationship, and in my last playthrough, my Hawke was dumped by Anders.  So... yeh.  

Modifié par ejoslin, 31 mars 2011 - 02:50 .

[Sammy0721]

Actually the best romance was Hawke and Aveline ... no love scene but it was bitter sweet. Besides playing a specific role for a party (buffs, tank, healer, DPS) a romance provides possible additional depth for a character. Regardless, the most important aspect is a great story ... DAO was a great story ... ME1 was a great story .... the Act 2 was a great story ... removing romances or having romances that have no part of the story would reduce the role playing aspect which is why people buy Bioware products and not the zillion hack and slash games available.

[ejoslin]

Sammy0721 wrote...

Actually the best romance was Hawke and Aveline ... no love scene but it was bitter sweet. Besides playing a specific role for a party (buffs, tank, healer, DPS) a romance provides possible additional depth for a character. Regardless, the most important aspect is a great story ... DAO was a great story ... ME1 was a great story .... the Act 2 was a great story ... removing romances or having romances that have no part of the story would reduce the role playing aspect which is why people buy Bioware products and not the zillion hack and slash games available.

Right here is an issue.  People can't agree on what a romance actually IS in a game.  I don't think there was any romance between Hawke and Aveline.  You could flirt with her and it went right over her head as she was in love with someone else.  But there was ZERO depth to it.  I laughed over the flirty lines, but that's it.  Had those flirts been built upon, but Aveline decided that Hawke wasn't for her, that would be one thing.  But there was no development at all.

If enough people think that that is enough romance, people who like more and deeper and actual romances will feel shortchanged if that is what romances are reduced to in games.  And other people will ask "What's the point?"  

Edit: I'm not trying to say my point of view is right and yours is wrong, btw.  What I'm saying is for some people, a few lines of dialog may be enough.  But for me, DA2 didn't go far enough in their romances (with the four LIs) as far as development went, but at least there was SOME.

Modifié par ejoslin, 31 mars 2011 - 03:09 .

[RainyDayLover]

Do we really need the combat, the blood/gore and all the fighting? Why can't Hawke just give everyone hugs and teach them about the magic of nature and how rainbows shine on us all, good or bad? Why can't the swords be made out of chocolate and why doesn't Merrill/Anders/Bethany have the power to shoot caramel syrup out of their wrists?

[Lluvy]

I don't think I would've played the game without the romance options, it creates more depth is the game. You get to know them better, I don't know why, but it makes the game a lot better.. and who can't love Alistair and Fenris?

[keginkc]

I did Merrill's romance last night, the only one I've done so far, and I thought it was better done than any of the romances in Origins. It seemed more genuine, there were larger implications (if you read your journal) and the cinematic itself was touching, rather than something that might have bubbled up from the imagination of a 13-year old.

As far as whether or not we need them, they're one of my favorite aspects of Bioware games.

The bisexual part doesn't bother me a bit, either. I never felt as any point, as a male character, that Anders or Fenris were forced on me.

[Paraxial]

Yes, yes we do.

Romance is a part of life for many people, if not everyone at some point. One of the reasons I love Bioware games so much is that they actually have these romances in their games. The romances add a connection to the characters and adds a level of depth to the games that many games can't muster up in the main storyline.

Modifié par Bible Doctor, 31 mars 2011 - 05:31 .

[ms_sunlight]

I've just completed a DA:O playthrough as a female human mage. I romanced Alastair, hardened him, made him king and ended up as his mistress. Wynne warned me during the romance about what might happen if I had to choose love over duty. I got Alastair to do the dark ritual because I couldn't bear to lose him, despite Wynne's warning.

Romance in games needs to enhance the storytelling. Of all the romances in DA:O I have always felt that Alastair and Morrigan's romances did that the best.

In DA2 I feel that the romance options - particularly the option to play each romance 2 ways with friendship and rivalry - really helped me to roleplay my character. My female mage in a rivalmance with Fenris worked very well - he hated what I was but loved me and the whole thing played out really well. It did not however fit into the overall narrative as well as the Alastair / F!Warden or Morrigan / M!Warden romances did.

[Basher of Glory]

DA-games are NOT AD&D, as we all know.

So, this might be an academical question, but nevertheless interesting, at least for me:

Could you imagine to have again predistined characters with different alignments and thus, the ever ongoing risk to loose a LI and / or another companion because of an action which is against his / her / their alignment?

Something similar happens in DA II, when you choose not to kill Anders. At least in my game Sebastian left immediately with the justification, that a man of the clergy cannot tolerate this.
For me that looked like
Lawful Good ==> -100 disapproval

[Aratark]

Romances, I can live without. The depth of characterisation that Bioware generally has is what I look for. Don't get me wrong, I think the romances are interesting and add to the game, but they're not integral as long as you still have well written, well thought out characters that you can interact with.

Morrigan, for example, was just as well written a character whether or not she was the LI and that is what I would miss. If they can't do the depth of characterisation without romances, keep them in, if they can, then I wouldn't burn down the house if one of their games missed out on LI's.

[ejoslin]

Baher of Glory wrote...

DA-games are NOT AD&D, as we all know.

So, this might be an academical question, but nevertheless interesting, at least for me:

Could you imagine to have again predistined characters with different alignments and thus, the ever ongoing risk to loose a LI and / or another companion because of an action which is against his / her / their alignment?

Something similar happens in DA II, when you choose not to kill Anders. At least in my game Sebastian left immediately with the justification, that a man of the clergy cannot tolerate this.
For me that looked like
Lawful Good ==> -100 disapproval

You mean like Leliana trying to kill the warden or leaving them if they defile the urn and don't intimidate her?  Wynne as well, no matter what?  Or Alistair if you show Loghain mercy?  Or Alistair as king if you're not a HNF and you don't harden him?  Or Morrigan if you refuse her ritual?  Or hell, for a LI, even if you accept it?

Edit: Though these don't fall into the D&D alignment system, your choices can have consequences on both your romances and your other companions.  One of the most dramatic ones, Alistair at the archdemon with the woman he loves/is still in love with and the ritual not done, really is quite painful if you're not prepared for it (which I wasn't).

Modifié par ejoslin, 01 avril 2011 - 03:17 .

[Bayz]

Not really, but they spice the game a bit more. I can live without them and even without other character's interaction but still if they are in then I'm cool with it.

Most of the time in BG with the romances I ended up telling the LI to shut the **** up and breaking it because well...über battle with mega super duper Red Dragon Exterminator of Worlds and Defiler of Souls, we are in the point of no return, a couple more rounds and one of the two sides will perish into oblivion...

Viconia: Have thought of marriage?

PC:Shut the hell up and KEEP BUFFING

Viconia: You don't look me in the eye anymore *cries*

Well one of the worst brutal breakdowns I had was when Jaheira left for the Harpers without telling me just after I gathered my allies to storm Bodhi's tomb...I saved Jaheira and killed her for desertion, spreading her pieces in tthe four winds so she wouldn't be resurrected again...

I kiinda like the DA:O\\DA2 Romances that are only fired at home\\camp

[JediHealerCosmin]

As others have already mentioned, romance gives the game... a bit more flavour emotionally.
For those who don't like it, well, it's good that it's optional  

I can't really see BioWare games without romances. For me, it's an important part of the story. 

[julian08]

Well, a lot of people already said it, but that never stopped me before

I don't blame people who are not interested in romances in an RPG. Like so many other things in games, it is a matter of personal preference. But personally, I think it adds a lot of depth to both the companions and the player character. It helps me to see them as persons with emotions and desires, and really improves immersion for me. If they are written well, of course, but BW mostly does a very good job to make them seem natural and believable. So, to answer your question, do we need additional character development that makes the characters more identifiable and improves the gaming experience for a lot of people? I guess not, but it makes the game better. There are a lot of things we don't *need* in a game, but if they are done right they can turn a good game into an excellent one.

[julian08]

The Angry One wrote...

Yes. In fact, we should have threesomes *stares at Merril and Fenris evilly*

Jade Empire actually did this (Yeah yeah, so did DA:O, but in JE it was an actual happy love triangle between three people, not just some cheap quickie with a pirate wench that probably left you and your love interest with a nasty rash)



You know, I really should replay Jade Empire sometime soon
Might as well, since my DAII is currently pretty much crippled without a patch

Modifié par julian08, 01 avril 2011 - 05:02 .

[frylock23]

I understand the position that it's easier to present more options if you make the romances able to swing both ways, but IMO, when you do that, you also have to genericize the writing to some extent. For example, Kaiden in ME couldn't spend all that time talking about Rana if you wanted to play him as believably gay (bi-sexual, yes). In order to make Kaiden play well from any angle, you'd potentially have to cut out or heavily edit a large portion of his backstory. That would detract from the development that made me like him so much (and stay true to him in the face of the shallow messes that the ME2 romances were).

I don't have an issue with the idea that people want romances tailored to suit them; that's only a natural impulse. However, I do take issue so far with BioWare's attempts to straddle all the bases. The romances have suffered and are not as deep or developed as they could be if the writers concentrated on one well-written romance for a particular preference. Yes, it does mean that it limits the options of players. If Alistair wound up being the only romance for straight females, then the Zevran fans would be left out. If Zevran wound up being the only option for gay males, then it left out the Alistair fans (and yes, a check of the forums shows that it did). But in all honesty, which would you rather have - one option that's specifically tailored to your preference and very deep and developed or a bunch of less developed and sort of shallow options who can swing any which way your wind blows?

So, to the op, no the romances aren't strictly necessary, but when they are done well, they add a lot to the game. However, if the romances are just going to be a few flirt scenes without any depth of development so that anyone who wants to flirt with NPC A can do so, then I'd rather they be left out.

[VenetianLunacy]

If someone is not fond of romances, they are not obligated to play the game that way. I personally enjoy them immensely, and would like to have the option for romances in the future. And I agree with some of the replies - without romances, some of us would have much less of a reason to play.

[ejoslin]

You know, having the LIs swing both ways doesn't mean you have to cut out content.

Zevran was actually a very well developed romance for both males and females. Not only that, the dialog had enough differences that both came off as genuine. Leliana's romance had problems because a lot of her gender specific dialogs were going to the wrong gender -- when those are straightened out, it's the same thing; a very different feeling romance, but also quite genuine.

I don't think DA2 took anything away, tbh, by having the LIs be bisexual. They could have used more development, but I think ALL the character interactions, romance and otherwise, could have used a bit more development.

When I think of what Origins would have been without romances, I think of Awakening. Awakening was fun, but I had no real interest in it. I played it through twice -- nearly a year between playthroughs. Both times, I came away feeling meh.

[frylock23]

"Zevran was actually a very well developed romance for both males and females. Not only that, the dialog had enough differences that both came off as genuine. Leliana's romance had problems because a lot of her gender specific dialogs were going to the wrong gender -- when those are straightened out, it's the same thing; a very different feeling romance, but also quite genuine.

I don't think DA2 took anything away, tbh, by having the LIs be bisexual. They could have used more development, but I think ALL the character interactions, romance and otherwise, could have used a bit more development."

Zevran was well-developed, but he was also unapologetically bi no matter what angle you take with him. He and Isabela both make it perfectly clear that they're open to romancing just about anything with genitalia. That's fine; they were open and unapologetic about it and they writers could angle all the material they wrote for those characters with that specific orientation in mind.

Fenris, Merril, and Anders are not openly bi. So, their material had to be written with the angle that whatever was said had to be workable from any orientation - straight, gay, bi. I contend that in order to pull that off, there are some places you can't go as a writer. If you talk about past relationships which is the example I used above, it has to be done in such a way that it can be believable from the angle of any orientation ... so, it's much safer not to go there at all. That limits some of your options.

[ejoslin]

frylock23 wrote...

ejoslin wrote...
"Zevran was actually a very well developed romance for both males and females. Not only that, the dialog had enough differences that both came off as genuine. Leliana's romance had problems because a lot of her gender specific dialogs were going to the wrong gender -- when those are straightened out, it's the same thing; a very different feeling romance, but also quite genuine.

I don't think DA2 took anything away, tbh, by having the LIs be bisexual. They could have used more development, but I think ALL the character interactions, romance and otherwise, could have used a bit more development." 

Zevran was well-developed, but he was also unapologetically bi no matter what angle you take with him. He and Isabela both make it perfectly clear that they're open to romancing just about anything with genitalia. That's fine; they were open and unapologetic about it and they writers could angle all the material they wrote for those characters with that specific orientation in mind.

Fenris, Merril, and Anders are not openly bi. So, their material had to be written with the angle that whatever was said had to be workable from any orientation - straight, gay, bi. I contend that in order to pull that off, there are some places you can't go as a writer. If you talk about past relationships which is the example I used above, it has to be done in such a way that it can be believable from the angle of any orientation ... so, it's much safer not to go there at all. That limits some of your options.

Except Zevran had more differences in dialogs for a male/female warden than just shifting pronouns, which is why the male/female romances felt different.  Banters were different as well.  I'm not sure what you mean by things can't be done, or they have to be workable from any orientation.  I'm not trying to be argumentativie.  I really do not understand the issue here.

See, I don't get why you are saying there are places a writer can't go.  Anders, for instance, has a glaring difference with a male and a female Hawke -- he is more open about his relationship with Karl to a male Hawke.  OTOH, you get to hear about Fenris and Isabela having sex only provided that neither is romanced.  I don't see how them both being bisexual takes anything away.  

I'm just confused over that whole point.  

Edit: Fixed the quoted messages flags for clarity.

Second edit: Continuing to use Zevran as an example, dialog had to be tailored to whether he was romancing a male or a female warden.  Different banters triggered, many of the romance lines were different...  It's not like he was generic one-size-fits-all regarding dialog.  Most of the conversations outside of party banter and warden had nothing to do with sex at all (Isabela being the one exception) so that didn't have to be tailored to his sexuality at all.

Modifié par ejoslin, 01 avril 2011 - 07:17 .

[frylock23]

"I'm just confused over that whole point."

Then, they're still writing the character differently. If you were romancing Anders from a straight angle, would you want to hear him wax poetic about Karl? Probably not. If you are romancing him from a gay angle, that would work out just fine. And they wrote two different versions of the romance.

My understanding of things is that they want the character romances to be believable with one set of dialogues no matter what you're playing opposite the NPC. They're right in that it would be much easier for them and take less work, but it would also make it harder to make the romances really work. I think to ultimately do it that way, they would have to genericize enough that it would limit their options.

As you pointed out, they still wrote different options based on what you were playing opposite Anders. That doesn't make Anders exactly what they were describing - one character that plays equally well no matter which way you want them to swing.

That's probably where our confusion is coming from.

[ejoslin]

frylock23 wrote...

"I'm just confused over that whole point."

Then, they're still writing the character differently. If you were romancing Anders from a straight angle, would you want to hear him wax poetic about Karl? Probably not. If you are romancing him from a gay angle, that would work out just fine. And they wrote two different versions of the romance.

My understanding of things is that they want the character romances to be believable with one set of dialogues no matter what you're playing opposite the NPC. They're right in that it would be much easier for them and take less work, but it would also make it harder to make the romances really work. I think to ultimately do it that way, they would have to genericize enough that it would limit their options.

As you pointed out, they still wrote different options based on what you were playing opposite Anders. That doesn't make Anders exactly what they were describing - one character that plays equally well no matter which way you want them to swing.

That's probably where our confusion is coming from.

The romances cannot be one set of dialog no matter what.  Even bisexual, the male and female lines are going to be different.  HOW different they are is what will make the romances feel different for either gender.

I would imagine the reason it's cheaper to have all the LIs be bisexual is not the romance dialog, but the non-romance dialog.  You do need some more lines of dialog to make the romances believable for both genders -- but actually having even more love interests means that you need to build a whole new character, model, romance AND non-romance dialog etc etc.  These would be way more expensive than having a few varying banters and different romance dialogs.

Even having Hawke able to be male or female means all the companions need to voice many more lines (male and female varients).  

And honestly, regarding Anders, I don't see the issue with him only telling males that he and Karl were lovers.  And I don't see the issue with a straight male hearing it.  If Anders were exclusively gay, would that dialog make a difference?

[frylock23]

"I would imagine the reason it's cheaper to have all the LIs be bisexual is not the romance dialog, but the non-romance dialog. You do need some more lines of dialog to make the romances believable for both genders --"

Yes, that's pretty much what I've been saying.

"but actually having even more love interests means that you need to build a whole new character, model, romance AND non-romance dialog etc etc. These would be way more expensive than having a few varying banters and different romance dialogs."

Also what I've been saying. There are four possible LIs in DA2. All four swing whichever way you want. Why not have the same four with one being straight male, one being gay male, one being straight female and one being gay female? Maybe write one as clearly bi. But when you write them, make their romances be as deep and involved as you can without worrying about how much extra dialogue you're adding one way or the other?

I'm not advocating for more LIs; that was ME2's problem. I am advocating for enough options to make sure that everybody has somebody without catering to choices within that preference group. I think they could do better work on the writing and have more depth within the scope of their budget.

And I don't care that Anders only tells males that he and Karl were lovers. The point is that he doesn't mention it to females meaning that there are two Anders, not the exact same one no matter how you play. And my understanding of the quote mentioned was that they wanted to save money by having LIs play either way all the time. Fine. Write them all as openly bi like Isabela and Zevran.

[ejoslin]

frylock23 wrote...

"I would imagine the reason it's cheaper to have all the LIs be bisexual is not the romance dialog, but the non-romance dialog. You do need some more lines of dialog to make the romances believable for both genders --"

Yes, that's pretty much what I've been saying.

"but actually having even more love interests means that you need to build a whole new character, model, romance AND non-romance dialog etc etc. These would be way more expensive than having a few varying banters and different romance dialogs."

Also what I've been saying. There are four possible LIs in DA2. All four swing whichever way you want. Why not have the same four with one being straight male, one being gay male, one being straight female and one being gay female? Maybe write one as clearly bi. But when you write them, make their romances be as deep and involved as you can without worrying about how much extra dialogue you're adding one way or the other?

I'm not advocating for more LIs; that was ME2's problem. I am advocating for enough options to make sure that everybody has somebody without catering to choices within that preference group. I think they could do better work on the writing and have more depth within the scope of their budget.

And I don't care that Anders only tells males that he and Karl were lovers. The point is that he doesn't mention it to females meaning that there are two Anders, not the exact same one no matter how you play. And my understanding of the quote mentioned was that they wanted to save money by having LIs play either way all the time. Fine. Write them all as openly bi like Isabela and Zevran.

Ok, and Zevran doesn't tell females about being raised by male wh*res, and with females he focuses on seduction being business while with males talks about it also being for pleasure.  Leliana I won't touch upon because her dialog is bugged so many wrong lines go to the wrong gender.

I mean, really, if the dialogs WERE identical, it would not seem real.  You're not getting two Anders -- it's just that Anders reacts different to males than he does to females.  As Zevran reacts differently to males than he does to females.

We're agreeing on quite a few things yet coming to far different conclusions.  I would not want to be limited to one love interest.  I would have hated not having Zevran romancable by females.  As many gay men hated not being able to romance Alistair (that the mod, Equal Love, has over 25k unique downloads should attest to the fact that people wanted Alistair and Morrigan to be bisexual).

You don't add anything by limiting choices I don't think.  I think both Fenris and Anders worked quite well as bisexual.

Edit: The biggest problem with having ONE love interest I would is the LI would have to be far more generic to appeal to a broader variety of people.  Then you run the greater risk of making that person a complete cliche.  I'd rather have the LIs be bisexual and have them be more original than have that straight man who is written to appeal to as many straight women as possible.

Modifié par ejoslin, 01 avril 2011 - 07:56 .