5 réponses à ce sujet

[Paeyne]

I was writing this as a response in the general forums to a recent thread and I realized I could not give the response I wanted in a non-spoiler forum so I have posted it here.  The question was whether we wanted more sex and romance in future DA games. 

I am all for romance in RPGs and certainly a healthy dose of sensuality never hurts,  Your relationships with the companions is one of the driving forces behind this and a few other Bioware series.  It is one of the reasons I buy Dragon Age. 

The only real reason to include romance options is to promote emotional connection.  Do we need more romance in this series?  Well, more is usually good but not always better.  We have a large number of romance options in DA2 but I would argue that does not necessarily mean we have better options than we have had in the past.  I even wonder as I romance the characters in DA2 if travelling with some of these people is a good idea, never mind emotional involvement.  
 
For the record, I usually play male characters.  Unlike some, I have no issues with romancing all the options as I am secure enough in my own sexual identity that I am not threatened by whatever a video game puts out.  Through my playthroughs I romanced all the characters that were available to me and was left with the overwhelming feeling of "why did I bother".  Do we need more romance in Dragon Age or is the more accurate question:  Do we need romance in Dragon Age done well? 
 
Lets face it.  Hawke is the Thedas equivalent of Justin Bieber, with half the city falling all over themselves to get to him and the other half nailing hate mail written in blood to his door.  Were this real life, Hawke would have
reasonable grounds to lock himself in his manor and leave Kirkwall to its own devices.  However that is not an option, so lets look at the people he can actually romance (out of the many he could have romanced that approach something close to normal). 

 
Isabella:   Would any reasonable person want a romantic relationship with someone that needs 20 minutes to disarm before sex or practically has an orgasm upon finding enough poison to kill every person in Kirkwall twice over.  I have read some of the comments about her being a strong woman that owns her sexuality.  I think Isabella would laugh at that.  Even she admits to how shallow she is and is actually quite proud of the fact.  Anyone
who has a relationship with Isabella would have a full time job keeping her happy or, alternatively, stand behind her and keep an antidote potion on them at all times.  The thrill of danger might be great in the short term but would be very wearing after a while. 
 
Sebastian:   I didn't romance him because I haven't played as a female character yet.  Given the stick he has crammed far enough up his butt to make him walk funny, I find the fact he isn't interested in men mildly ironic.  I can just picture a glass-eyed Hawke and Sebastian a decade from now discussing which prep school to send their 2.3 children to. 
 
Anders:   Aside from being one the the whiniest characters in the game, one wonders why a non-suicidal Hawke would even consider Anders.  When Anders loses control of Justice (or Vengeance or "spirit of not having a good day and all must pay") he has the annoying tendency of killing people.  I would think that would make sex inconvenient.  I would also worry about the collateral damage of your first fight.  Even if you ignore all that, the fact he lies to you repeatedly and betrays your trust does not bode well for your future relationship. 
 
Merrill:   I am sure there are many who find Merrill's wide eyed naivete appealing.  I am not one.  The problem is that this naivete extends to her belief that she can control demons and blood magic, no matter how often  she is repeatedly proven wrong.  I suppose dating the girl voted most likely to become an abomination might be interesting but hardly healthy.
 
Fenris:   At the risk of offending all the Fengirls out there, I have to wonder why anyone would want a relationship with this man.  Sex maybe, maybe repeatedly, but the kindest phrase you could use about a relationship with Fenris is "high maintenance".  One wonders why Bioware did not have a small black cloud follow him around that rains on cue.  I guess a cloud would have been one reference too far.  His open hostility towards mages during the entirety of the game (keeping in mind that either you are a mage or your sister is) is hardly endearing.  It seems poetic that you find out he actually fought for what was done to him, but even this barely shakes his overwhelming arrogance that all mages are evil.  On at least one occasion I handed him back to Denarius
with a very large bow and a jaunty Santa hat.  I was probably doing him a favour.  At least now his suffering has some meaning and he can be the December pinup for the next Tevinter Sexy Psychopath Calendar. 
 
Varric:   Varric is approaching normal so of course you can't romance him.  For Hawke romance options, only those with warehouses full of baggage need apply. 
 
Aveline:   See Varric 

 
Romances in Bioware games are wonderful things but the ones in DA2 seem absurd and contrived.  If you take a hard look at most of Hawke's companions you have to wonder why he is even friends with some of these people.  What was given
as a Friendship/Rivalry scale might be more accurately described as an Enabler/Antagonizer scale. 
 
So... yes... I would like to see more romance and intimacy in future Dragon Age games.   This is a mature rated game and most of us fit into that category.
 
I would just ask the Devs at Bioware if they would want a relationship with any of these people. 
 
If the answer is no, then I would suggest the next game's romance options not swing between the scary to the insane. 
 
If the answer is yes, then there are several relationship counselors I can recommend and urge you to contact them without delay.

Modifié par Paeyne, 04 mai 2011 - 12:56 .

[David Gaider]

I would just ask the Devs at Bioware if they would want a relationship with any of these people. 
 
If the answer is no, then I would suggest the next game's romance options not swing between the scary to the insane. 
 
If the answer is yes, then there are several relationship counselors I can recommend and urge you to contact them without delay.

I'm going to give you a non-answer and say that it's a rare character in fiction who is both a romance as well as someone you would want to romance in real life and take home to meet the parents. That's why it's fiction.

I can think of something that might be interesting to make into a romance for all the DA2 characters. As it is, however, we're only going to be able to a limited number, so we picked the ones we found most interesting and went with those. If the assumption is that people would be happier if we picked X instead of Y, you'd be wrong-- there'd be people complaining that Y couldn't be romanced instead.

That's simply how it works. Romance is such a personal, subjective thing, they're never going to appeal to everyone-- and I wouldn't even begin to try. If I tried, you'd end up with the romantic equivalent of vanilla pudding... and while some people might like vanilla pudding, I certainly ain't about to write it.

[David Gaider]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
A couple of development questions for David Gaider then... when you write the romances, do you specifically aim for specific archetypes from the get-go? I always thought you did, since it helps define a character personality early on, and also avoids potential crossover between romances. I assume that the main goal with the romances is to have them be as different/distinct, yet satisfying, as possible from each other. Is that the case?

We don't aim for archetypes specifically, but they tend to fall into them primarily because that's what characters do. If anything, we strive to make romances cover different ground from each other... so if we had two characters that fell into the "femme fatale" type, we'd either only make one a romance or we'd strive to differentiate the other more. Even then it's more about what the writer feels inspired about, as opposed to hitting a particular target.

Archetypes are useful, but in my experience if that's all you have when you start a character ("this guy's the elf, because we need an elf" or "this one will be the 'bad girl' because we already have a 'good girl'") then it really shows. I don't write that way, and nor do any of the other writers I work with.


...and evidently I've derailed the thread into pudding.

That's okay, I guess. Pudding's not a terrible place to be.

[David Gaider]

Paeyne wrote...
It does come down to a question of empathy for me.  It is because I felt so little empathy for the companions that I have so little connection to them.  Whether it is my reaction to the writing or the writing itself is a matter of debate.  Like many things, the answer is probably some where in the middle.

I can see that. I would say, however, that this is a spot where the overall story and the characters sort of blend together. I think some people treat them as the same thing, and that's probably fine because they tend to inform each other... if you're connected to the characters, you'll connect to the story. If you're connected with the story, you'll connect with the characters.

In many ways, the DA2 story is pretty unforgiving. There isn't a lot of room for empathy. That is, of course, going to be subjective like you said-- but I can definitely see how someone might not connect with one or both. That's not to say there's a "right" way to do it, or that we set out to write some kind of existential drama... but we were definitely getting away from "adventure romp" and the lighter tone associated with that. For some people, that's not necessarily a good thing.

[David Gaider]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Does that strike you as a fair criticism? Or am I missing something?

Fenris's role in the story is pretty clear, isn't it? He's the only voice in the group that is clearly critical of the mages, and who speaks from the voice of experience. I think some of his dialogues are a must-read for those people who like to go on about how mages have it so much better in Tevinter, or how mages ruling themselves would clearly have much better results than the Chantry.

That said, he's not tied into the plot as much, but that's why he's optional.

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
Personal swipes and innuendo aside, I fail to see anything ambiguous about what DG wrote.  It seems clear based on just what he posted (which is why I quoted it) that we are supposed to accept Fenris as a reliable guide on Tevinter, mages, and magic, and based on his somewhat irrational at time (if understanable) actions in the game regarding all three, I have to wonder about this.

I said nothing about him being a reliable guide. I said he offered a voice, and that the people who posted about Tevinter should read what he has to say because most of what they've said in the past is based purely on supposition.

Not that this will stop you, of course, since you read more between the lines than what's actually in the lines. In that case, sure. Rah. Mages bad. Kill them all.