506 réponses à ce sujet

[jussyr]

I'm sure they could do better if they had unlimited time and budget, but given that they don't, I'd rather they just stick with the four available-to-all options and maybe next game make the Templars capable of seeing when a mage is casting a spell directly in their face, if we're talking about immersion breakers.  Personally I find that sort of thing a much bigger problem than a bit of metagame knowledge that if I'd flirted with Merrill instead this time around she'd have gone for me.

[Deviija]

Harid wrote...
Look, you can act like Bioware is doing this for you, but the fact of the matter is Bioware is doing this for them.  Instead of creating 10 or so plausible party members 4 gay 4 straight 2 bi that you have to create plot threads for, companion quests for, gear archetypes for, personalities for, etc,

Do you know how much time, money for content, and VO, and dialogue tree options interwoven into the game, and cinematics and flags to set, that would take?  That would be a ridiculous amount with little pay off for tertiary content (which is what BioWare calls romance options -- tertiary content at best).   

Of course the compromise it to make several companions romanceable by each gender, regardless of sexuality; it allows for maximum content to be utilized for the broadest audience spectrum.  It offers more choices to everyone rather than specific choices for some but not all.  It also concentrates focus on key companions for deeper relationships rather than less content spread across many, many more companions with less content spread among them (re: ME2 as an example; 3 conversations per character, then some romances convos on the side).  Until a time where content becomes less expensive/time consuming to create, this is their best decision, imo. 

[Anathemic]

jussyr wrote...

I'm sure they could do better if they had unlimited time and budget, but given that they don't, I'd rather they just stick with the four available-to-all options and maybe next game make the Templars capable of seeing when a mage is casting a spell directly in their face, if we're talking about immersion breakers.  Personally I find that sort of thing a much bigger problem than a bit of metagame knowledge that if I'd flirted with Merrill instead this time around she'd have gone for me.

I'm sure they could do better if they give a rat's ass on what their working on.

Don't pull out that "unlimited time and budget" argument.

[SilentK]

Loain wrote...

It's odd when I was younger I desperately wanted to play as a female but once games started offering the option I found I enjoyed playing as a guy more. Even though I'd love to see the whole Alistair romance thing my female Warden feels like a chore. I love that I can play DA2 exactly how and as who I want and can still get all the game has to offer.

@Anathemic
I fail to see how giving people loads of choices is pandering or wastes resources. RPGs are all about having choices it makes my experience unique and gives me plenty of fulfilling replays.

I have the same problem but from the other side. I simply cannot play a guy, don't know why. Which means that Ihave missed out on Morrigan, Ash, Tali and a nr of other interesting girls. I think that this is a great change in the game, finally I can have my Hawke develop a relationship with whoever I feel suits her personally and I don't flirt with the ones that I don't romance so it's never a problem. Don't really know why happines should come from having less choice. I hope that they continue with this. I guess that they get the numbers on how many F!Hawkes that romances Izzy and Merrill and M!Hawkes that romances Anders and Fenris. Then they move on with that information.

Deviija wrote...
Of course the compromise it to make several companions romanceable by
each gender, regardless of sexuality; it allows for maximum content to
be utilized for the broadest audience spectrum.  It offers more choices
to everyone rather than specific choices for some but not all.  It also
concentrates focus on key companions for deeper relationships rather
than less content spread across many, many more companions with
less content spread among them (re: ME2 as an example; 3 conversations
per character, then some romances convos on the side).  Until a time
where content becomes less expensive/time consuming to create, this is
their best decision, imo.

Jupp. I fully agree. There were a lot of LI:s in ME2 and that means it will probably be less material. I think that it is better this way with more conversations with your LI. And as always, if you are not interested in a specific LI for whatever reason. Don't flirt with him or her, pretty simple.

Modifié par SilentK, 04 juin 2011 - 06:42 .

[Anathemic]

Deviija wrote...

Harid wrote...
Look, you can act like Bioware is doing this for you, but the fact of the matter is Bioware is doing this for them.  Instead of creating 10 or so plausible party members 4 gay 4 straight 2 bi that you have to create plot threads for, companion quests for, gear archetypes for, personalities for, etc,

Do you know how much time, money for content, and VO, and dialogue tree options interwoven into the game, and cinematics and flags to set, that would take?  That would be a ridiculous amount with little pay off for tertiary content (which is what BioWare calls romance options -- tertiary content at best).   

Of course the compromise it to make several companions romanceable by each gender, regardless of sexuality; it allows for maximum content to be utilized for the broadest audience spectrum.  It offers more choices to everyone rather than specific choices for some but not all.  It also concentrates focus on key companions for deeper relationships rather than less content spread across many, many more companions with less content spread among them (re: ME2 as an example; 3 conversations per character, then some romances convos on the side).  Until a time where content becomes less expensive/time consuming to create, this is their best decision, imo. 

Or they can stick do what they did in ME, ME2, and DA:O where LI's has their specific sexuality....

[jussyr]

Anathemic wrote...

Again, the point of this thread is to discuss "Does [all the LI's in DA2] really have to be bisexual?" Putting up a defense that states "but this part of the game is unrealistic too! Why don't you discuss this instead?" is stupid.

It's more the preponderance of these specific type of threads in relation to other sorts of criticism I'm referring to rather than a specific criticism of anyone here; apologies for being unclear.

[Harid]

Deviija wrote...

Harid wrote...
Look, you can act like Bioware is doing this for you, but the fact of the matter is Bioware is doing this for them.  Instead of creating 10 or so plausible party members 4 gay 4 straight 2 bi that you have to create plot threads for, companion quests for, gear archetypes for, personalities for, etc,

Do you know how much time, money for content, and VO, and dialogue tree options interwoven into the game, and cinematics and flags to set, that would take?  That would be a ridiculous amount with little pay off for tertiary content (which is what BioWare calls romance options -- tertiary content at best).   

Of course the compromise it to make several companions romanceable by each gender, regardless of sexuality; it allows for maximum content to be utilized for the broadest audience spectrum.  It offers more choices to everyone rather than specific choices for some but not all.  It also concentrates focus on key companions for deeper relationships rather than less content spread across many, many more companions with less content spread among them (re: ME2 as an example; 3 conversations per character, then some romances convos on the side).  Until a time where content becomes less expensive/time consuming to create, this is their best decision, imo. 

Romancible non party npcs of blah blah blah blah (This was already addressed in a prior post.)

I am saying they can do better.  If they happened to be pandering to me, I would be saying this is unacceptable.  People saying I want less choices or that I should compromise are going to be disregarded at this point because they aren't reading anything.

PC pandering and Hawke-sexuality is a bad future to be championing. I agree with Anathemic, if they truly cared or, I'm sorry, cared as much as they could about gays and bisexuals they would be doing better than what they did and what they are currently doing.

Modifié par Harid, 04 juin 2011 - 06:48 .

[jussyr]

Anathemic wrote...

I'm sure they could do better if they give a rat's ass on what their working on.

Don't pull out that "unlimited time and budget" argument.

I have no idea what you dislike about the argument, but that is what the problem is; being rushed and underfunded by EA.  I think Bioware itself does care, but has been forced to compromise way more than they should have.  Not worth making a game if you're not going to make something you're happy with, but even in a better world, I don't think a limited budget and timescale would ever be used on making ten or so romances.  Just not worth it for the payoff.

[Anathemic]

jussyr wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

I'm sure they could do better if they give a rat's ass on what their working on.

Don't pull out that "unlimited time and budget" argument.

I have no idea what you dislike about the argument, but that is what the problem is; being rushed and underfunded by EA.  I think Bioware itself does care, but has been forced to compromise way more than they should have.  Not worth making a game if you're not going to make something you're happy with, but even in a better world, I don't think a limited budget and timescale would ever be used on making ten or so romances.  Just not worth it for the payoff.

I dislike the argument, because companies with a smaller budget and smaller timescale can pull off incredible feats, case in point Amnesia: The Dark Descent.

I don't deny that BioWare doesn't care (gross generalization on my part) but I don't believe they cared as 'much as they could' with DA2.

[neppakyo]

I don't think DA2 was underfunded. 25-32 million dollars is quite a chunk. Now after the poor sales and receiving of DA2, plus the money being funneled to TOR, might make the next DA game underfunded.

[Anathemic]

neppakyo wrote...

I don't think DA2 was underfunded. 25-32 million dollars is quite a chunk. Now after the poor sales and receiving of DA2, plus the money being funneled to TOR, might make the next DA game underfunded.

I'll be there when SW:TOR crash and burns, with my popcorn and soda ready in hand...

[Harid]

Anathemic wrote...

neppakyo wrote...

I don't think DA2 was underfunded. 25-32 million dollars is quite a chunk. Now after the poor sales and receiving of DA2, plus the money being funneled to TOR, might make the next DA game underfunded.

I'll be there when SW:TOR crash and burns, with my popcorn and soda ready in hand...

Bioware is going to be in serious trouble if that occurs, like, "FF: The Spirits Within" trouble, so, I hope for their sakes it doesn't bomb, but, they probably shoulda just made KOTOR3.

But I digress.

[Anathemic]

Harid wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

neppakyo wrote...

I don't think DA2 was underfunded. 25-32 million dollars is quite a chunk. Now after the poor sales and receiving of DA2, plus the money being funneled to TOR, might make the next DA game underfunded.

I'll be there when SW:TOR crash and burns, with my popcorn and soda ready in hand...

Bioware is going to be in serious trouble if that occurs, like, "FF: The Spirits Within" trouble, so, I hope for their sakes it doesn't bomb, but, they probably shoulda just made KOTOR3.

But I digress.

I was thinking more of a "Warhammer: AoK" trouble since we're dealing with the MMO genre.

[neppakyo]

Harid wrote...

Bioware is going to be in serious trouble if that occurs, like, "FF: The Spirits Within" trouble, so, I hope for their sakes it doesn't bomb, but, they probably shoulda just made KOTOR3.

But I digress.

I didn't mind FF: Spirits within. Was an ok movie.

I'd bet if KOTOR3 was announced, it would sell 5 million copies lol.

[Harid]

neppakyo wrote...

Harid wrote...

Bioware is going to be in serious trouble if that occurs, like, "FF: The Spirits Within" trouble, so, I hope for their sakes it doesn't bomb, but, they probably shoulda just made KOTOR3.

But I digress.

I didn't mind FF: Spirits within. Was an ok movie.

I'd bet if KOTOR3 was announced, it would sell 5 million copies lol.

Talking about the damage it did to Squaresoft. >_>

[neppakyo]

Harid wrote...

Talking about the damage it did to Squaresoft. >_>

Oh I know lol. It costs so damned much because of the new tech and massive amounts of servers needed to render the CGI. 

And they tried to americanize it to broden the appeal - and remove anything to do with FF except the title.

[jussyr]

Anathemic wrote...

I dislike the argument, because companies with a smaller budget and smaller timescale can pull off incredible feats, case in point Amnesia: The Dark Descent.

I don't deny that BioWare doesn't care (gross generalization on my part) but I don't believe they cared as 'much as they could' with DA2.

No argument there.  When people talk about how we're never going to get any story fixes because it's not profitable at this point, all I can think of is David Gaider making and putting out Ascension for free because he wasn't happy with Throne of Bhaal.  Admittedly, BGII was a fair bit easier to mod what with not being fully voiced and they are still working on balancing combat, but still. 


I can't comment on Amnesia because I chickened out

[Anathemic]

jussyr wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

I dislike the argument, because companies with a smaller budget and smaller timescale can pull off incredible feats, case in point Amnesia: The Dark Descent.

I don't deny that BioWare doesn't care (gross generalization on my part) but I don't believe they cared as 'much as they could' with DA2.

No argument there.  When people talk about how we're never going to get any story fixes because it's not profitable at this point, all I can think of is David Gaider making and putting out Ascension for free because he wasn't happy with Throne of Bhaal.  Admittedly, BGII was a fair bit easier to mod what with not being fully voiced and they are still working on balancing combat, but still. 


I can't comment on Amnesia because I chickened out

Really should play it, it's one of the best games I've ever played. It will scare you guaruntee.

Or you can check out some reaction vids on youtube lol.

[Patchwork]

Bi romancable companions are fine as long as it's mixed with companions who do have a fixed preference.

However if those companions can be romanced by anyone the companion's personality needs to come in to play more. Anders for instance will call off the romance if Hawke gives the demon Feyriel.
I'm disappointed that it turns out Anders fighting on the mages side if Hawke sides with the templars is a glitch. Why is that a glitch? Why would Anders side with the templars?

Fenris should break off the romance if Hawke makes Orana their slave and the first time they do blood magic in front of him.

and so on...

By all means make them bi so everyone has access to the content but make the LI more reactive to the PCs decisions to keep balance.

[jussyr]

Anathemic wrote...


Really should play it, it's one of the best games I've ever played. It will scare you guaruntee.

Or you can check out some reaction vids on youtube lol.

I played a bit, up until it became clear that I couldn't actually look at enemies for long but had to just let them be sneaking up behind me or disappearing entirely and had no way of knowing which... *shudder*  Also my stupid housemate only lets me play at night, in the dark.

Took me this long to even get through Eternal Darkness, but I'll finish Amnesia someday!

[In Exile]

Anathemic wrote...
I'll be there when SW:TOR crash and burns, with my popcorn and soda ready in hand...

Well, if you enjoy watching a studio bankrupt and get folded, you'll certainly get your money's worth. I'm going to miss Bioware once they're gone, so even at lower quality, I'd rather see them churn out as many games as they can before they're broken up and some portion of them tries to start up a new independent studio.

[SilentK]

*sigh*

It makes me a little sad when someone wants to cut content that they personally don't use. Being able to romance Merrill made me really really glad. I love her romance-arc and I wouldn't want to go without it. Next Hawke will romance Izzy because my husband said that he really liked that one. Why not just flirt with a LI if you don't want that romance? Perhaps it wasn't important for you, but it made a world of difference to me to be able to let my F!Hawke be together with the person that I felt she would be attracted to.

[Xewaka]

Logistics.
It is easier to simply adapt an existing Love Interest to apply to both sexes than build a new love interest from scratch. Therefore, making every LI bisexual is the cheapest way to have the maximum amount of this optional content in game. Does everyone need to be bisexual? Since it means reaching for a larger audience, it makes it economically sound.

[Denizen89]

I have to say from playing the game so many times I refuse to play it now. I think having so many Bi characters and no real straight female interests for the male characters kinda ruins it. Not to mention it reeks of being cheap. Plus the romances story lines are just badly done. In DA2 anyway.

[JoHnDoE14]

I will agree, not everyone needs to be bi. For instance, you'd think that Merrill would be straight, given how presured Dalish are to reproduce.