25715 réponses à ce sujet

[Youknow]

jlb524 wrote...

You apparently have some problem with it as you stated you'd rather they don't implement an attractiveness bar for the sake of 'resources'.  If you didn't have some problem with it, you wouldn't have attempted to argue against it these last few pages.

 

No, that means that I would rather it not be there because romances aren't the focus. In something with finite resources where a mechanic is not the focus, I'd rather it not be implemented. In general I don't have a problem with it. Considering the game's main focus is not about your attractiveness to the general world, I don't see how this will help anything. 

To make this easier for you to understand. Sidescolling shooters. I love them to pieces. You know, Contra, Metal Slug. Great games. I love the mechanic of picking up power ups over the course of the game to dish out more damage. Does that mean that I think it would be a good idea and use of resouces to have power ups like that in Mass Effect? The answer is no. That doesn't mean that I have a problem with power ups in games. 

What else does your argument rest on besides realism then?

Resources, the story itself, the fact that romance is not the main focus. The fact that it's just plain out not necessary to make everyone bisexual for the sake of making everyone bisexual. 

But if you want to maximize options with as little resources as possible, then no.

No, no, no. You want to maximize options with as little resources as possible. I just flat out want to use as little resources as possible. 

[Athayniel]

Youknow wrote...

Ah. Gotcha. JRPGs when they have choices for romance, tend to make it to where they find you attractive based on your decisions rather than anything else. WRPGs tend to not care in general.

No JRPGs tend not to give choices at all. Your characters are fixed and they follow a set story through a game with no choice as to who they can romance or even if there is a romance or not.

But the issue here is that it doesn't save resources. At all. If I were making a game, and I say 4 romances, 2 of opposite gender straight and 1 bisexual of each gender, there's no way anyone can refute that it takes more time to do this than make all of them bisexual and have romance scenes. Even without having to worry about gender for dialogue, bodytypes do matter and it would suck for the same genders to have clipping issues and the what not.

No it wouldn't take more time. But it means that gay protagonists have only one choice whereas the hetero protagonist gets two. This was the situation in DA:O. Four "bi" LIs means hetero and gay protagonists each get 2 choices for not that much more work. Maximal player choice to resources used.

Okay. Fine. 
Because the writer said so? Does there really need to be any other argument? I mean, arguing with that method is akin to asking why you can't make certain actions at parts in the game. If the DM/writer puts a veto on the idea, that's argument enough in itself. And I don't see anything wrong with the characters having set sexualities. I was fine with DA2 for instance having everyone be bisexual, because they simply were. But does it really need to be done in every game? And while we're on the subject of romances, does there need to be romance in every game?

I don't have a problem with them having set sexualities either, it's just that their sexualities haven't been "set" and it's not as if the sexualities can't be "set" differently in different games.

Because I'd like to imagine that the romances wouldn't exactly be copied and pasted. There would obviously be some differences. Even DA2 had some differences in dialogue from your gender. Even ME1 had differences in dialogue for Liara based on your gender. If bisexuality means that a female cannot talk about the woman of her dreams, or a man can't talk about the man of his dreams, then count me out of it.

No one is asking for the romances to be completely identical. But if you ask anyone who will actually use those romances the vast majority will say they won't mind if they are copy/pasted with the slight differences. Having the choice is what they want.

But exclusive sexuality will always use less resources than forced bisexuality, so that's a moot point. 

So why are you arguing against 'all bi' LIs on resource grounds?

And with that, I'm away. It's way past my bedtime.

Modifié par Athayniel, 31 octobre 2011 - 03:04 .

[jlb524]

Youknow wrote...
No, that means that I would rather it not be there because romances aren't the focus. In something with finite resources where a mechanic is not the focus, I'd rather it not be implemented. In general I don't have a problem with it. Considering the game's main focus is not about your attractiveness to the general world, I don't see how this will help anything. 

Yes, I agree...and I think the same can be said for taking away gender checks from romances.  The game's main focus is not on you or any of the character's sexuality.  So...why do you care about 'that' so much?

Youknow wrote...
Resources, the story itself, the fact that romance is not the main focus. The fact that it's just plain out not necessary to make everyone bisexual for the sake of making everyone bisexual. 

I still don't understand...you keep saying 'romance isn't the main focus' but then are so caught up in who is bisexual and who's not?  Apparently it's a big deal to you.

If romance isn't the 'main focus' then how is it affecting the story?

No one wants bisexual LIs for 'the lulz' or for the sake of making them bisexual. People want options and hate being limited b/c of one gender check.

Youknow wrote...
No, no, no. You want to maximize options with as little resources as possible. I just flat out want to use as little resources as possible. 

The 'you' was meant in general, not 'you' specifically....However, if you want to use 'as little resources as possible' it means taking away s/s romances and also removing male LIs.  Romances with male LIs cost resources (of course) but the majority of players romance women, so it's a bit of a waste and should probably be cut out if you are the type that wants to use 'as little as possible'.  

I think they should try and give everyone options so they can enjoy that part of the game regardless if they play a gay male/female or a straight female/male PC.  I just can't see why this bothers people so much.

Modifié par jlb524, 31 octobre 2011 - 03:01 .

[ElitePinecone]

Chun Hei wrote...

Carfax wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

Just pointing out: from all the information we have, not all of the previous NPCs will be bisexual. But some will be. Ditto for new characters. 

The best assumption at the moment is that Ashley and Kaidan are both available for both genders of Shepard, depending on conversation choices early on. This is based on a half dozen tidbits of information and a fair bit of guesswork. It's not anywhere near confirmed, though. 

I'm curious as to what evidence you have that some of the old NPCs will be bisexual?  Has one of the devs publically stated this?

Nothing can be set in stone but Kaidan fans have posted comments from his VA that hint at  him being s/s in ME3 and it is assumed that as one VS goes so goes the other. Needless to say even the most ardent of us s/s fans do not believe the past LIs will be all "bi" in ME3 though I support the idea in theory.

Yep. There's also been confirmation from devs (specifically Mac Walters and Casey Hudson) that Shepard can 're-romance' some (but not all) characters from previous games. As in, some (not all) characters will be options for romance again, so to speak. 

Also there's an interview with Jennifer Hale by Tom Bissell in the New Yorker magazine that references early conversations with Ashley and Kaidan influencing how the characters interact through the game. 

In that interview, the lines were recorded for 'A/K' as one distinct entity (not separately), and for a scene in which 'A/K' was apparently being held hostage or was captured, Shepard's lines included a sad/desperate "No!" as well as a generic 'No!'. For both genders. 

Just little things. Like I said, hard to confirm. I'm not taking it as confirmation, but it doesn't rule it out, either. 

Like people have noted, if the writers do it, they do it. I think it's entirely defendable on characterisation grounds, particularly since Bioware are emphasising how much they've grown and changed in the intervening two or three years.

[Youknow]

Nyoka wrote...

This is what I wrote three pages ago:

"What's wrong with some characters being exclusively straight or gay is that it takes choice away from you. Then, if you like that character, you have to make a different Shepard who is not the Shepard you like and you have to endure the different voice acting throughout the game because the game decided you shouldn't experience the romance with your character, despite the fact the lines the LI is going to say would have worked just as well in both cases.

You get uniqueness by making each playthrough different, and you do that by giving the players a lot of choices. Taking away choice makes your playthroughs less unique, not more, because you know beforehand which character you are going to have to romance: the one who is available. It's like forcing Manshep to blow up the collector base and forcing Femshep to keep it. Would you say having that choice taken away from you makes your experience more unique, so it would be a good thing if you didn't get to decide it?"

--

Again with the example. You can only afford 8 romances. Doing it your way, you give people 2 love interests. My way, you're giving people 4 love interests. You have to offer an argument for why having 2 choices to make is better than having 4 choices. This question is independent from writing quality: the romances can be equally good in both cases.

Yes, you would have to make another character to experience the other romances *because you want to do it*, not because it's the only way to do it. All choices should be available in each playthrough.

But you aren't right exactly though. Choices don't exactly mean that each playthrough is unique. The magnitude of the choices make each playthrough unique. Take Harvest Moon games for instance. You have exclusive romances for each gender because everyone is straight in those games. Choosing your gender for instance-- something that is generally just cosmetic in most games, makes a much larger difference than ME. Let's use a festival for instance. In one you have to go dancing with a partner of your choice. In the game, it's customary for the male to approach the female and ask her to the dance. As a male, you woo the girl of your choice and ask her to the dance. As a female, you continue going about your business, and a guy asks you to go. And you get another choice to reject or accept. 

If the game was going to be bisexual friendly where everyone was bisexual, events like this wouldn't even be possible, and wouldn't make sense. Because as a female, you cannot ask someone. And if they DID let you ask someone, it would automatically make the player the "man" of the relationship which could potentially be offensive to some. Sure, you could say that you could just make it where you could ask them or wait, but that requires even more and creates and even less unique experience despite having more choices overall. Giving more choices for the romances doesn't necessarily make the game better. Not to mention that if the girls break the customs, that means that they literally don't care about village customs, which adds a personality trait to all of the female characters as the result of forced bisexuality (all of them do whatever they want regardless of existing customs).  You might say that you could change the lore so it doesn't exists, but that literally means that you will always be changing up stuff just for the sake of bisexuality. Which makes bisexuality closer to dead weight than anything else. 

Either way, I'm tired and going to bed. 

Modifié par Youknow, 31 octobre 2011 - 03:10 .

[silentassassin264]

Nyoka wrote...

This is what I wrote three pages ago:

"What's wrong with some characters being exclusively straight or gay is that it takes choice away from you. Then, if you like that character, you have to make a different Shepard who is not the Shepard you like and you have to endure the different voice acting throughout the game because the game decided you shouldn't experience the romance with your character, despite the fact the lines the LI is going to say would have worked just as well in both cases.
--
.

This so freakin much.  In Dragon Age Origins my favorite romance option was Morrigan because my characters tended to be generally snarky kinda sorta evil anyway and they fit so well with Morrigan.  Morrigan however was not available for s/s romancing leaving my Wardens with Leliana.  Even a hardened Leliana was still the same sickeningly sweet nugs and rainbows chantry girl.  It wasn't like Jade Empire where if you hardened someone they would would end up as snarky and kinda evil as you (well except Dawn Star.  She ends up rather confused).  I didn't care to romance Leliana with my many Morrigan-esque Wardens because it was just a constant supply of Leliana disapproves while the one I wanted, Morrigan was just as happy as can be with how I handled things.  I did break down and make a male Warden just to romance Morrigan but it took from the experience drastically because it wasn't a Warden I wanted.  It was just a character created for me to get a Morrigan romance.  People shouldn't have to make a character they really don't want to make just to romance to character they like the most.  In Dragon Age 2, my favorite romance (and character period) is Merrill and fortunately I did not have to go make a male Hawke just to get a Merrill romance.  In addition, if adding bi romances but such a strain on resources that you have to worry about cutting something out or choosing between something, you are most definitely doing something wrong. 

[jlb524]

Youknow wrote...
But you aren't right exactly though. Choices don't exactly mean that each playthrough is unique. The magnitude of the choices make each playthrough unique. Take Harvest Moon games for instance. You have exclusive romances for each gender because everyone is straight in those games. Choosing your gender for instance-- something that is generally just cosmetic in most games, makes a much larger difference than ME. Let's use a festival for instance. In one you have to go dancing with a partner of your choice. In the game, it's customary for the male to approach the female and ask her to the dance. As a male, you woo the girl of your choice and ask her to the dance. As a female, you continue going about your business, and a guy asks you to go. And you get another choice to reject or accept. 

Considering that's a completely different game and nothing like that ever happens in Mass Effect even for the straight romances...that's irrelevant.

Youknow wrote...
If the game was going to be bisexual friendly where everyone was bisexual, events like this wouldn't even be possible, and wouldn't make sense.

Considering ME romances are nothing like these 'Harvest Moon' ones...who cares?  BW romances (even straight ones) have never been like that.  Bisexuality isn't going to change anything.

Youknow wrote...
Giving more choices for the romances doesn't necessarily make the game better.

But that doesn't mean it couldn't make ME better.  Using a game with a completely different mechanic as an example doesn't help you.  You would need to prove how this would make ME worse.  

I mean, Harvest Moon is a farming simulator.  You are basically saying that the 'bi thing' won't work in a game like Mass Effect because some farming simulator had forced male PCs to act one way and females another way and now Mass Effect can't do that, even though Mass Effect never did this nor any other BW game ever made.

Modifié par jlb524, 31 octobre 2011 - 03:34 .

[KawaiiKatie]

@Nyoka and @silentassassin264

That was my situation, too. I was pretty annoyed that I had to make a female Warden and Shepard just to romance Alistair and Kaidan. I was afraid that I would have to do the same thing in DA2, but I was overjoyed to find out that any love-interest could be romanced by anyone. That was really cool. I got the Hawke I wanted and the romance I wanted, and it really maximized my enjoyment of the game.

[silentassassin264]

Youknow wrote...
But you aren't right exactly though. Choices don't exactly mean that each playthrough is unique. The magnitude of the choices make each playthrough unique. Take Harvest Moon games for instance. You have exclusive romances for each gender because everyone is straight in those games. Choosing your gender for instance-- something that is generally just cosmetic in most games, makes a much larger difference than ME. Let's use a festival for instance. In one you have to go dancing with a partner of your choice. In the game, it's customary for the male to approach the female and ask her to the dance. As a male, you woo the girl of your choice and ask her to the dance. As a female, you continue going about your business, and a guy asks you to go. And you get another choice to reject or accept. 

If the game was going to be bisexual friendly where everyone was bisexual, events like this wouldn't even be possible, and wouldn't make sense. Because as a female, you cannot ask someone. And if they DID let you ask someone, it would automatically make the player the "man" of the relationship which could potentially be offensive to some. Sure, you could say that you could just make it where you could ask them or wait, but that requires even more and creates and even less unique experience despite having more choices overall. Giving more choices for the romances doesn't necessarily make the game better. Not to mention that if the girls break the customs, that means that they literally don't care about village customs, which adds a personality trait to all of the female characters as the result of forced bisexuality (all of them do whatever they want regardless of existing customs).  You might say that you could change the lore so it doesn't exists, but that literally means that you will always be changing up stuff just for the sake of bisexuality. Which makes bisexuality closer to dead weight than anything else. 

Either way, I'm tired and going to bed. 

I understand your point.  You get to experience such awkwardness if you play Fable 3 as a female.  One quest has a wife trying to divorce her husband and to get him caught "cheating" she has you seduce him.  The seduction ends up rather...awkward because the interface was obviously made for a male character so while the mission switches from husband to wife you are still expected to kiss him, propose, get marital home, etc. while it seems like once you have gotten his interest he should be taking the female character on dates and trying to kiss her rather than waiting for her to do it (Yes I understand this example was more of choosing gender than choosing sexuality).

However, that is not a good enough reason in my book to scrap the player character being able to be bi because of awkwardness.  In your festival example, it is based on  everyone being heterosexual so that guy picks girl and girl waits around until guy picks her.  If you create a world of everyone is heterosexual, you will get issues like that.  The lore in that example get messed up because they made no allowance for a girl to be a lesbian and how she would fit in in the festival the causing it to have a dead weight feel.  It is a flimsy excuse to be like "well we never thought of that and it would feel awkward to put it in" because in your lore bisexual and homosexual people don't exist.  This isn't Iran.

[MACharlie1]

Nobody liked my idea? Make everyone bi BUT make some harder to romance then others for certain Sheps.

Shame.

[KawaiiKatie]

MACharlie1 wrote...

Nobody liked my idea? Make everyone bi BUT make some harder to romance then others for certain Sheps.

Well, Bioware pretty much already did this... Jacob is hard to romance (if you push him too hard, he shuts you down and tells you to go romance someone else, but if you don't push him at all, his romance doesn't trigger) and Jack, too, leaves no room for error. And we saw how well that turned out. Who are the most popular romances, again? Oh yeah, Team "All you had to do was ask" and "I've had a crush on you all along."

[jlb524]

Nyoka wrote...
I had to overlook a few minor details (pronouns and "sirs", although they are surprisingly scarce), but it was totally worth it, and I don't think I ruined anyone's playthroughs by doing that, did I?

Apparently, you did.  XD

I did the DAO Morrigan romance mod and it surprisingly fit quite well with a female, minus the pronoun mishaps.

Which is the point I constantly harp on...BW romances have never been all that 'gendered' and definitely not to the extremes as that Harvest Moon example, so arguing that bisexuality limits all the 'gendered' stuff they can do is pointless when they don't do that stuff anyway.  I've done so many modded f/f romances over the years (since BG2), I should know.  

Modifié par jlb524, 31 octobre 2011 - 03:51 .

[ElitePinecone]

jlb524 wrote...
BW romances have never been all that 'gendered' and definitely not to the extremes as that Harvest Moon example

This. There's a deliberate attempt to subvert gender conventions, anyway. The writing team isn't a cabal of liberal utopians, but it's certainly getting there (and I mean that in a good way) - a lot of the nonsense 'traditional' gender roles in romance goes out the window with strong female characters (and a strong female protagonist), which is refreshing.  

It doesn't mean every character should be bisexual, but there's much less likelihood of Bioware games forcing the character into situations where customary heterosexual pairings are assumed or required. Other developers wouldn't even think to offer the option of non-male/female pairings for, say, a festival or a ballroom dance - but I'd bet Bioware would. 

[Carfax]

Athayniel wrote...

What does that even mean? Would an outright confirmation or denial somehow break the game's genre? That makes no sense whatsoever. This has nothing to do with the games genre or style. It's about storytelling and writing techniques employed.

It means the game is not a romance simulator, and thus dialogue pertaining to romances probably get short shrift due to limited disk space.

It's also a matter of theme.  Mass Effect is an action RPG, and as such, it's beyond the scope of the game to talk about issues like sexual orientation imo.  Shepard asking potential love interests whether they're into sausage or beaver would be truly laughable though..

Right, because homosexuals and bisexuals never hide their sexuality from others or outright lie about it. And I like your scorched earth policy when things don't go your way or your position that great plots and stories can't include romances. Real big of you.

Oh, so we're bringing the real world into it now?  I thought Thedas was supposed to be some rainbow paradise?  Why would Anders hide his sexuality?

And it's not scorched Earth policy.  It's just acknowledging that Bioware's taken this romance crap too far, and it needs to be either scaled back, or removed completely.

[Xilizhra]

It's just acknowledging that Bioware's taken this romance crap too far, and it needs to be either scaled back, or removed completely.

Play something without romance.

[Carfax]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Yep. There's also been confirmation from devs (specifically Mac Walters and Casey Hudson) that Shepard can 're-romance' some (but not all) characters from previous games. As in, some (not all) characters will be options for romance again, so to speak. 

Also there's an interview with Jennifer Hale by Tom Bissell in the New Yorker magazine that references early conversations with Ashley and Kaidan influencing how the characters interact through the game. 

In that interview, the lines were recorded for 'A/K' as one distinct entity (not separately), and for a scene in which 'A/K' was apparently being held hostage or was captured, Shepard's lines included a sad/desperate "No!" as well as a generic 'No!'. For both genders. 

Just little things. Like I said, hard to confirm. I'm not taking it as confirmation, but it doesn't rule it out, either. 

Like people have noted, if the writers do it, they do it. I think it's entirely defendable on characterisation grounds, particularly since Bioware are emphasising how much they've grown and changed in the intervening two or three years.

Well, this does sound more like wishful thinking I say, but after Dragon Age 2, I wouldn't put it past Bioware to make every love interest bi..  It really will be interesting to see whether they stay with the DA2 model, or abandon it completely.

Casey Hudson seems a lot more practical than that Laidlaw fellow though, I'll give him that..

[ElitePinecone]

Carfax wrote...
It's just acknowledging that Bioware's taken this romance crap too far, and it needs to be either scaled back, or removed completely.

Forgive me if I find your comments disingenuous at best, and probably hypocritical. 

You're fine with possible nudity and more 'realistic' romances as long as they follow the Witcher model of boobies, if I'm reading that correctly.

Showing an admirable devotion to quality, you even say: "But if you're going to include them, one should do them to the utmost of your ability, and not half **** them by using cheap cop outs like loin cloths."

So what changed? You thought the romances were fine - even on the tame side - and should have explicit nudity and sex, just a few months ago. But now they've "taken the romance crap too far"? I thought it wasn't far enough! Or does "too far" mean characters that are available to both genders?

You don't get to argue that romances should be expanded with more quality and even nudity, then turn around and say including s/s makes it closer to a dating sim. Which is what you've been doing for the past ten pages.

Your first post about same-sex romances (charmingly titled "So Bioware finally caved in") has references to Sheploo being "defiled" by homosexuality, Bioware being captured by political correctness and saying that gay characters are fine as long as they keep to themselves.

I'm not trying to be confrontational - but if you want me to respect what you're saying, start by not being so self-serving or blatantly hypocritical.

Bewbies and realistic sex? Oh good, awesome, more!
Male-male romances? Eew, no, defiles the James Bond-Sheploo! Bioware's caving in to political correctness! This romance crap has gone too far!!!!

[KawaiiKatie]

@ElitePinecone

[Deviija]

Oh my. That was just far too delicious, ElitePinecone. I'll order another.

[Maugrim]

Quite excellent ElitePinecone.

I don't get how people can forget that Google has a very long memory (I'm afraid there is 8th grade fanfiction I wrote still floating around out there), it makes certain disingenuous ploys easily discoverable with just 30 seconds of searching.

Modifié par makenzieshepard, 31 octobre 2011 - 06:58 .

[Carfax]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Forgive me if I find your comments disingenuous at best, and probably hypocritical.

IsaacShep already tried this tactic a few pages ago

So what changed? You thought the romances were fine - even on the tame side - and should have explicit nudity and sex, just a few months ago. But now they've "taken the romance crap too far"? I thought it wasn't far enough! Or does "too far" mean characters that are available to both genders?

Nothing has changed...except that there's now a possibility that Bioware would do the incredibly stupid act of making all the love interests bisexual, just like they did in DA2, which affects character integrity and believability.

Thats all that I'm against really.  S/S romances in and of themselves don't bother me, but the "cookie cutter" romance thing has got to go.

You don't get to argue that romances should be expanded with more quality and even nudity, then turn around and say including s/s makes it closer to a dating sim. Which is what you've been doing for the past ten pages.

If you're going to quote me, at least try and be accurate.  I never said that the including S/S in and of itself makes it closer to a dating sim.

I said that making every love interest bisexual does, as well as making characters that were previously heterosexual only, now suddenly bisexual..  Thats what I'm against.

Your first post about same-sex romances (charmingly titled "So Bioware finally caved in") has references to Sheploo being "defiled" by homosexuality, Bioware being captured by political correctness and saying that gay characters are fine as long as they keep to themselves.

Oh boy, you could be a political spin doctor you know that?   Because you quote choice snippets out of an entire sentence and paragraph, which doesn't tell you the proper context.

For example, quoting me saying,"Sheploo defiled by homosexuality," makes me look like an anti-gay bigot.  

But if you quote the actual sentence,"I had thought that Sheploo was too sacrosanct to be defiled by homosexuality, seeing as he is according to Bioware, James Bond in space, and Bond was always a ladies' man," you'd see I was alluding to the idea that Bioware had obviously prevented DudeShep from engaging in S/S because Sheploo was their prized marketing poster child.
 

I'm not trying to be confrontational - but if you want me to respect what you're saying, start by not being so self-serving or blatantly hypocritical.

I'm not trying to be confrontational either, but if you're going to quote me, do so within the proper context rather than taking choice snippets.

Bewbies and realistic sex? Oh good, awesome, more!
Male-male romances? Eew, no, defiles the James Bond-Sheploo! Bioware's caving in to political correctness! This romance crap has gone too far!!!!

Like I said, you could be a political spin doctor