25715 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

as for Liara... asari might not care about their partner's gender, but they have thousands of years to get used to dual gendered species and other then possibly Turians, all of those species have gender role differences.

So what exactly would you want to see?

[jlb524]

jeweledleah wrote...

@ Jib - its the same dialogue.  that feeling of dejavu is.. unpleasant to me.

Is it really any different from romancing the same LI with two different female characters and getting the same dialog?

[Red by Full Metal Jacket]

jeweledleah wrote...
The romances still go the same route regardless of Paragon/Renegade status.  I'd imagine Liara would approach a Renegade Shepard differently from a Paragon, but she doesn't.  

Bioware USED to do this differrently. I remember you had to carefully pick your choices for Baldur's Gate. Like, they would dump you if you said or did something to really ****** them off. And for DA, you had to get Alistair and Leliana to like you enough to initiate a romance.  It also fit their character, as opposed to Zevran and Morrigan.  Contrast ME (and DA2) where it was "talk to person X enough and get a PG sex scene! Yay!"

Modifié par Red by Full Metal Jacket, 27 novembre 2011 - 11:45 .

[jeweledleah]

Xilizhra wrote...

as for Liara... asari might not care about their partner's gender, but they have thousands of years to get used to dual gendered species and other then possibly Turians, all of those species have gender role differences.

So what exactly would you want to see?

I'm not a writer.  but something that doesn't repeat itself so much I can quote entire sentences, despite having trouble with memorization.  and having played SWTOR Beta for 2 weekends now - bioware is most certainly capable of writing incrediby diverse dialogue when they wish to. 

Is it really any different from romancing the same LI with two different female characters and getting the same dialog?

yes. (and its part of the reason I tend not to repeat romances, especialy when there are no alternate dialogue paths to them)

Modifié par jeweledleah, 27 novembre 2011 - 11:45 .

[jlb524]

jeweledleah wrote...

Is it really any different from romancing the same LI with two different female characters and getting the same dialog?

yes. (and its part of the reason I tend not to repeat romances, especialy when there are no alternate dialogue paths to them)

How is it different?

[Ryzaki]

@jeweled: You saying Fenris (who might've been used in the same way by Hadriana as well considering that hounded my sleep comment) what? should've angst'd more with dude Hawke? Uh...yeah I'm glad that didn't happen. Especially considering there's no proof it only happened with Danarius.

Isabela if you actually did her romance does treat FemHawke and Dude Hawke differently (hell just pop in the Isabela thread and ask).

Fenris not so much but again he doesn't seem the type to make a big deal out of it (which he doesn't).

Anders is like Isabela.

Just because they're not constantly going "woman/man." doesn't mean there aren't differences.

Frankly the differences were fine to me could've been more but they certainly weren't necessary to enjoy the romance.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 28 novembre 2011 - 12:24 .

[Abispa]

Red by Full Metal Jacket wrote...

Bioware USED to do this differrently. I remember you had to carefully pick your choices for Baldur's Gate. Like, they would dump you if you said or did something to really ****** them off. And for DA, you had to get Alistair and Leliana to like you enough to initiate a romance.  It also fit their character, as opposed to Zevran and Morrigan.  Contrast ME (and DA2) where it was "talk to person X enough and get a PG sex scene! Yay!"

Yeah, I used to play a dwarf in BG2 because I WANTED to avoid all the damn cat-fights between the females. *shudder* The part I couldn't stand about BG2 was that unless you were brutally mean to the LIs at the start of the game (as a human, half-elf, or elf), they would start hitting on you and fighting over you until you turned them off with your actions.

BG2 had limitations (dwarf guy gets no play outside of brothel), but it wasn't based soley on gender. Nor could you game the system with gifts as in DA:O. But Bioware has continually dropped restrictions from the romances, I assume, because it makes the players happy, or at least the players who weren't happy didn't care enough to stop buying the games.

I won't complain if the writers say, "It is our vision that these characters are 'straight' or 'gay' and not be made 'bi.'" It is their right and all I can do is decide whether or not I want to play the game. I bought and enjoyed ME despite the lack of s/s options (well, I don't play them often, so it really didn't matter). I just think it's silly when people who are willing to accept the near complete lack of restrictions on ME romances, whether they enjoyed them or not, do so EXCEPT when it comes to "bi" and m/m romances. NOW the game is ruined.

Whatever.

Modifié par Abispa, 28 novembre 2011 - 12:07 .

[Ryzaki]

Ugh. BG2.

I love the game but the canon romances were bleh.

Viconia was a **** that wouldn't talk to me unless I was screwing her, Jaheria wouldn't NOT talk to me unless I was a complete douche and insisted on throwing her dead husband in my face (talk about Carth Syndrome! *shudders*) and Aerie was a c*** who got mad at my PC for being raped.

Just...no.

And Ameon was a giant douchenozzle of all douchenozzles.

Really never saw a cast of BW LIs I hated more.

Even modding a friendship path on Viconia made me like her a smidge more. It's pretty sad when most of the companions I use are mod ones (or ones never intended to be romances). (And Minsc because Minsc is awesomeness and win).

Modifié par Ryzaki, 28 novembre 2011 - 12:10 .

[Abispa]

Ryzaki wrote...

Really never saw a cast of BW LIs I hated more.

Which is why I played a dwarf. I tried half-orc, but that seemed to turn Viconia on and Arie didn't mind. *Shudder.*

[Ryzaki]

Abispa wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Really never saw a cast of BW LIs I hated more.

Which is why I played a dwarf. I tried half-orc, but that seemed to turn Viconia on and Arie didn't mind. *Shudder.*

I can't play dwarves because the thought of being shorter than everyone agitates me. I have a height complex.

[Abispa]

Ryzaki wrote...

I can't play dwarves because the thought of being shorter than everyone agitates me.

Hey! Just exactly do you mean by "shorter"!? I'll have you know the REAL reason the three elved wenches were afraid to romance him!

Modifié par Abispa, 28 novembre 2011 - 12:16 .

[jlb524]

They've definitely changed the way they do romances since BG2.

Red by Full Metal Jacket wrote...
Bioware USED to do this differrently. I remember you had to carefully pick your choices for Baldur's Gate. Like, they would dump you if you said or did something to really ****** them off.

The 'right' answer was pretty obvious.

Red by Full Metal Jacket wrote...
And for DA, you had to get Alistair and Leliana to like you enough to initiate a romance.  It also fit their character, as opposed to Zevran and Morrigan.  Contrast ME (and DA2) where it was "talk to person X enough and get a PG sex scene! Yay!"

DA2 doesn't work like that because of the friend/rival system.  You have to hit a certain level of friend/rival points to start the romance, and you have to end the game at 100 friend/rival to complete the romance (and get the last kiss scene).

ME is easy, yeah.

[Abispa]

jlb524 wrote...

DA2 doesn't work like that because of the friend/rival system.  You have to hit a certain level of friend/rival points to start the romance, and you have to end the game at 100 friend/rival to complete the romance (and get the last kiss scene).

Whoa! So THAT explains it, then! Boy, am I an idiot sometimes.

[Ryzaki]

Abispa wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

I can't play dwarves because the thought of being shorter than everyone agitates me.

Hey! Just exactly do you mean by "shorter"!? I'll have you know the REAL reason the three elved wenches were afraid to romance him!

I'd say dwarves have thickness not length. :innocent:

[Abispa]

Ryzaki wrote...

Abispa wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

I can't play dwarves because the thought of being shorter than everyone agitates me.

Hey! Just exactly do you mean by "shorter"!? I'll have you know the REAL reason the three elved wenches were afraid to romance him!

I'd say dwarves have thickness not length. :innocent:

That's my dwarf at the end of BG2: thick, rich, and god-like. THAT'S why I don't want realism in video games.

Modifié par Abispa, 28 novembre 2011 - 12:27 .

[Ryzaki]

Abispa wrote...
That's my dwarf at the end of BG2: thick, rich, and god-like. THAT'S why I don't want realism in video games.

If not for my modded romance my PC would've gone for being a god too. Alas he decided to be a good guy mortal and travel around with his love.

Totally had my first PC become a god and go "I'm outta here!" though.

[ElitePinecone]

Red by Full Metal Jacket wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...
The romances still go the same route regardless of Paragon/Renegade status.  I'd imagine Liara would approach a Renegade Shepard differently from a Paragon, but she doesn't.  

Bioware USED to do this differrently. I remember you had to carefully pick your choices for Baldur's Gate. Like, they would dump you if you said or did something to really ****** them off. And for DA, you had to get Alistair and Leliana to like you enough to initiate a romance.  It also fit their character, as opposed to Zevran and Morrigan.  Contrast ME (and DA2) where it was "talk to person X enough and get a PG sex scene! Yay!"

I've never played BG2, but I've heard this criticsm a fair bit, and it's probably a good one. 

I guess it's just a feature of modern Bioware games now (and especially Mass Effect) - they'd rather make it easier for players to do things than more difficult. 

Still, like people have said before, it'd be awesome if they introduced complex romances into future games (where moraity, actions, personality, attributes, etc, play a role) - I just find insisting on 'realism' in regards to gender somewhat disingenuous when absolutely nothing about the romances are realistic in the first place. 

[jlb524]

ElitePinecone wrote...

I've never played BG2, but I've heard this criticsm a fair bit, and it's probably a good one. 

I guess it's just a feature of modern Bioware games now (and especially Mass Effect) - they'd rather make it easier for players to do things than more difficult. 

Considering the romantic subplots constitute a very small portion of the game (and most players never complete one) why would they spend extra time with the writing, coding, and testing of complex but 'realistic' romance paths?

I'd personally rather they spend time adding in complexity elsewhere and just let any PC romance whichever LI they wish.  With Mass Effect, I'd rather they make more class related dialog checks around the game (like, refer to Shepard as biotic if they are biotic, for instance).  If players want to do crazy things with romances because they go unchecked (my fave crazy thing is romancing Alistair with a blood mage in DA:O) then who cares?  You don't have to do this.

I think things like this were easier (and cheaper) in the days of BG2 because the majority of the dialog was text-only.  No VAs.  BW has slowly moved away from that, first by having the majority of NPCs voiced and now with having the PC voiced.  Unless they go back to the 'text only' days, I don't see them creating complex and 'realistic' romance checks any time soon.

[wolf99000]

jlb524 wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

I've never played BG2, but I've heard this criticsm a fair bit, and it's probably a good one. 

I guess it's just a feature of modern Bioware games now (and especially Mass Effect) - they'd rather make it easier for players to do things than more difficult. 

Considering the romantic subplots constitute a very small portion of the game (and most players never complete one) why would they spend extra time with the writing, coding, and testing of complex but 'realistic' romance paths?

I'd personally rather they spend time adding in complexity elsewhere and just let any PC romance whichever LI they wish.  With Mass Effect, I'd rather they make more class related dialog checks around the game (like, refer to Shepard as biotic if they are biotic, for instance).  If players want to do crazy things with romances because they go unchecked (my fave crazy thing is romancing Alistair with a blood mage in DA:O) then who cares?  You don't have to do this.

I think things like this were easier (and cheaper) in the days of BG2 because the majority of the dialog was text-only.  No VAs.  BW has slowly moved away from that, first by having the majority of NPCs voiced and now with having the PC voiced.  Unless they go back to the 'text only' days, I don't see them creating complex and 'realistic' romance checks any time soon.

I agree with this one thing that always bugged me about the first game was kaidan telling you about his time at the biotic camp but its never brought up that shepard is biotic if you have her set that way

one thing I do hope they bring in from dragon age 2 is the little moments where the other squadmembers commented on your romance even between each other that is something they should do in mass effect 3

Modifié par wolf99000, 28 novembre 2011 - 04:44 .

[Ryzaki]

jlb524 wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

I've never played BG2, but I've heard this criticsm a fair bit, and it's probably a good one. 

I guess it's just a feature of modern Bioware games now (and especially Mass Effect) - they'd rather make it easier for players to do things than more difficult. 

Considering the romantic subplots constitute a very small portion of the game (and most players never complete one) why would they spend extra time with the writing, coding, and testing of complex but 'realistic' romance paths?

I'd personally rather they spend time adding in complexity elsewhere and just let any PC romance whichever LI they wish.  With Mass Effect, I'd rather they make more class related dialog checks around the game (like, refer to Shepard as biotic if they are biotic, for instance).  If players want to do crazy things with romances because they go unchecked (my fave crazy thing is romancing Alistair with a blood mage in DA:O) then who cares?  You don't have to do this.

I think things like this were easier (and cheaper) in the days of BG2 because the majority of the dialog was text-only.  No VAs.  BW has slowly moved away from that, first by having the majority of NPCs voiced and now with having the PC voiced.  Unless they go back to the 'text only' days, I don't see them creating complex and 'realistic' romance checks any time soon.

Agreed.

I'm sick of my class barely being referenced.

[Quething]

jlb524 wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

@ Jib - its the same dialogue.  that feeling of dejavu is.. unpleasant to me.

Is it really any different from romancing the same LI with two different female characters and getting the same dialog?

Thing is, it doesn't have to be that way. I romanced Ash three different times and got three different relationships out of it in ME1. One Shep was a painfully sincere, cliche-spouting paragon and their relationship consisted largely of Ash teasing her (Hale has a really good amused, self-depreciating delivery on all those goofy lines, so it feels like Shep is deliberately trying to make Ash laugh, it's really fun). One Shep was a short-tempered, human-centric renegade and their relationship consisted largely of mutual snarking. Both relationships felt perfectly plausible and honest, and both Sheps were clearly romancing the same Ashley, but because they were different people, so were their interactions. (The third, a DudeShep with a good-natured zen sort of outlook, had a yet different relationship with her, but I think that's about the limit). Obviously some scenes were still pretty similar; Ash will always say you make her feel good enough, Shep will always knock Ash away from the beacon, etc etc, but those moments only make up about 10-20% of the time you spend talking to that character.

DA2 offered something similar - a diplomatic Hawke and a snarky Hawke sound different romancing Isabela, even if they both go the Friend path, plus there's the difference between Friend/Rival in the first place - though it's not as good or well-developed because the fixed conversations and pre-rendered love scenes are more like 70% of your interaction with any given character (so. little. talking). The idea is there, though, and it's still better than, say, ME1 Liara.

And that is something I'd like to see. But it doesn't have anything to do with gender. Gender is completely superficial in these games. FemShep has the same lines, the same outlook, the same achievements and personality and gameplay. It's purely cosmetic, and it makes no sense for LIs to react to that. class, biotic ability, moral alignment, those actually change the game. Gender doesn't. If my relationships are going to look different I want those zots spent on the ways in which my Shepards are actually different.

[jlb524]

I agree with you, Quething.

I tend to always romance the same character with different PCs but they feel different since I RP my PCs different each time (my Humorous!Hawke/Merrill romance feels different from Aggro!Hawke/Merrill for sure).

I think jeweledleah is taking a broader look at this, though. It seems she likes to look at this from a 'multiple playthroughs' perspective. So, since the dialog is potentially the same across multiple playthroughs (for male and female, for paragon/renegade, etc.), it's a bad thing.

[jlb524]

iOnlySignIn wrote...
I thinking mixing in a bit of text is a very clever idea. Expands on plot details with minimal effort.

For example, when Hawke finds in their estate Anders's manifestos, or Merrill's note about watering their plants, an actual manifesto or note would be nice. Perhaps with some special fonts suitable for each different character.

It would have been nice if we the player could have actually read Merrill's note in the form of an inventory item for Hawke.

I'm not sure about Anders's entire manifesto.  Who would want to write that thing in the first place?