368 réponses à ce sujet

[Deztyn]

(Edited because I just realized I strayed out of Campaign, Quests and Story forum)

Modifié par Deztyn, 15 juin 2011 - 03:45 .

[ImoenBaby]

lobi wrote...

Imoen they had plenty of money, they just did not want to spend it.

Just as an aside and not to derail the thread.
Non gender specific dialogue is how most in game sexuality is expressed and the players imagination is asked to do the rest and the NPC variance is enough to give a sub/dom choice albiet a limited one, But what of Hawk? Does Hawk's speech fit the sexuality we are attaching. Is Hawk truly Gender aschematic and should Hawk be so? How far can we take this? There are already problems with the Evil.. Bad... kindaBad/Good and Hawks Dialogue but when we try to personlise Hawk with sexuality a dominant consideration does the voice/dialogue get in the way?

(Imoen I was wondering why you kept on with the 'how would you feel' line, suffragettes are annoying sometimes.)

I wish Bioware spent the money...I would happily spend the money to buy the resulting superior game. I would gladly pay at least $100 for a great game with a huge world and a wide variety of characters, combat, exploration, and puzzle solving. $100 would be too cheap, in fact.

But my wallet is not everyone's wallet.

I asked "how would you feel" because that's what settled it for me: how would I feel if every other game ignored that I exist, or excluded the choices I would make?

Almost. Every. Game.

So we have an imperfect compromize that's annoying, but I think deserves some credit. Eh, I want my $100 dream game. I'll pay more if I must.

[lobi]

Deztyn wrote...
I was referring to Anders being forced to kill a 'friend' he never bothers to mention again, versus killing his first lover (who is hardly ever mentioned again, but at least you know the important role he played in Ander's life.)

Anders reminds me of a friend. She 'blurts' stored up pain then never speaks of it again.

[lobi]

imoen wrote''
So we have an imperfect compromize that's annoying, but I think deserves some credit. Eh, I want my $100 dream game. I'll pay more if I must.

True.
Like I said they had plenty of money. Instead of paying $100 I would rather pay $70 and wait an extra six months, which is twice as long as a modder with a decent toolset would need. (snark)
I am off to play witcher1 toodles.

Modifié par lobi, 15 juin 2011 - 03:58 .

[Deztyn]

Aww. You quoted my spoilers before the edit. (Saves me the trouble of trying to figure out how to word a no spoiler answer at least.

Anyway, I have no problem with that as a character trait. It's that a Lady Hawke doesn't get the same perspective as a male Hawke. I feel it cheapens the emotional impact of that quest and that Anders' overall character suffers for it.

Modifié par Deztyn, 15 juin 2011 - 04:09 .

[Cody211282]

ImoenBaby wrote...

Cody211282 wrote...

How is it expensive to have a set instone characteristic about a character? If anything it would take more moeny to have them read all the lines for gay romanance on top of the straight stuff. I think how they did it in DAO made more sense, some of the teammates were straight, some were bi, all they had to do was toss in a few gay choises and it would have been completly rounded out.

It's not expensive to have a "set in stone characteristic" for one character...but what if you're trying to offer variety for a lot more people? And what if both gay and straight players love the same character? I think Bioware has mentioned that they have a large gay audience.

Certainly, there are more lines to be recorded when Anders (or whoever) can be gay or straight. But I believe Bioware was trying to extend some equal opportunity romancing to all players, and choose to compromize.

Ideally, there would be exclusively gay and exclusively straight npcs, which would be more expensive than recording a few extra lines. I would gladly pay for such a game, but then I think $60 is a pittance, where most people online seem to balk.

"but what if you're trying to offer variety for a lot more people? And
what if both gay and straight players love the same character?"

Do what real life does, have them be one or the other and when people **** about tell them thats just who they are, a ton of women love Neil Patrick Harris, but guess what, he just doesn't play for that team so they just have to deal with it.

The way they did it in this game just feels weird, not in a sexual way or a homophobic way, but it in a cheap sloopy way, like they wanted to please everyone and at the same time didn't want to put the time into it to do it right.

Hell I would have been fine if Ferus/Anders/Verric was gay and hit on me, or Isabella/Avilene/Marrell was a lesbian and didn't feel the same way Hawke did, That would have made it more real then everyone everewhere is bi, but only for Hawke.

[Feanor_II]

While I don't have have anything against same-sex romances I found quite absurd how it was managed in DA2: Every one was bisexual (except Sebastian) and after being a bit nice to them theybecame quite anoying tryiong to start something with you (that's particularly anoying with Anders)

I really fear how it will be handled in ME3, we already have a established set of characters, but I suspect that they make them bisexual to try to satisfy those who demanded SSR in ME Series.

[Agamo45]

Good God, is this all you people care about? You just have to shove this "same-sex" crap into the mix every chance you get don't you? Are you not going to stop until every single character is bi/gay? This is getting ridiculous.

Modifié par Agamo45, 15 juin 2011 - 06:32 .

[Cody211282]

DSerpa wrote...

You know what would be great? No romances. At all.

People are starting to creep me out with their obsession over pixelated boyfriends/girlfriends. The romance plots have devolved into generic bisexuals obsessed with dry-humping the main character. How about a game where the main character doesn't develop a serious romantic relationship? How about a game that focuses instead on developing detailed characters who have their own motivations and desires? A game where character relationships develop into friendship, mutual respect, tenuous alliances, or even outright hatred?

Who am I kidding? It'll probably be more fanservice. Bring on the underwear spooning and the "I'm so glad I found you" dialogue.

Thats a good point, can you even name one RPG that has done something like that though?

[Dariuszp]

Agree. Making all people gay/bi is just wrong. Like they have no real personality. Also making character in the way that every stupid ****** want to have sex with you is more wrong.

How it should work ? Normal. Make someone bi or gay but not all of them. Limited options ? Hell now. Like you can go fu** anybody right now.

If I would be in dev shoes then i would put romances in one simple way - players choices + players actions + conversations. For example if your choices when you play mark you as strict then gay companion will not even mention romance. But some straight can and vice versa. How ? Just put 1 or 2 gay NPC and check what options player selecting while talking to them. Companions can react to that.

Something like virtual personality of your character that is marked by few variables.

Then again you got for example 2 strict fem you can choose. So if you act all the time like bad ass, one of them can react positive and other negative. Not in some friend/rivaly points.

And there you got:
1. Your character variables that change while you playing
2. variables that describe companions
3. matching system that will unclock romance options for character that fit whatever you playing

This way everybody happy right ? And it's more challenging than:
~ hi, i like you
~ hi, lets have a kiss
~ great, what now ?
~ let's have sex
and romance ends literaly

In my point of view, romance options are stricty unimportant addon to the game with no real impact so they can be even removed. Still some people are tu busy making Mage LVL 85 in WOW so they must have this digital romances...

So if they are there - use them as you should. Example

{FUTURE SPOILER}
take that character from party, lock in the tower, add few bombs, dragon, bin-laden and john travolta and then create something that will kill entire city. Then put player in this situation - you spend time to romance with this char - try to save her or city. GO!
{/FUTURE SPOILER}

Simple. Use that. If you got army of companions (like in ME) then you can even allow player to choose from 2-3 of them if they fit. Depend on how many variables in they personality must mach yours.

Right now this whole romance system sucks balls.

Modifié par Dariuszp, 15 juin 2011 - 07:19 .

[Yuqi]

In all seriousness, having them all bisexual,was/is annoying. Although Stalker Anders was much more annoying. He probably watched hawke in his/her sleep,from the window. I dont think anybody wants the dumbed down romances of fable...

[astreqwerty]

because it is realistic so and completely unrealistic the other way round....dao had it right..one straight and one bi companion..now the all bi option was just ridiculous(not to mention the change of sexuality based on the sex of hawke)

[ImoenBaby]

DSerpa wrote...

You know what would be great? No romances. At all.

It's a Bioware game.

How about a game that focuses instead on developing detailed characters who have their own motivations and desires? A game where character relationships develop into friendship, mutual respect, tenuous alliances, or even outright hatred?

Of course?

[ImoenBaby]

Agamo45 wrote...

Good God, is this all you people care about? You just have to shove this "same-sex" crap into the mix every chance you get don't you? Are you not going to stop until every single character is bi/gay? This is getting ridiculous.

No one forced you into this thread, dude.  *One* game out of the hundreds you could be playing has a cast of bisexual characters, and you're flipping out.

[Dariuszp]

It's his opinion Baby. Respect that.

[Kidd]

EDIT: Long post is long, why don't you all post at times I have the board in front of me!? =D

Reinhardt M wrote...

The problem is spending enough resources to make LI for any sexuality to feel different or unique. Sexuality will inevitably become part of that character's history and (s)he must change somewhat accordingly.

Not really, it all depends. I just finished up a lesbian romance with Merrill and I can't say I noticed anything odd about her liking Hawke, even though I'm sure there was pretty much one line I can remember that was specific to my gender - and it was a minor one. Along the same lines, I'm sure putting in how Anders talks about Karl didn't really cost that much since it's just a very few more lines of dialogue. And that is how it will be for most characters. Note: most, because I can certainly imagine characters that would require very distinct romances that are nothing alike.

Remember that Thedas is also a lot more accepting than our real world is, hence a homosexual character won't have lived through the abuse that - sadly - many homosexuals in our world do (still, there are many who don't have any sob stories to tell).

lobi wrote...

Why would anyone not put points in charisma???!!!!!??? 
Charisma, Dex, luck= win everything.

Because they wanna play a brute =D

Reinhardt M wrote...

But what if, for instance, deciding that Morrigan should be a lesbian has led to a previous relationship which changed her outlook on life a bit? Not just because she was lesbian per se, but because being lesbian allowed her to have a relationship she previously wouldn't have been responsive to in regards to her backstory.

I don't see why anything would need changing. The poor gal's been pretty isolated in every way and doesn't have many stories to tell that don't include the wilds. At least at this moment I can only remember one where she talks about a situation where she used her womanly charms to get out of a situation, but that situation could've played just as well if Morrigan was ******- or bisexual. No need to change it one bit.

Well, if any changing might be needed, perhaps the Warden should've been given a choice of giggling and saying "boys will be boys", I guess.

lobi wrote...

I consider my interactions with Morrigan a failed romance/unrequited love. RPG should be about consequences from choices made big or small. Warden missed love with Lily because she was obsessed with Morrigan, consequence.

That's just in your head though. While I admire that you can fill in the gaps so nicely - ought to make for a tremendously immersive experience as long as your fantasies manage not to contradict the game - it's still not part of the game. ME2 and DA2 alike both have "failed romances" where you cannot win, and I think they're better games for having those "fake options" as well. Makes the game more realistic, indeed. They don't disallow players their choices based on gender, however.

lobi wrote...

When I play DA2 Isabella is imagined as transgender as is Varrick (no beard). Also take care who you talk to in that tone, ok hon.

My Isabela romance playthrough suddenly became a lot more interesting. Too bad I've already finished it =D God, I'd kill for a transgender LI some time in the future. As long as the romance isn't a long cuddling session of sexual identity education it could be one of the most awesome things I've ever played in a game. But, uh, that is neither here nor there. The T in LGBT is sadly still off-topic in this thread, I suppose.

ImoenBaby wrote...

And what if both gay and straight players love the same character? I think Bioware has mentioned that they have a large gay audience.

Heehee, honestly, it's not even only about gay audiences. Maker knows I'm putting a male Hawke up with Fenris next playthrough, and I'm not even a guy ^^ When I've finished my fourth (and probably final) playthrough of DA2, I will have had straight, lesbian and gay romances alike. And every time I've started a new game, I've gotten to pick freely between which characters I think would be fitting partners for my Hawke depending on their backgrounds and personalities, instead of having to shoehorn my characters' genders on character creation to fit with a somewhat arbitrary limitation.

Then again I'm bisexual irl and don't give a flying darn about the genders of people I find attractive, so hey perhaps my views are screwy? Haha =)

Deztyn wrote...

Anyway, I have no problem with that as a character trait. It's that a Lady Hawke doesn't get the same perspective as a male Hawke. I feel it cheapens the emotional impact of that quest and that Anders' overall character suffers for it.

Yeah, I actually don't quite see why those lines were changed for Lady Hawke. Hearing about a past loved one is fine, see Leli for instance. If the decision came from hearing the complaints about Jacob's mention of a previous relationship, then the writers should've known the problem people had was found elsewhere and not in the fact he had loved and lost.

Feanor_II wrote...

While I don't have have anything against same-sex romances I found quite absurd how it was managed in DA2: Every one was bisexual (except Sebastian) and after being a bit nice to them theybecame quite anoying tryiong to start something with you (that's particularly anoying with Anders)

I don't get this complaint. The only one who comes out and does anything on their own is Anders. The others, you can be as nice as you want to be and they will never drop a single hint - unless you choose the Heart icon. The moment you compliment someone's body, everything changes. But if you don't want to romance a certain character, why are you complimenting their body with a dialogue option with a huge heart on it? o_O

Dariuszp wrote...

And there you got:
1. Your character variables that change while you playing
2. variables that describe companions
3. matching system that will unclock romance options for character that fit whatever you playing 

I'm up for this. Definitely. Fitting personalities for some kind of attraction is a nice requirement to have in characterisation. However, that's personality, not sexual orientation. Sexual orientation isn't any more part of your "personality" than being a brunette or a blonde is, or preferring coke or pepsi.

Modifié par KiddDaBeauty, 15 juin 2011 - 10:32 .

[Dariuszp]

You got some points but not all of them. If you are strict then you seek strict partner right ? Same thing with bi/******.
If your actions, dialogue options and stuff mark you as strict - ****** companion should try luck somewhere else Normal.

Also now you got some variables that can be use in whole game. For example if our char is ******, you can charm someone and when he is strict - you cannot. If you are inteligent, someone can talk to you but if you are marked as an idiot then he can look down on you and refuse to talk. If you are
charismatic you can influence people by giving public speach. Like in the Witcher 2 in Flotsam or Mass Effect 2 in flotilla when you could influence crowd and determine outcome.

I think that this could be better than that stupid renegade/paragon options.

[Kidd]

Dariuszp wrote...

You got some points but not all of them. If you are strict then you seek strict partner right ? Same thing with bi/******.
If your actions, dialogue options and stuff mark you as strict - ****** companion should try luck somewhere else Normal.

Yes, it is up to you to choose if you are hetero-, bi- or homosexual, of course. Your player character is almost unlimited, you can be so many things and decide so many things about your character. But it is impossible for there to be enough NPCs that will fit with your nearly infinite player character, hence making every love interest available kind of "emulates" there being more characters in the game. All it means is that the Merrill in my game was homosexual, while in yours perhaps she was undefined.

Essentially, our Merrills become slight variations of the same character. It is not that different from whether Merrill stays single in your game or doesn't in my game, that is also a slight variation in Merrill. Then there's the whole friendship/rival thing, which ends up developing characters in far more different directions between our games than they'd ever vary simply by being of a certain sexual orientation.

Dariuszp wrote...

Also now you got some variables that can be use in whole game. For example if our char is ******, you can charm someone and when he is strict - you cannot. If you are inteligent, someone can talk to you but if you are marked as an idiot then he can look down on you and refuse to talk. If you are
charismatic you can influence people by giving public speach. Like in the Witcher 2 in Flotsam or Mass Effect 2 in flotilla when you could influence crowd and determine outcome.

To be fair, DA2 has this kind of system and it is the first BioWare game that does, to my knowledge. A Hawke who has been very diplomatic through most of the game can sweet talk their way out of certain situations others can't, while a Hawke who is very blunt and forward instead can instill fear where other Hawkes cannot. Some classes even get class-specific answers in certain dialogues. Sure, the system can use some more work and be used even more, but this is essentially already the path BioWare is taking DA with DA2.

[RangerSG]

I absolutely agree with the complaint that all the characters being bi was problematic at best. If the OP "doesn't get that" then I have to ask, "Do you think everyone would be willing to be bisexual in the real world?" If not, why should it be different here? It should match their personality. Not be made an easy button for cheap thrills.

[Kidd]

RangerSG wrote...

I absolutely agree with the complaint that all the characters being bi was problematic at best. If the OP "doesn't get that" then I have to ask, "Do you think everyone would be willing to be bisexual in the real world?" If not, why should it be different here? It should match their personality. Not be made an easy button for cheap thrills.

I believe few would be willing to change their sexual orientation. I'd never choose to lose my ability to like women, even if that meant I'd be more accepted in society. Because I am me and I'm happy to be me.

But my characters aren't me. I RP all kinds of characters, of several orientations. This has never been about you as the player character; be what you wish, self-insert if you wish. It's about allowing romantic choice in a digital rpg, which as a digital rpg has to live with the limits of the system (all content in the game must be created by the studio before you even get your hands on the game, instead of the game's content evolving around the player). Thus we are already limited a *lot* in only being able to pursue four characters out of the thousands of people out there. To further limit the players seems arbitrary.

The characters in one playthrough aren't the same characters in another playthrough, cause they develop along different lines. So why does it matter what a character is doing in an alternate universe? Anders never showed any interest in my pro-templar Hawke, yet he was all over my mage Hawke. That's because these two playthroughs are essentially different worlds - or variations on the same world, if you wish.

[RangerSG]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

I absolutely agree with the complaint that all the characters being bi was problematic at best. If the OP "doesn't get that" then I have to ask, "Do you think everyone would be willing to be bisexual in the real world?" If not, why should it be different here? It should match their personality. Not be made an easy button for cheap thrills.

I believe few would be willing to change their sexual orientation. I'd never choose to lose my ability to like women, even if that meant I'd be more accepted in society. Because I am me and I'm happy to be me.

But my characters aren't me. I RP all kinds of characters, of several orientations. This has never been about you as the player character; be what you wish, self-insert if you wish. It's about allowing romantic choice in a digital rpg, which as a digital rpg has to live with the limits of the system (all content in the game must be created by the studio before you even get your hands on the game, instead of the game's content evolving around the player). Thus we are already limited a *lot* in only being able to pursue four characters out of the thousands of people out there. To further limit the players seems arbitrary.

The characters in one playthrough aren't the same characters in another playthrough, cause they develop along different lines. So why does it matter what a character is doing in an alternate universe? Anders never showed any interest in my pro-templar Hawke, yet he was all over my mage Hawke. That's because these two playthroughs are essentially different worlds - or variations on the same world, if you wish.

NPCs in a game should be consistent to their character, or there's no point in them being distinct characters in the first place. So this entire line of reasoning is false. The character should have their own identity, the same as when I write, I don't change a character to shoehorn them into a situation they don't belong in.

A romance isn't believable when it's not consistent with the character. It's a cheap thrill. DA2 didn't "advance" romance relationships in gaming at all. Same sex or otherwise, because the characters are compelled to like Hawke whatever your personality. Rival them, they romance and throw themselves at the PC. Friend them, they do the same. Straight, gay, or bi PC, no difference.

That's not good characterization. That's cheap fanservice.

[Kidd]

RangerSG wrote...

NPCs in a game should be consistent to their character, or there's no point in them being distinct characters in the first place. So this entire line of reasoning is false. The character should have their own identity, the same as when I write, I don't change a character to shoehorn them into a situation they don't belong in.

Yet the characters change depending on what happens in their universe. Isn't that a good thing?

RangerSG wrote...

A romance isn't believable when it's not consistent with the character. It's a cheap thrill. DA2 didn't "advance" romance relationships in gaming at all. Same sex or otherwise, because the characters are compelled to like Hawke whatever your personality. Rival them, they romance and throw themselves at the PC. Friend them, they do the same. Straight, gay, or bi PC, no difference.

That's not good characterization. That's cheap fanservice.

Thing is, you wouldn't know if you didn't play many times or read about it online. No one playthrough will look unrealistic when it's played. Call it fanservice if you like - mostly everything in a game is, really.

But with Merrill for instance, it's not odd that she will be able to fall for both a person who helps her and supports her in what she's doing, and the person who looks after her as she's dabblings in things she knows is dangerous business. It is only because you know there are two romance paths that you start thinking, but why are you bringing out-of-game knowledge into the game like that? It's along the same lines as saying it's impossible to be moved by what happens in a game because we know it's all pre-written text, a few pre-recorded voice over audio files that play along the text while we watch a bunch of polygons shift positions on screen.

Within the game, it makes sense. And that's what's important in the end. This line of thinking goes for friendmancing, rivalmancing, straightmancing and gaymancing. At least in theory.

However, I will definitely agree with you on one point. In DA2, it's difficult to get -anyone- to really dislike you, love interest or no. I find it difficult to imagine Fenris would "respect our differences" if I didn't show disdain toward slavers for instance. In the game, such actions would give me rivalry points, not disapprove points... and that's kind of weird, isn't it?

I greatly appreciate that there are multiple ways to befriend or even romance a character, but it -is- kind of odd how there is no way to make anyone dislike you properly, aside from perhaps being contradictory in your opinions all the time to keep the friend/rival bar in the middle. Which is still odd, cause in the Fenris example for instance, he should like the Hawke who opposes 3/5 slavers better than the one who doesn't oppose any, yet that's not how the game works.

Friend/rival system is great, but just like the like/dislike system, it is flawed. I believe we're on the right path however, even though it needs quite a bit of tweaking as is.

[lobi]

Why do we need to romance anyway. Isabella should just need some good alcohol and a witty compliment.

Modifié par lobi, 15 juin 2011 - 02:21 .

[RangerSG]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

NPCs in a game should be consistent to their character, or there's no point in them being distinct characters in the first place. So this entire line of reasoning is false. The character should have their own identity, the same as when I write, I don't change a character to shoehorn them into a situation they don't belong in.

Yet the characters change depending on what happens in their universe. Isn't that a good thing?

RangerSG wrote...

A romance isn't believable when it's not consistent with the character. It's a cheap thrill. DA2 didn't "advance" romance relationships in gaming at all. Same sex or otherwise, because the characters are compelled to like Hawke whatever your personality. Rival them, they romance and throw themselves at the PC. Friend them, they do the same. Straight, gay, or bi PC, no difference.

That's not good characterization. That's cheap fanservice.

Thing is, you wouldn't know if you didn't play many times or read about it online. No one playthrough will look unrealistic when it's played. Call it fanservice if you like - mostly everything in a game is, really.

But with Merrill for instance, it's not odd that she will be able to fall for both a person who helps her and supports her in what she's doing, and the person who looks after her as she's dabblings in things she knows is dangerous business. It is only because you know there are two romance paths that you start thinking, but why are you bringing out-of-game knowledge into the game like that? It's along the same lines as saying it's impossible to be moved by what happens in a game because we know it's all pre-written text, a few pre-recorded voice over audio files that play along the text while we watch a bunch of polygons shift positions on screen.

Within the game, it makes sense. And that's what's important in the end. This line of thinking goes for friendmancing, rivalmancing, straightmancing and gaymancing. At least in theory.

However, I will definitely agree with you on one point. In DA2, it's difficult to get -anyone- to really dislike you, love interest or no. I find it difficult to imagine Fenris would "respect our differences" if I didn't show disdain toward slavers for instance. In the game, such actions would give me rivalry points, not disapprove points... and that's kind of weird, isn't it?

I greatly appreciate that there are multiple ways to befriend or even romance a character, but it -is- kind of odd how there is no way to make anyone dislike you properly, aside from perhaps being contradictory in your opinions all the time to keep the friend/rival bar in the middle. Which is still odd, cause in the Fenris example for instance, he should like the Hawke who opposes 3/5 slavers better than the one who doesn't oppose any, yet that's not how the game works.

Friend/rival system is great, but just like the like/dislike system, it is flawed. I believe we're on the right path however, even though it needs quite a bit of tweaking as is.

Characters changes should be consistent with who they are. Not at a player's whims. The most believable relationship in the game was Aveline, because with all the PC and her had gone through, and the losses they'd shared, there was no way that would be a romance. Other characters, I don't see the same consistency now. It's all too easy. A character like Fenris, who doesn't understand friendship, I could see being acceptable to a Rivalmance. I don't see that with Merrill, who *craves* acceptance given all that she's lost. The same thing goes with the sexuality. I think there are two relationships in the game that are bi just to make it easy on the player, and don't do the character justice at all. That's not an "advancement."

As for why having romance in games? The same reason there's romance in books or movies. It's part of life, and when a romance is done right, it enriches the player's interaction and immersion with the game world and its characters. I get amused when people say, "Why is there romance in RPGs?" But they'd never bat an eye about romance in a book or on screen. The *lack* of romantic opportunities makes for a lack of verisimiltude.