411 réponses à ce sujet

[Random citizen]

IsaacShep wrote...

No. It would be A LOT of work (more work than in case of already existing monogamous relationships) to create something that's not a primary, base characteristic like sexual orientation.

It would not require that much if it was limited to ME LI and a ME2 LI (as it follows is a pretty logical and typical poly-development path where the original LI is unaviable and the character discovers someone new, especially if original LI is Liara and the reunion is post suicide mission) but unfortunatly, there was no maleshep homosexual alternative in ME1, so it would be a bit harder (as in require more work and good writing) to do a believable and satisfying poly-******-maleshep-story. (Garrus and Kaidan both comes out of the closet and hits on maleshep? Not impossible, but it would require lots of work, but still, I belive it could be done, hell I could probably write the damn thing myself with some assistance)

[shepskisaac]

Implementing polyamory is going another level deeper into the romances content, it is not a basic, level 1 characteristic of romances like sexual orientation. Romances in ME franchise are supposed to be bonus extra content, not huge pathways with hundreds of branching pathways and options. So I don't see a reason to go even deeper into this content in a game like Mass Effect, where romances ain't the focus.

[Xilizhra]

I think it's safe to say that my opinion is: It's always good to have options, but while homosexual romances are relatively easy to implement assuming the game world is progressive enough, the problem of resources makes it an implausible issue of focus. I don't want to say that your desires are less important than mine; they're not. It's more a resource issue.

[shepskisaac]

I'm tired and don't wanna misinterpret, so just to be clear, is this a snarky response?

[Xilizhra]

IsaacShep wrote...

I'm tired and don't wanna misinterpret, so just to be clear, is this a snarky response?

No, and that was to Random, not you. You, I admit, can sometimes be too swift to only want homosexuality as an additional romance option and not include other preferences.

[Random citizen]

Xilizhra wrote...

I think it's safe to say that my opinion is: It's always good to have options, but while homosexual romances are relatively easy to implement assuming the game world is progressive enough, the problem of resources makes it an implausible issue of focus. I don't want to say that your desires are less important than mine; they're not. It's more a resource issue.

I agree that it is an resource issue, everything is. But I generally disagree with the notion that such types of character development should automatically be playing second fiddle. Every high quality story needs to be about its characters and their personal struggles, lives and social relations, otherwise you just end up with a shallow series of explosions with little reason to care for those causing the explosions or being exploded.

And as I have stated many times over, the amount of extra dialogue and custom animation would not exactly need to be staggering. But of course I know it most certainly is too late. The purpose was just to point out that what has been hiding in plain sight.

Modifié par Random citizen, 31 janvier 2012 - 05:22 .

[IndelibleJester]

Yes.

[Unpleasant Implications]

SkyeHawk89 wrote...

Still a NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Okay, we get it. No need for all those exclamation points.

If people do this in RL, your weird and it's wrong.

What gives you the right to judge the lives of others?

Well to me because if I had someone I don't want them cheating, being with another.

It's not cheating. Cheating is done in secret. In polyamory, you are well aware of and accept the fact that you and possibly your partner(s) are in love with you as well as someone else.

I hate those types of people,

You've made that quite obvious.

 

I don't want a relationship like that. It does hurt one or the other.

Not if you do it correctly.

The one your with should have the right to know because they may feel hurt and dislike it.

Polyamory is knowing this and accepting it.

Modifié par Unpleasant Implications, 01 février 2012 - 02:39 .

[rudenotginger]

Random citizen wrote...

rudenotginger wrote...

Sounds like a trick question. If we say "No, there's enough romances in ME3", we get asked "but would you support it if it was available?". If we say "No", we get asked "Why?". And if we say that we don't agree with this practice, we are called "repressed".

So, to quote Captain Reynolds: "TRAP!!"

Strange reasoning. Apply it to a scenario where conservative heterosexuals are asked about introducing gay or interspecies relationships as options in sci-fi.
"No there are enough human woman to chose from for maler charcters"
"No, I dont agree with the practice of Turian LIs for a human, nor do I approve of homosexual LIs"
etc.

Its not so much "repressed" as a"repressive attitude"

You just proved my point. If someone doesn't have the same opinion as you, they have a "repressive attitude". Nice.

FWIW, I don't care what consenting adults do between themselves. I have openly supported SS LI's for ME3 and I think people who don't want to see a SS romance just shouldn't play it. What other players do with their game(s) doesn't affect yours. Alien LIs do nothing for me, so I just don't play them. Same if polyships were implimented.

However, the original post what worded as a question: "Would you support it or not?", not "Let's have a polyships support thread". And then everyone who answers honestly "no", are called names. Don't ask people their opinions if you're going to insult anyone who doesn't agree with you.

[Random citizen]

rudenotginger wrote...

Random citizen wrote...

rudenotginger wrote...

Sounds like a trick question. If we say "No, there's enough romances in ME3", we get asked "but would you support it if it was available?". If we say "No", we get asked "Why?". And if we say that we don't agree with this practice, we are called "repressed".

So, to quote Captain Reynolds: "TRAP!!"

Strange reasoning. Apply it to a scenario where conservative heterosexuals are asked about introducing gay or interspecies relationships as options in sci-fi.
"No there are enough human woman to chose from for maler charcters"
"No, I dont agree with the practice of Turian LIs for a human, nor do I approve of homosexual LIs"
etc.

Its not so much "repressed" as a"repressive attitude"

You just proved my point. If someone doesn't have the same opinion as you, they have a "repressive attitude". Nice.

FWIW, I don't care what consenting adults do between themselves. I have openly supported SS LI's for ME3 and I think people who don't want to see a SS romance just shouldn't play it. What other players do with their game(s) doesn't affect yours. Alien LIs do nothing for me, so I just don't play them. Same if polyships were implimented.

However, the original post what worded as a question: "Would you support it or not?", not "Let's have a polyships support thread". And then everyone who answers honestly "no", are called names. Don't ask people their opinions if you're going to insult anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Thanks for clearifying. I guess the question really is: do you support the game having optional relationship storylines and content that is outside of your own personal preference.

[rudenotginger]

Fair enough.

[Random citizen]

rudenotginger wrote...

Fair enough.

This thread is fair and balanced!


No seriously, it is about fair and balanced portrayal of relationships.

Modifié par Random citizen, 17 février 2012 - 01:10 .