922 réponses à ce sujet

[alex90c]

Nejeli wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

His skill? Haha, alright.

Don't pull the "you're joe average therefore you have no opinion" on me. It's kind of old.

Restricting diversity just because diversity is lacking in other aspects is ****** poor logic. Anyway, i can't really add anything more to this thread.

Yes, Hawke's skill. I don't see what's so funny about that

hahahahahahaha

hawke =/= skill

[FedericoV]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Bioware (and now Bethesda) are one of the only major development houses outside of Japan who openly cater content to "everyone".

That's one point I'm profoundly against. Nothing personal: I respect your view on the issue but I think that romances should not be a service to players. If romances are used to cather to the RL sexual preferences of gamers, they become a really sad, akward and stupid marketing tool. As I said in another post, in principle there's nothing different with Duke Nuke Forever stupid use of sexuality.

I don't know what's more sad: Bioware that pushes those aspects to sell games based on their metrics or the gamers that support those choices not because of the quality of the writing or how they improve the storytelling and the general gaming experience, but because of their preferences in RL. Happy to be treated like customers that receive a service in the name of what's politically correct. That's sad and it reflects the state of the industry. Don't be surprised if people talk about date-sim. I don't know if I will play another DA game but for sure I won't ever touch again their romances.

@Bioware: I support a toggle to play without romances options at all.

Modifié par FedericoV, 31 décembre 2011 - 11:53 .

[whykikyouwhy]

FedericoV wrote...

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Bioware (and now Bethesda) are one of the only major development houses outside of Japan who openly cater content to "everyone".

That's one point I'm profoundly against. Nothing personal: I respect your view on the issue but I think that romances should not be a service to players. If romances are used to cather to the RL sexual preferences of gamers, they become a really sad, akward and stupid marketing tool. As I said in another post, in principle there's nothing different with Duke Nuke Forever stupid use of sexuality.

I don't know what's more sad: Bioware that pushes those aspects to sell games based on their metrics or the gamers that support those choices not because of the quality of the writing or how they improve the storytelling and the general gaming experience, but because of their preferences in RL. Happy to be treated like customers that receive a service in the name of what's politically correct. That's sad and it reflects the state of the industry. Don't be surprised if people talk about date-sim. I don't know if I will play another DA game but for sure I won't ever touch again their romances.

@Bioware: I support a toggle to play without romances options at all.

Did Bioware truly "push those aspects to sell games based on their metrics?" Do you have a source for this statement - that they did indeed use metrics behind their decision to have open-romance LIs? Just curious.

So too, I found the writing and character development behind several of the companions to be quite solid. I don't think the writing suffered because of any inclusion of allowing a player to pursue a romance regardless of Hawke's gender. In fact, I didn't find the romances to focus on gender much - gender was not a major component to the interaction between Hawke and a chosen LI. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The storylines for the romances captured the events and unrest in Kirkwall, of biases and revenge and possession and seeking freedom - aspects that would truly matter in a romance, I would think - possible areas of contention. Which is why, at several points in the game, you can choose the little broken heart option and sever the romance, if that is how you want to role-play your Hawke.

As for having a toggle, the ability to play without romance options exists within the player opting to not pick the flirt option. Avoid the flirt option and you avoid going down a romance path.

Modifié par whykikyouwhy, 31 décembre 2011 - 01:43 .

[ScotGaymer]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Now i'll feel bad if i don't reply to the wall of text.

Basically, i don't believe the sexuality or certain aspects of a character should be left up to the player. I vastly prefer explicit characteristics that make up a character, not vague generalities that the player can then craft to his or her own liking. But i do see where you're coming from. But i don't agree with it.

I completely disagree with you here Gibb. This is a Role Playing Game, not an Action Adventure. The whole point of a role playing game is to leave as much as is humanly possible up to the player, thats why its called Role Playing.
Because you step into the role YOU choose, not the role the Developers pick for you, as much as is possible within the context of the game and its universe.

It seems to me that you dont want an RPG. You want at most an Action RPG , or more likely an Action Adventure game or so it seems to me.

If Bioware wish to make the choice to give as much choice to the player as the can as resources permit (yes even romances) then thats great as far as I am concerned because it makes it more of a proper RPG IMO.
The only objection I have about the DA2 romances is that there is no difference in how they work out if your Hawke is a gay male, or a straight male, or a wildly bisexual female.

FedericoV wrote...

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Bioware
(and now Bethesda) are one of the only major development houses outside
of Japan who openly cater content to "everyone".

That's
one point I'm profoundly against. Nothing personal: I respect your view
on the issue but I think that romances should not be a service to
players. If romances are used to cather to the RL sexual preferences of
gamers, they become a really sad, akward and stupid marketing tool. As
I said in another post, in principle there's nothing different with Duke
Nuke Forever stupid use of sexuality.

I don't know what's more
sad: Bioware that pushes those aspects to sell games based on their
metrics or the gamers that support those choices not because of the
quality of the writing or how they improve the storytelling and the
general gaming experience, but because of their preferences in RL. Happy
to be treated like customers that receive a service in the name of
what's politically correct. That's sad and it reflects the state of the
industry. Don't be surprised if people talk about date-sim. I don't know
if I will play another DA game but for sure I won't ever touch again
their romances.

@Bioware: I support a toggle to play without romances options at all.

I can't even respond to that because that isn't what I said at all. You have taken it completely out of context and completely misunderstood my point.
I really dont see how you managed to but you did and I really can't even begin to clarify for you.

Sorry.

[Gunderic]

FedericoV wrote...

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Bioware (and now Bethesda) are one of the only major development houses outside of Japan who openly cater content to "everyone".

That's one point I'm profoundly against. Nothing personal: I respect your view on the issue but I think that romances should not be a service to players. If romances are used to cather to the RL sexual preferences of gamers, they become a really sad, akward and stupid marketing tool. As I said in another post, in principle there's nothing different with Duke Nuke Forever stupid use of sexuality.

I don't know what's more sad: Bioware that pushes those aspects to sell games based on their metrics or the gamers that support those choices not because of the quality of the writing or how they improve the storytelling and the general gaming experience, but because of their preferences in RL. Happy to be treated like customers that receive a service in the name of what's politically correct. That's sad and it reflects the state of the industry. Don't be surprised if people talk about date-sim. I don't know if I will play another DA game but for sure I won't ever touch again their romances.

@Bioware: I support a toggle to play without romances options at all.

i agree. one of the things that irks me is that a lot of 'all-bi favourers' don't really care first-hand about the quality of the content in respect to this implementation per se. some of them just see it as an opportunity to promote their goals.

which is a problem vs. audiences like me who just wanna see better games.

[Gunderic]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Bioware (and now Bethesda) are one of the only major development houses outside of Japan who openly cater content to "everyone".

That's one point I'm profoundly against. Nothing personal: I respect your view on the issue but I think that romances should not be a service to players. If romances are used to cather to the RL sexual preferences of gamers, they become a really sad, akward and stupid marketing tool. As I said in another post, in principle there's nothing different with Duke Nuke Forever stupid use of sexuality.

I don't know what's more sad: Bioware that pushes those aspects to sell games based on their metrics or the gamers that support those choices not because of the quality of the writing or how they improve the storytelling and the general gaming experience, but because of their preferences in RL. Happy to be treated like customers that receive a service in the name of what's politically correct. That's sad and it reflects the state of the industry. Don't be surprised if people talk about date-sim. I don't know if I will play another DA game but for sure I won't ever touch again their romances.

@Bioware: I support a toggle to play without romances options at all.

Did Bioware truly "push those aspects to sell games based on their metrics?" Do you have a source for this statement - that they did indeed use metrics behind their decision to have open-romance LIs? Just curious.

they made everyone bi to reduce costs. one lead to the other. they did a lot of things to reduce costs for dragon age 2, like using pictures to fill in the time gaps.

[Gunderic]

jlb524 wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

@Jib: So because they won't allow gays, you want them to do away with Hetero's? You want a lack of diversity in the name of fairness? This is about fairness?

Diverse enough? Why not give them even more defining aspects? Or is it not fair?

And i still have no idea what you are going on about with the whole class, race thing.

With the race/class/morality thing, I've stated before that BW LIs don't care about that and they will romance a PC in spite of whatever race/class/morality they may have...therefore, they all have the same preferences in those areas...which isn't very diverse if you ask me.

Race/class/morality isn't relevant to sex (gender) though. Liking elves, dwarves, or humans of the opposite gender would still make you heterosexual.

And if the solution to little reactivity between companions for you is to reduce it even further then, well, I question the reasoning behind this.

Modifié par Gunderic, 31 décembre 2011 - 02:06 .

[whykikyouwhy]

Gunderic wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Bioware (and now Bethesda) are one of the only major development houses outside of Japan who openly cater content to "everyone".

That's one point I'm profoundly against. Nothing personal: I respect your view on the issue but I think that romances should not be a service to players. If romances are used to cather to the RL sexual preferences of gamers, they become a really sad, akward and stupid marketing tool. As I said in another post, in principle there's nothing different with Duke Nuke Forever stupid use of sexuality.

I don't know what's more sad: Bioware that pushes those aspects to sell games based on their metrics or the gamers that support those choices not because of the quality of the writing or how they improve the storytelling and the general gaming experience, but because of their preferences in RL. Happy to be treated like customers that receive a service in the name of what's politically correct. That's sad and it reflects the state of the industry. Don't be surprised if people talk about date-sim. I don't know if I will play another DA game but for sure I won't ever touch again their romances.

@Bioware: I support a toggle to play without romances options at all.

Did Bioware truly "push those aspects to sell games based on their metrics?" Do you have a source for this statement - that they did indeed use metrics behind their decision to have open-romance LIs? Just curious.

they made everyone bi to reduce costs. one lead to the other. they did a lot of things to reduce costs for dragon age 2, like using pictures to fill in the time gaps.

Reducing costs is not the same as "catering to the RL sexual preferences of gamers" as was quoted above, and what was claimed to be the outcome of those mysterious metrics.

[FedericoV]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

I can't even respond to that because that isn't what I said at all. You have taken it completely out of context and completely misunderstood my point.
I really dont see how you managed to but you did and I really can't even begin to clarify for you.

Sorry.

Sorry if I misread your post. But then, what you mean with "cather to everyone"? You made references to Bethesda's use of "bisexuality" so it seems pretty obvious to me. But again, sorry if I misread your point. You don't have to reply to my older post but I really would like to know what you mean then.

I don't know, in my view, the only way to have a good romance that "cathers to everyone" is to aim for good and artistic writing that have universal value no matter of the preferences of the audience. I mean, Romeo & Juliet cathers to everyone. Funeral Blues cathers to everyone. Maybe games are not art, but the model of good storytelling and good writing remains the same.

Modifié par FedericoV, 31 décembre 2011 - 03:24 .

[FedericoV]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Reducing costs is not the same as "catering to the RL sexual preferences of gamers" as was quoted above, and what was claimed to be the outcome of those mysterious metrics.

Right after the publication of DA2 you will remember a very hot discussion about the sexuality of romances and the dialogue where Anders pushed the argument toward the player. The lead writer of the DA franchise took part at the discussion. He wrote some posts and I agreed with most of his positions that were sensible and reasonable (especially about the stupid reaction toward that passage in Anders early dialogues).

But he even stated (as an argument that supported his views) something on the line of "metric shows that many players enjoy BI or homosexual romances and that they are an important part of our player base, so you will see more of that kind of content in our future games". It's not an actual quote and I could be wrong and in case I apologize in advance. But that is what I get from that reply. I am against such position and I see it as catering to the sexual preferences of gamers for market sake. Wich imho is wrong and support the "sim-date" joke about Bioware's games.
 

Modifié par FedericoV, 31 décembre 2011 - 03:25 .

[esper]

That which cahter to everyone in romeo and juliet is not their gender but the 'star crossed' lover ( if I got the right english expression) phenomenon which is irrelevant of genders. Basical it is x can't get y because of that and that situation and we all know it is going to end badly, but we still hope or feel with them.
I don't know what funeral blues is, so I wont comment on that but a romeo or a juliet is too big of a plot to fit into an optional path. It demands the focus of the story which doesn't fit in a game setting.
Gender restrections are not important in dragon age because thedas as a world don't care much, I believe that it was stated somewhere that homosexuality was seens as quirky, but not a big deal (unless it is a king or equal who must have a child) so they doesn't add anything important.
Now race restrictions is the thing they should focus on if they have muplitible origins back.

[whykikyouwhy]

FedericoV wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Reducing costs is not the same as "catering to the RL sexual preferences of gamers" as was quoted above, and what was claimed to be the outcome of those mysterious metrics.

Right after the publication of DA2 you will remember a very hot discussion about the sexuality of romances and the dialogue where Anders pushed the argument toward the player. The lead writer of the DA franchise took part at the discussion. He wrote some posts and I agreed with most of his positions that were sensible and reasonable (especially about the stupid reaction toward that passage in Anders early dialogues).

But he even stated (as an argument that supported his views) something on the line of "metric shows that many players enjoy BI or homosexual romances and that they are an important part of our player base, so you will see more of that kind of content in our future games". It's not an actual quote and I could be wrong and in case I apologize in advance. But that is what I get from that reply. I am against such position and I see it as catering to the sexual preferences of gamers for market sake. Wich imho is wrong and support the "sim-date" joke about Bioware's games.
 

So you quoted what may not be an exact quote? Ok.

As far as "catering to the sexual preferences of gamers for market sake," did you ever consider that perhaps straight players might want to role-play their characters as gay or bi? That it's not just LGBT players who would like more inclusion in their games? I really fail to see how taking into consideration one of several things that the player community might find as important to their role-playing experience would be a bad thing. Isn't the point of any gaming company to not only make good games but to sell them?

And again, having your Hawke engage in a s/s romance within the game is not required. It's not forced upon any player. It's a decision made actively by the player based on choices made in dialogue. So too, engaging in any romance is also not forced upon any player.

As such, having those options available does not, imo, take away from the experience of the player. The player chooses how to play the game, how to role-play Hawke. And by Bioware offering those options, they broaden the ability to role-play.

You seem to be taking two different tracks with your posts, and I'm not seeing where they join up. On one hand, you disagree with the inclusion of the ability for any romance to be s/s as "
catering to the sexual preferences of gamers for market sake" and on the other hand, you claim that making all of the companions bisexual cheapens the romances and the characters themselves. Is it that you object on both fronts, or just one? Could you clarify?

[TjM78]

I thought the bromance between Varric and Hawke was touching

[FedericoV]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

So you quoted what may not be an exact quote? Ok.

Sorry, but I have no time to search for the actual quote right now. But I promise that I will in the next days and if I find it I will send it to you by PM.

As far as "catering to the sexual preferences of gamers for market sake," did you ever consider that perhaps straight players might want to role-play their characters as gay or bi? That it's not just LGBT players who would like more inclusion in their games?

I have nothing against straight players playing gay or BI charachters. I have nothing against BI, gay or hetero romances: they have just to fit the story and improove it. Imho, inclusion should not matter when planning a story. Does it make the story stronger? Does it make it weaker? Those are the only legit questions I support in that area.

If all BI or gay romances make the story and the roleplaying better, that's a legitimate choice off course. But in my opinion that's not DA2 case. It makes the story and the interaction with the NPC less interesting and not plausible.

I really fail to see how taking into consideration one of several
things that the player community might find as important to their
role-playing experience would be a bad thing. Isn't the point of any
gaming company to not only make good games but to sell them?

Becuase it's just like selling a magazine using a nude picture of a woman on the cover. It could help to sell that magazine and it's not great deal (I've seen worst off course) but I consider it sad nonetheless.

And again, having your Hawke engage in a s/s romance within the game is not required. It's not forced upon any player. It's a decision made actively by the player based on choices made in dialogue. So too, engaging in any romance is also not forced upon any player.
As such, having those options available does not, imo, take away from the experience of the player. The player chooses how to play the game, how to role-play Hawke. And by Bioware offering those options, they broaden the ability to role-play.

It does because the cast of NPCs (wich is an important part of any NPCs) feels less believable and real, and the roleplaying feels less interesting because there are no choices and no consequences to your choices. But I've had allready explained my position at lenght and I imagine that we will have to agree to disagree on the matter.

You seem to be taking two different tracks with your posts, and I'm not seeing where they join up. On one hand, you disagree with the inclusion of the ability for any romance to be s/s as "
catering to the sexual preferences of gamers for market sake" and on the other hand, you claim that making all of the companions bisexual cheapens the romances and the characters themselves. Is it that you object on both fronts, or just one? Could you clarify?

You are right, I object on both fronts and I do not see a contradiction between those positions.

[LinksOcarina]

Once again though, the only bisexual character based on the writing is Isabela, and you can make a case for Anders as well.

The rest have no gender preference unless if you push the issue. So this again, goes into an argument of semantics over the gameplay aspects here vs the substance of the relationships.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 31 décembre 2011 - 04:14 .

[jlb524]

Gunderic wrote...
Race/class/morality isn't relevant to sex (gender) though. Liking elves, dwarves, or humans of the opposite gender would still make you heterosexual.

And if the solution to little reactivity between companions for you is to reduce it even further then, well, I question the reasoning behind this.

But that stuff is relevant to liking a person and it goes ignored for the sake of 'PC romance freedom' and no one hardly ever complains about it...I've never seen a thread dedicated to that, actually.   I question the reasoning that this freedom that leads to generic romances is 'okay' but removing gender restrictions is not.

My point is that these romances have always been generic and have been nowhere near close to being specific and unique to the PC based on things like race/class/morality....removing the gender restriction isn't really going to make them any more generic.

FedericoV wrote...
I don't know what's more sad: Bioware that pushes those aspects to sell games based on their metrics or the gamers that support those choices not because of the quality of the writing or how they improve the storytelling and the general gaming experience, but because of their preferences in RL. 

How exactly is that any different from them using metric data to change the game in other areas?

To be honest, having options such as this improves the storytelling and gaming experience for me and lots of other people.

Considering the majority of players don't even do romance subplots, the quality of their experience isn't even touched...which is probably why most gamers are apathetic on this issue.

It's no different from heterosexual female gamers wanting more male options and them giving them more because of fan demand....even if using resources to create these romances takes away from other areas and affects 'game experience' for those that aren't interested in that type of romance.

Modifié par jlb524, 31 décembre 2011 - 04:40 .

[Gunderic]

jlb524 wrote...

Gunderic wrote...
Race/class/morality isn't relevant to sex (gender) though. Liking elves, dwarves, or humans of the opposite gender would still make you heterosexual.

And if the solution to little reactivity between companions for you is to reduce it even further then, well, I question the reasoning behind this.

But that stuff is relevant to liking a person and it goes ignored for the sake of 'PC romance freedom' and no one hardly ever complains about it...I've never seen a thread dedicated to that, actually.   I question the reasoning that this freedom that leads to generic romances is 'okay' but removing gender restrictions is not.

My point is that these romances have always been generic and have been nowhere near close to being specific and unique to the PC based on things like race/class/morality....removing the gender restriction isn't really going to make them any more generic.

Actually, yes, it will. Race doesn't change sexual inclination, and therefore doesn't require so much an effort to create different reactivity tied to romances. Morrigan is still heterosexual if she likes a human, or elf. Her personality really doesn't need to be changed too much to cater to the player's whimsy. 

You do get some extra dialogue in Origins based on wether you're an elf or such though, but I don't think it's strictly romance-oriented most of the time. Not sure if it really has to be either. There isn't that huge of a need to elaborate on wether you're a human or elf to begin with in a romance, imo. Things like background or whether you're a mage I find more important. 

Dwarves should maybe have some romances restricted as that would be both believable and resource-efficient. Reactivity based on gender is significantly more important when it comes to romance plots however, at least imo.

Drawing comparisons between fantasy races and real-life stuff like gender and sexual inclination is a slippery slope imo, especially since I view them as two, fundamentally distinct things, that should be handled differently.

[Sherbet Lemon]

Gunderic wrote...

Drawing comparisons between fantasy races and real-life stuff like gender and sexual inclination is a slippery slope imo, especially since I view them as two, fundamentally distinct things, that should be handled differently.

They are not though.

I would argue, however, that real world issues inevitably interevene in fantasy worlds whether we want them to or not.  Real-life informs the we way perceive and intimate the story for it is our real life experience that help us form our understandings of the topic.  This is done whether we realize it or not for is a wholly subconscious act.  That being said jlb524's notion of credulity in romance irrespective of gender are on point.  In the world of Thedas, elves are discriminated against and looked down upon with contempt, but no one has a single problem with dating one in DAO.  That sort of racism exists in real life where people won't date others due to ethnicity and of course, the whole story of the elves is the story of our human history: imperialism, slavery, discrimination.  Real world equivocations are, in my opinion, logical and factual because they share core similarities.

It just seems to me that when it comes to sexuality and gender, binaries have been so deeply embedded in our core consciousness that it becomes difficult for us to see the inherent complexities within each and therefore threads like this appear. 

I would also argue that while RPG's are a form a literature, they shouldn't be held entirely to the same sort of critical inquiry that books are held to.  They should be treated distinctly different just like poetry, fiction and nonfiction are classified because you can't divorce game mechanics from the story.  They work hand in hand.

[tmp7704]

jlb524 wrote...

They've moved away from limiting romances in order to provide more roleplaying possibilities...considering only a minority of players even complete  a romance subplot, I can understand why.

So why stop at gender?

Reversing this argument -- characters your PC gets to meet in the game come with different personalities, moral code and even class.

Why should the sexual orientation be one area where this is lifted and everyone is the same?

"More roleplaying possibilities" is questionable when you take into account that by allowing everyone to roleplay romance situation you automatically remove the roleplay situation where your advances are turned down. Meaning net zero gain.

[tmp7704]

jlb524 wrote...

I'd believe that if people complained about similar issues with the DA:O romances regarding 'story and immersion'.  But no!  This has only became an issue with DA2 and the all-bi thing.

Now tell me:  what's the difference?  Why now?

I'd think the answer is quite obvious -- people complain about all romance interest being bisexual in DA2 but not in DAO because this situation happens in DA2, but not in DAO.

Your question is not unlike someone wondering "i've been playing music all day, but now that i started to play really loud people complain i play really loud. Why now?"

edit: for the record and what little it's worth, personally i'm all for the NPCs having more defined ideas about their romance preferences, ones that extend beyond just gender. If that's lacking then i won't actively start threads to complain about it, but i will object if someone uses such shortcoming as argument to push things even further and make these characters even more homogeneous. It's the "first they came..." principle (and with this, we casually brush against the Godwin's Law again)

Modifié par tmp7704, 31 décembre 2011 - 06:21 .

[In Exile]

jlb524 wrote...
My point is that these romances have always been generic and have been nowhere near close to being specific and unique to the PC based on things like race/class/morality....removing the gender restriction isn't really going to make them any more generic.

No. It won't. But that doesn't mean that romances shouldn't be more personalized and reactive. Of course, that's zot intensive and maybe not likely to ever be done unless Bioware does make a dating sim, but then that just means that the idea is good in principle and bad in practice.

The merit of reactive romances as a question of design and implementation are not the same. It may be that the best way, given the cost, for Bioware to be fair to its consumers to have open romances and let players fill in the blanks. But that's different than there not being any merit to exclusive trigger romances.

[jlb524]

tmp7704 wrote...
Reversing this argument -- characters your PC gets to meet in the game come with different personalities, moral code and even class.

Why should the sexual orientation be one area where this is lifted and everyone is the same?

"More roleplaying possibilities" is questionable when you take into account that by allowing everyone to roleplay romance situation you automatically remove the roleplay situation where your advances are turned down. Meaning net zero gain.

No you don't.

I'm not arguing to lift this from everyone in the game..just the LIs.

I only want to remove the situation where your advances are turned down from LI characters due to gender...not from non-LI characters (Aveline).

tmp7704 wrote...
I'd think the answer is quite obvious -- people complain about all romance interest being bisexual in DA2 but not in DAO because this situation happens in DA2, but not in DAO.

Your question is not unlike someone wondering "i've been playing music all day, but now that i started to play really loud people complain i play really loud. Why now?"

No, you missed the point.

People are complaining about the 'all bi' think in DA2 and basing it on 'character integrity/realism/etc.'

My point was that DA:O romances also failed in those areas in respect towards lacking realistic restrictions based on class/race/morality/etc.

As in, a dwarf and elf can romance any LI and it's no different from a human doing it.  DA:O had open romances across the board except for gender in two instances.

No one complained about the DA:O romances lacking in 'character integrity or realism' because of that.  Now, they've removed the gender restriction to the romances and all of a sudden things like 'character integrity' and such are being complained about.

Seems hypocritical to me.

In Exile wrote...
No. It won't. But that doesn't mean that romances shouldn't be more personalized and reactive. Of course, that's zot intensive and maybe not likely to ever be done unless Bioware does make a dating sim, but then that just means that the idea is good in principle and bad in practice.

Yeah, and where do you draw the line with 'more personalized and reactive'?

I don't want BW to make 'dating sims' where the focus is on giving everyone a unique romantic experience.  I was happy with the generic romances before (and most others were) and I'm even happier now that they've removed the last hurdle (which is especially important to me)...gender.

In Exile wrote... 

The merit of reactive romances as a question of design and implementation are not the same. It may be that the best way, given the cost, for Bioware to be fair to its consumers to have open romances and let players fill in the blanks. But that's different than there not being any merit to exclusive trigger romances. 

But again, where do you draw the line?  What triggers are okay to add and which aren't?

Besides BG2, the only trigger found in any BW game was gender and thus only limited homosexual PCs in roleplaying romances. 

Modifié par jlb524, 31 décembre 2011 - 06:25 .

[tmp7704]

jlb524 wrote...

No one complained about the DA:O romances lacking in 'character integrity or realism' because of that.  Now, they've removed the gender restriction to the romances and all of a sudden things like 'character integrity' and such are being complained about.

Seems hypocritical to me.

I made edit to clarify my personal stance on that, in the meantime. I don't think it's hypocritical to complain when things are being made worse from one's viewpoint, and to complain specifically about the changes that one thinks make it worse. (which is what the music analogy was roughly about. Perhaps it'd work better if it involved playing bad music all day and then turning the volume up, but oh well)

Modifié par tmp7704, 31 décembre 2011 - 06:28 .

[In Exile]

jlb524 wrote...
Yeah, and where do you draw the line with 'more personalized and reactive'?

I think the difference is in the catering and the role of the design. I don't believe a romance should be there as a tool for the player, but rather as an aspect of the specific character's arc. But I don't look to romances (with respect to their success or not) as an inclusive gameplay element for the user base at all. That aspect, to me, is the means available to pursue the romance.

Althought the gameplay side of it was not great, I think Aveline's arc with Donnic was very interesting approach, and the kind I envision. There are multiple options option to the player, but the character has a set and defined aspect, and that becomes a part of the character arc.

I don't want BW to make 'dating sims' where the focus is on giving everyone a unique romantic experience.  I was happy with the generic romances before (and most others were) and I'm even happier now that they've removed the last hurdle (which is especially important to me)...gender.

Like I said, I'm not coming to this from the perspective that any feature of the game should be universally accesible to all players. That's part of reactivity.

In Exile wrote...
But again, where do you draw the line?  What triggers are okay to add and which aren't?

That's a contextual question. What triggers work and wouldn't work depend on the kind of character we're talking about.

Besides BG2, the only trigger found in any BW game was gender and thus only limited homosexual PCs in roleplaying romances.

I don't think BG2 was that good of a game, and certainly not an example or standard we should judge future games by. Unlike pretty much 90% of the forum.

Bioware didn't win me as a fan until they made KoTOR.

[jlb524]

tmp7704 wrote...
I made edit to clarify my personal stance on that, in the meantime. I don't think it's hypocritical to complain when things are being made worse from one's viewpoint, and to complain specifically about the changes that one thinks make it worse. (which is what the music analogy was roughly about. Perhaps it'd work better if it involved playing bad music all day and then turning the volume up, but oh well)

I don't think the change was that big and doesn't justify going from practically no complaining to crap loads of complaining from some people.  It seems like you are only turning the bad music up a little bit to me.  It's not as if DA:O had unique romances for dwarves and elves, for blood mages and templars, for males and females and in DA2 they completely tossed all of that aside and made them generic.  They always provide unique romance choices for your PC (like, Leliana differed from Morrigan differed from Isabela, etc.) but they are never unique to your PC (going through the Leliana romance with my human vs. my elf is the same as far as dialog and content I get...though, as I've stated, they still feel differently to me b/c I roleplay my human different from my elf). 

Granted, I still think those that don't like the DA2 thing are the minority but they are quite loud about it.

In Exile wrote...
Like I said, I'm not coming to this from the perspective that any feature of the game should be universally accesible to all players. That's part of reactivity. 

I think it depends on the feature for me...I'd rather they spend time developing paths that are more reactive based on your decisions/morality or even class vs. the 'gender in romance' thing.  One thing I liked about the DA2 romances is that they were reactive to how you treated the LI (they had two paths).  I'd rather they put effort into this area than simply limiting content based on gender...that's not even creating separate paths...it's just making a simple check and then denying content...based solely on what gender I selected at the beginning of the game...not based on how I played the game or my character.   That seems to be quite a cheap way to shoe-horn in 'reactivity', IMO. 

In Exile wrote... 
Bioware didn't win me as a fan until they made KoTOR. 

Well, they definitely didn't have reactive romances in that game either.

Village Idiot wrote...
It just seems to me that when it comes to sexuality and gender, binaries have been so deeply embedded in our core consciousness that it becomes difficult for us to see the inherent complexities within each and therefore threads like this appear.  

I would also argue that while RPG's are a form a literature, they shouldn't be held entirely to the same sort of critical inquiry that books are held to.  They should be treated distinctly different just like poetry, fiction and nonfiction are classified because you can't divorce game mechanics from the story.  They work hand in hand.

Right...you said that better than I did XD

Modifié par jlb524, 31 décembre 2011 - 06:48 .