922 réponses à ce sujet

[LarryDavid]

jlb524 wrote...

DA:O comes out and the only limitation on romance is gender in two cases.  

As a result:

1)  Both female LIs are open to a dwarven male even though dwarf/human relationships are pretty much non-existent in the Dragon Age universe.

2)  Alistair will romance a blood mage.

3)  Human/elf pairings can exist like it's no big deal when those pairings are taboo in the universe.

4)  I won't even get into all the moral crap.

But there weren't any complaints about this ruining immersion or making the romances weaker or ruining the narrative, etc.

Now...DA2 comes out and removes the one and only romance restriction...gender and there has been a huge fuss over it by some people since the game came out.

...

So...why is it different now?

I see the point you are trying to make but I guess the core difference is that people aren't born racist or anti-bloodmage or ... .

[Gunderic]

Village Idiot wrote...

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. 

Yes they do, but things like the 'all-bi' debate carry real life ramifications and place them against video game mechanics, design, and resource limitations. These are real life biases that interfere with discussing/debating/promoting reactivity to strictly fictional elements, like elves or dwarves. The writers might have taken inspiration for them from real life, but these elements are wholly embedded in the fantasy genre now.

I still do not see why if you think Dragon Age doesn't provide adequate reactivity based on the character you're roleplaying, steps should be taken so that further reactivity should be done away with. Regardless of whether they are similar or not, gender in my opinion is still more important in romance subplots than blue, short, or pointy-eared humans.

To even begin to create a decent 'generic' romance you have to take into account gender first and foremost imo.

[tmp7704]

jlb524 wrote...

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. 

The change is clearly a factor large enough for you to make multiple in-depth posts about this subject. Why then do you think it's not a change large enough for other people to have similarly strong feelings about it?

Additionally the argument is about diffence that's making complaints about the status quo, and objecting to changes that make things even worse they already are. There's really no hypocrisy in protesting specifically about the latter -- after all, what's exactly hypocritical about not liking the idea of things getting even worse they already are? "But it's only a small change!" is questionable, since whether it's actually small is up to the individual, and then there's these who will complain on principle that small bad changes are still bad changes.

Modifié par tmp7704, 31 décembre 2011 - 07:10 .

[ScotGaymer]

@Federico

As I said in my post Bioware make an effort to be inclusive and encourage tolerance, this is reflected in the diversity of their universe in Dragon Age.

Very few development houses make anything more than a token effort if they make any at all.

I am gay so I think that I have as much right to have content that caters to me the same as a straight person has content catering to them. It isnt an entitlement issue or me demanding I get my own way; I wouldnt want content exclusively catered to me if there wasnt an equivalent for heterosexuals/bisexuals cos it just wouldnt be fair.

Ideally yes id prefer a few het LIs, a few BI LIs, and a few Gay LIs with different storylines and whatnot related to them but I get that it is unlikely to happen given how few people actually play thru the romances or care about them means that it just isnt worth the time, effort, and resource expenditure to include those things.
And I believe them when they say that it isnt about fanservice for them (if it was they would include SS romance AT ALL) and instead its about fairness.
Its why I understand they decided on the all bi route; yes there are problems with it (as I detailed in my earlier post realism isnt one of them) in that the sex/sexuality of Hawke has no bearing on the romance and they are generic carbon cut outs of each other. But that isnt a problem of them all being bisexual.

So my point is taking into consideration resource concerns, I can completely understand and support the all bisexual route if only for fairness reasons. Its not like anyone forces you to romance Anders as Male Hawke - it isnt like you cant turn him down.
In real life you get people hitting on you that you arent going to be interested in regardless of sex that you will have to turn down; so it isnt that big a deal. Dont get why some people think it is.

It isnt about catering to real life preferences, plenty of people on ere are straight and play the gay romances - case in point the Zero Punctuation review of DA2 where his MaleHawke was gay and with Anders even though he is comfortably straight.
Not everyone automatically equates a game with real life, and can actually - shock horror - role play in a role playing game.

[In Exile]

[quote]jlb524 wrote...
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. [/quote]

I think we're approaching this from very different perspectives. You seem to look at the design as starting from the player. Essentially, you're saying when thinking about a romance, development should start at looking at an aspect fo the PC, and go from there. I'm arguing it should happen in the reverse. The developers should decide what world they want, what characters they want to have, how they fit into the party... and then once all of that is set, decide and determine how each fixed party NPC would interact with the PC.

So to use Anders as an example, class (in an ideally reactive game) may be very relevant (as would morality) because his key issue and focus in life is freedom for the mages, and that should drive his reaction to the player.

So it's not that I think orientation should be an issue, or is somehow more important than any other feature. I just don't thin there's anything praiseworthy about trying to decide on a pair of characters that's available for romance and then just blankly making each available. It's the design method itself I'm objecting to.

[quote]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. [/quote]

You're looking at this as losing content.. but when I say exclusive content I mean branching. So I would (for example) argue that a romance that's locked out for a particular reason should have unique content of equal scope in the relationship to replace it (i.e. a friendship path).

Now, like I said before, doing all of this is stupidly zot intensive and not worth the cost given the return, but in terms of speaking about reactivity, I think the way to do it is to absolutely ignore the player in design, and then just accomodate many possibiities.

The player can then essentially create a unique personal narrative based on the series of options and stages that he or she picks for each quest/character interaction, etc. And the story changes slightly. With each minor change adding up to create a more unique experience overall. Kind of what Alpha Protocol did.

[quote]Well, they definitely didn't have reactive romances in that game either.[/quote]

They had Juhani's lesbian romance, which I thought was a little touching, but that really isn't why I brought up KoTOR. It didn't have reactive romances. I don't find romances are major driver in my purchase of games. I just brought up KoTOR as the first instance a Biwoare game I liked, in contrast to BG2 which I did not.

[quote]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.
[/quote]

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


[/quote]

[Sylvianus]

tmp7704 wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

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. 

The change is clearly a factor large enough for you to make multiple in-depth posts about this subject. Why then do you think it's not a change large enough for other people to have similarly strong feelings about it?

Additionally the argument is about diffence that's making complaints about the status quo, and objecting to changes that make things even worse they already are. There's really no hypocrisy in protesting specifically about the latter -- after all, what's exactly hypocritical about not liking the idea of things getting even worse they already are?

Lord, thank you to restore some honesty,  in this debate.

[Ryzaki]

Meh. I vastly prefer the all bi system and if it's more resource friendly? I'd say for the devs to go for it.

It beats having a ridiculous number of LIs (like say 6 if one wants to include at least one gay, bi, and straight LI of both genders) so everyone gets the same amount of choices without having to create additional characters.

[rak72]

Just to add my 2coper about DAO & cross race romancing - For the love interests in question, it made perfect sense.

Morrigan: She's all about getting the OGB. She needs to cozy up to the male pc no matter what his race because she needs his swimmers.

Alistair: Genetic predisposition to be into elves, also a lonely insecure guy that just wants to be loved. If it's a dwarf that's showing any interest, He'd still be all over it.

Zev: Like he says, he only wants the sex to be good

Leliana - She's probably the one who would be the least into intermingling, but she's very sweet and if she fell in love, I don't see her holding someone's race against them

And 2 gay, 2 bi, 2 hetero - FTW. If we say it enough, maybe they'll listen

Modifié par rak72, 31 décembre 2011 - 07:37 .

[Flashing Steel]

No, because I would like to think that the characters I would spend hours getting to know are individuals with their own tastes and preferences. For me this includes sexual orientation.

It would be nice to see some descrimination on behalf of the companions. By this i mean a pro-templar character not romancing the PC because they are a blood mage.

Modifié par Flashing Steel, 31 décembre 2011 - 08:34 .

[jlb524]

tmp7704 wrote...
The change is clearly a factor large enough for you to make multiple in-depth posts about this subject. Why then do you think it's not a change large enough for other people to have similarly strong feelings about it?

Given my reasons, yes I feel strongly about the change.

I like to play females that have female LIs...most BW games have limited my choices just because 'gender check'...fair amount of options for me = better.

Given the supposed reasons that others don't like it (character integrity, realism, reactive romances) it doesn't make sense when the DA:O romances failed at this as well...which is the point I keep making.

If their give reason was "I need heterosexual LIs cuz I don't like sharing my virtual LI with the opposite sex" then the difference in reaction would make sense.

tmp7704 wrote... 
Additionally the argument is about diffence that's making complaints about the status quo, and objecting to changes that make things even worse they already are. There's really no hypocrisy in protesting specifically about the latter -- after all, what's exactly hypocritical about not liking the idea of things getting even worse they already are? "But it's only a small change!" is questionable, since whether it's actually small is up to the individual, and then there's these who will complain on principle that small bad changes are still bad changes.

But most have expressed interest in them going back to the 'DA:O way' which still has a huge issue with 'non-reactive generic romance' but apparenly adding in gender checks which don't affect the reactivity or uniqueness of the romance content but simply limits those that can do the romance based on gender makes it all better.

If these same individuals argued as strongly against the failure of the DA:O romance system then I'd agree with you...but they don't.

In Exile wrote...
So it's not that I think orientation should be an issue, or is somehow more important than any other feature. I just don't thin there's anything praiseworthy about trying to decide on a pair of characters that's available for romance and then just blankly making each available. It's the design method itself I'm objecting to.

I don't see them changing their overall design method anytime soon.  We can discuss ways in which the overall game design can be improved but that is how they've done it in every game.

Given that, is it okay to just limit by gender and gender only (which is the topic of the thread)?

In Exile wrote... 
You're looking at this as losing content.. but when I say exclusive content I mean branching. So I would (for example) argue that a romance that's locked out for a particular reason should have unique content of equal scope in the relationship to replace it (i.e. a friendship path).

Okay, but again...BW doesn't do it this way...I'm arguing within context of how they make their romances/games.  You simply lose out on content if you fail the check..oh wait, you get a dude you can romance instead, but if you aren't interested in that then you miss out.

In Exile wrote...  

Now, like I said before, doing all of this is stupidly zot intensive and not worth the cost given the return, but in terms of speaking about reactivity, I think the way to do it is to absolutely ignore the player in design, and then just accomodate many possibiities. 

Maybe ideally, but as you said it's zot intensive and they must decide where to draw the line.  I get the impression that most that didn't like the DA2 thing are happy to draw the line at gender and leave the romances as generic for everything else.

In Exile wrote... 
They had Juhani's lesbian romance, which I thought was a little touching, 

It was almost non-existent and it still wasn't reactive.  The fact that they were two women (or even from two different species) was completely ignored, for instance.

I still enjoyed it because, as I've stated, I'm okay with the generic/less-reactive thing as I can roleplay in more specific things...I actually prefer that b/c I have control over it.  I typically thing there's more to roleplaying than just what you are given by the writers.  You take that as a base and work with it to shape your own unique advertures.

Modifié par jlb524, 31 décembre 2011 - 08:42 .

[Nejeli]

FedericoV wrote...

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.

Except the lack of gender restrictions in the romances makes more sense in context with the DA universe. As far as I can tell, there's no stigma on s/s couples. You can go into any brothel and casually ask for a ss partner. Branka wasn't infamous for being with Hespith. The issue with the Viscount's son and Quinari wasn't that they were both men. No one seems to comment or tease you about your partner being the same gender. If there's no stigma in the universe, it makes sense that the characters would be more open to the idea, so I'm really not understanding why an all bi cast makes the romances less plausible in this particular case. Especially since there are only two that are even overtly flirtatious if you don't flirt with them first (even if you see Fenris' line as him flirting with you, it's pretty subtle and the only time he remotely does so without encouragement.)

The romance in DA2 has been my favorite so far, partly because it is such a small thing in the characters' storylines and your interaction with them. I'd much rather have this type of romance than the ones in, say, BG2 or ME2 where the majority of your interaction with a character is getting them to fall in love with you. I don't think there's much more roleplayability in a game where you can extensively romance someone but not have much interaction with them when you aren't, than there is in a game where the romance is just an addition to what they already have.

[jlb524]

@tmp7704

To put my point more succinctly, I feel strongly about this because I gain something from them removing gender checks and allowing freedom to romance whichever companion I like best for my PC. Others feel the same way. Gaining the ability to do something in these type of RP games that you've never had is a good thing. Of course, I don't want to lose it. I wonder how heterosexual female fans would react if they went back to the "BG2" way of doing things and only having one male LI to three female LIs? I doubt that would go over well.

I don't understand why the anti-crowd feels strongly when I don't see what they are losing. If they were losing something from this change then that's a different story.

The claim is that they are losing 'character integrity, reactive romances, realistic romances, etc.' but the problem with that claim is that BW romances never had this so they aren't losing it. So...what are they losing to justify this level of a reaction?

[Flashing Steel]

jlb524 wrote...

@tmp7704

To put my point more succinctly, I feel strongly about this because I gain something from them removing gender checks and allowing freedom to romance whichever companion I like best for my PC. Others feel the same way. Gaining the ability to do something in these type of RP games that you've never had is a good thing. Of course, I don't want to lose it. I wonder how heterosexual female fans would react if they went back to the "BG2" way of doing things and only having one male LI to three female LIs? I doubt that would go over well.

I don't understand why the anti-crowd feels strongly when I don't see what they are losing. If they were losing something from this change then that's a different story.

The claim is that they are losing 'character integrity, reactive romances, realistic romances, etc.' but the problem with that claim is that BW romances never had this so they aren't losing it. So...what are they losing to justify this level of a reaction?

Variety and lots of choices for me make RPG's enjoyable, so i understand what is great about having numerous LI's to choose from. However, on this subject i would like to see a more intricate system in place which takes into account companions personalities and preferences. Alas i digress, because you do not understand the anti-crowds feelings, does it make what they feel less important? Character integrity, reactive/realistic romances are important to me. DAO had the smallest speckle of companions displaying preference, i would argue it was no where near enough, and soley basing it on gender was inadequate. I believe there should be a more robust approach to this in DA3, involving race, morals and specialization (blood mage/templar). I think it would make for a more interesting experience as opposed to every companion being bi.

[In Exile]

jlb524 wrote...
I don't see them changing their overall design method anytime soon.  We can discuss ways in which the overall game design can be improved but that is how they've done it in every game.

Given that, is it okay to just limit by gender and gender only (which is the topic of the thread)?

In that case, I think Bioware should only have two romanceable characters and make bisexuality an explicit part of both their character arcs.

Okay, but again...BW doesn't do it this way...I'm arguing within context of how they make their romances/games.  You simply lose out on content if you fail the check..oh wait, you get a dude you can romance instead, but if you aren't interested in that then you miss out.

Well, in the context of how Bioware made games prior to DA2, you either passed the check or not, and if you wanted Alistair or Morrigain and you were of the wrong gender, it was a tough break for you.

But like I said above: there should be unique content for each gender, more than just "I secretly like boys too!" like they did with Anders in DA2.

Maybe ideally, but as you said it's zot intensive and they must decide where to draw the line.  I get the impression that most that didn't like the DA2 thing are happy to draw the line at gender and leave the romances as generic for everything else.

I can't speak for most people. I can speak for myself. I dislike "generic". I prefer "removed" to generic, and have the remaining parts be made " not generic".

It was almost non-existent and it still wasn't reactive.  The fact that they were two women (or even from two different species) was completely ignored, for instance.

I don't know why you keep fixating on this issue of reactivity in KoTOR. This is not something I brought up.

As I have tried to say repeatedly I only brought up KoTOR as an example of the first Bioware game I liked, because I unrelatedly brought up what BG II as if I was supposed to think that mattered. I didn't bring up KoTOR as an example of a game I thought did it right.

I still enjoyed it because, as I've stated, I'm okay with the generic/less-reactive thing as I can roleplay in more specific things...I actually prefer that b/c I have control over it.  I typically thing there's more to roleplaying than just what you are given by the writers.  You take that as a base and work with it to shape your own unique advertures.

If the game is asking me to make up my own content, it's going into the garbage. I don't want to get into this debate for the umpteenth time, but suffice it to say I believe very strongly that inventing your content

There's no control. There's just fan fiction. And fan fiction is not RP.

[In Exile]

jlb524 wrote...
The claim is that they are losing 'character integrity, reactive romances, realistic romances, etc.' but the problem with that claim is that BW romances never had this so they aren't losing it. So...what are they losing to justify this level of a reaction?

It's not very hard to understand disagreeing with a direction. If you like reactivity, any change that makes something less reactive is bad. Wanting a game to trend toward being reactivty like TW2 and not a useless brick like New Vegas is a viable position.

[Nejeli]

In Exile wrote...

In that case, I think Bioware should only have two romanceable characters and make bisexuality an explicit part of both their character arcs.

Oh, please no. In media, a LGBT character's personality, story arc, development, etc, is often always wrapped up in their sexuality. They're rarely a character first. I'd rather not see that happen here. If I can have an opposite sex couple who's relationship doesn't revolve around their sexuality (which would surely be the case if you were to romance these bi characters with the opposite gender, it wouldn't make sense for them to have long drawn-out conversations about the LI being bisexual)  then I want the same for the same sex romance with the character. It doesn't have to be the same romance arc, but I would be very unhappy if it revolved around them being bisexual or in a same sex relationship.

[jlb524]

Flashing Steel wrote...
 Alas i digress, because you do not understand the anti-crowds feelings, does it make what they feel less important?

I understand that they don't like it...I just don't understand the 'why'.  If I knew the 'why' I can decide if it's less important or not.

Flashing Steel wrote... 
Character integrity, reactive/realistic romances are important to me. DAO had the smallest speckle of companions displaying preference, i would argue it was no where near enough, and soley basing it on gender was inadequate. I believe there should be a more robust approach to this in DA3, involving race, morals and specialization (blood mage/templar). I think it would make for a more interesting experience as opposed to every companion being bi.

Now if they won't do a more robust system, then what should they do in regards to gender?

In Exile wrote...
Well, in the context of how Bioware made games prior to DA2, you either passed the check or not, and if you wanted Alistair or Morrigain and you were of the wrong gender, it was a tough break for you.

But like I said above: there should be unique content for each gender, more than just "I secretly like boys too!" like they did with Anders in DA2. 

Oh yes, so they can do stereotypical male/female vs. male/male vs. female/female romances...no thanks.  I like it when the romances are about the two characters involved and not the two genders.

In Exile wrote... 

I don't know why you keep fixating on this issue of reactivity in KoTOR. This is not something I brought up.

As I have tried to say repeatedly I only brought up KoTOR as an example of the first Bioware game I liked, because I unrelatedly brought up what BG II as if I was supposed to think that mattered. I didn't bring up KoTOR as an example of a game I thought did it right. 

I'm just harping on the fact that BW never did romances like how you want them to do them but it's only seemingly a problem worthy of this much discussion now that they've removed gender restrictions.

In Exile wrote...  

If the game is asking me to make up my own content, it's going into the garbage. I don't want to get into this debate for the umpteenth time, but suffice it to say I believe very strongly that inventing your content

There's no control. There's just fan fiction. And fan fiction is not RP. 

I don't mean a complete loss of control.  There's obviously some content presented by the game.  What, you don't add in additional content in your own head when you RP? 

In Exile wrote...

It's not very hard to understand disagreeing with a direction. If you like reactivity, any change that makes something lessreactive is bad. Wanting a game to trend toward being reactivty like TW2 and not a useless brick like New Vegas is a viable position.

But no one ever complained about losing this specific form of reactivity before (like, when BG2 dropped the race/morality checks).  It is an issue now.  It wasn't an issue in DA:O which was supposed to be "the BG2 spiritual successor".  

Which is, again, my point.

You will honeslty tell me that it has nothing at all to do with sexuality? 

I can understand disagreeing with a direction but this direction isn't new.  Why bring it up now?

Modifié par jlb524, 31 décembre 2011 - 10:37 .

[In Exile]

jlb524 wrote...
Oh yes, so they can do stereotypical male/female vs. male/male vs. female/female romances...no thanks.  I like it when the romances are about the two characters involved and not the two genders.

I... I don't even understand how to reply to this. It's so divorced from everything I said, I'm starting to doubt we've ever been on the same page, or that you even read my replies.

The statement is just nonsense. Assuming there even was such a thing as a "romance between genders" clicking the "bi" box that lets the other character model be a man doesn't make the romance any less stereotypical or response to gender roles. It just forces the appearance of a character to be something specific, but it doesn't make it any less heteronormative in its substance.

That being said, when I argued that the romance should be reactive and responsive to the characters, you were very hostile to that and said you liked "generic" romances. But, they shouldn't be stereotypical? 

So you want a generic, stereotype defying romance? What? 

I'm just harping on the fact that BW never did romances like how you want them to do them but it's only seemingly a problem worthy of this much discussion now that they've removed gender restrictions.

So you're harping on something that only exists in your head? I've had an issue with Bioware romances from the start. This thread, if you hadn't noticed, is on the issue of DA2, but what in blue blazes makes you think I didn't have this same problem in ME1, or JE, or KoTOR? 

I don't mean a complete loss of control.  There's obviously some content presented by the game.  What, you don't add in additional content in your own head when you RP?

No. RP, to me, is making an in-character decision in the context of the game.

But no one ever complained about losing this specific form of reactivity before (like, when BG2 dropped the race/morality checks).  It is an issue now.  It wasn't an issue in DA:O which was supposed to be "the BG2 spiritual successor". 

I complained. I certainly complained in DA:O. I complained in ME. I can understand your frustration in general, but you're not speaking to an amorphous audience. You're not even speaking to the person who created this thread. You're speaking to me, and it's very presumptive to try and impute these somewhat nefarious motiviations.

Which is, again, my point.

You will honeslty tell me that it has nothing at all to do with sexuality?

Not for me. If we are going to talk about general social issues and game design, then I would bring up my anti-Asari idea (i.e. a race of hot blueskinned men). 

I can understand disagreeing with a direction but this direction isn't new.  Why bring it up now?

Bring what up, exactly? I didn't write this thread.

Modifié par In Exile, 31 décembre 2011 - 11:08 .

[In Exile]

Nejeli wrote...
Oh, please no. In media, a LGBT character's personality, story arc, development, etc, is often always wrapped up in their sexuality.

You misunderstand. I'm not saying it should be about them being bi. I just think we should have a Zevran or Isabella. So, take party banter. "Hey, did you see that hot guy" should be something that should feature in for both characters, unlike Anders's banter that sounds, when he touches on the topic of the brothels, very heterosexual. I don't like this approach of hiding sexuality.

They're rarely a character first. I'd rather not see that happen here. If I can have an opposite sex couple who's relationship doesn't revolve around their sexuality (which would surely be the case if you were to romance these bi characters with the opposite gender, it wouldn't make sense for them to have long drawn-out conversations about the LI being bisexual)  then I want the same for the same sex romance with the character. It doesn't have to be the same romance arc, but I would be very unhappy if it revolved around them being bisexual or in a same sex relationship.

It's not about having a long and drawn out conversation about them being bisexual. It's just about the game not hiding it. Like the game never mentioning that Anders was romanitcally involved with Karl if you're in the FemHawke romance. That's what I'm talking about.

To elaborate, there's nothing special about Anders/Karl vis a vis the fact that Karl is a man. But it adds a very profound aspect to Anders's choice to kill Karl, and his philosophy. What I'm saying is that this is isn't something the game should try to hide.

Modifié par In Exile, 31 décembre 2011 - 11:16 .

[Get Magna Carter]

My only concerns (in this area within Bioware's games) are when characters seem to be retconned.
In Awakening, Anders was all about how he wants a "pretty girl" and telling Velanna how he likes "girls with tattoos", etc. So him suddenly becoming interested in men feels odd.
I know it can be rationalised (he was in the closet, Justice had taken over, etc) but it still feels odd to me

[In Exile]

Get Magna Carter wrote...

My only concerns (in this area within Bioware's games) are when characters seem to be retconned.
In Awakening, Anders was all about how he wants a "pretty girl" and telling Velanna how he likes "girls with tattoos", etc. So him suddenly becoming interested in men feels odd.
I know it can be rationalised (he was in the closet, Justice had taken over, etc) but it still feels odd to me

Maybe he likes pretty guys with tatoos too. Anders didn't suddenly shun women. It just so happend he liked men as well. I don't see the issue, or the retcon (at least re: his sexuality).

[tmp7704]

jlb524 wrote...

To put my point more succinctly, I feel strongly about this because I gain something from them removing gender checks and allowing freedom to romance whichever companion I like best for my PC.

That's fine. My point was simply, that it is possible to feel strongly about this change. There can be many reasons for such strong feelings, either similar to your own or different. And since it is possible to feel strongly about this change, it demonstrates the argument how "it's a small change so why can't people just ignore it and keep quiet about it" ...  to be false.
 

I don't understand why the anti-crowd feels strongly when I don't see what they are losing. If they were losing something from this change then that's a different story.

The claim is that they are losing 'character integrity, reactive romances, realistic romances, etc.' but the problem with that claim is that BW romances never had this so they aren't losing it. So...what are they losing to justify this level of a reaction?

Clearly, if these people didn't feel they're losing something, they wouldn't be protesting about that loss. As such you may not understand their point of view, but you can at least accept that it is their point of view, rather than try to tell them how they should feel about it, when you admit yourself you don't actually understand their point of view.

Also, as far as i can tell the complaint is that the changes make the characters even less realistic, reactive etc. It's a reduction of something that already wasn't perfect, not an on/off thing. And that's something i don't think one can honestly say they aren't seeing, or fail to understand (since that is a change from the previous state of things, one you did acknowledge yourself)

Modifié par tmp7704, 31 décembre 2011 - 11:27 .

[jlb524]

In Exile wrote...
I... I don't even understand how to reply to this. It's so divorced from everything I said, I'm starting to doubt we've ever been on the same page, or that you even read my replies.

I thought you were saying that you want unique romances for male/female and male/male given a single male LI?  Like, saying that Anders should have had a completely different romance path for FemHawke vs. MaleHawke.

In Exile wrote... 
So you're harping on something that only exists in your head? I've had an issue with Bioware romances from the start. This thread, if you hadn't noticed, is on the issue of DA2, but what in blue blazes makes you think I didn't have this same problem in ME1, or JE, or KoTOR? 

That's fine.

My point is that most haven't had issues with how these romances have been structured...they were completely fine with the 'BW way' in games past.  However, now all of a sudden some are not okay with it because the final restriction (gender) was removed.

If you don't fall into this category (and you are saying that you don't), then that comment isn't directed at you.

In Exile wrote...  
No. RP, to me, is making an in-character decision in the context of the game.

Okay, that's fine if that's the way you do it.

In Exile wrote...   
I complained. I certainly complained in DA:O. I complained in ME. I can understand your frustration in general, but you're not speaking to an amorphous audience. You're not even speaking to the person who created this thread. You're speaking to me, and it's very presumptive to try and impute these somewhat nefarious motiviations.

I was speaking in general and you replied...if this doesn't reply to you..that's fine.

My original point still stands that in general:

1)  Most players were fine with the 'BW way' and never complained when restrictions on race/class/morality were lifted.

2)  Removing gender restrictions has resulted in an increase in complaining about things that have always been an issue in BW games.

If this doesn't apply to you then...I'm obviously not referring to you specifically.  I thought you took issue with the general comment and trying to pretend that there was no difference in the general fanbases reaction.

In Exile wrote...    
Not for me. If we are going to talk about general social issues and game design, then I would bring up my anti-Asari idea (i.e. a race of hot blueskinned men). 

Again, that's fine...but I wasn't ever talking about you specifically.   You can be the exception to the rule.

tmp7704 wrote...
That's fine. My point was simply, that it is possible to feel strongly about this change. There can be many reasons for such strong feelings, either similar to your own or different. And since it is possible to feel strongly about this change, it demonstrates the argument how "it's a small change so why can't people just ignore it and keep quiet about it" ...  to be false.

Right...but I'd prefer honest answers as to 'why' this is such a big change...which is all I've asked for.

 

tmp7704 wrote... 
Clearly, if these people didn't feel they're losing something, they wouldn't be protesting about that loss. As such you may not understand their point of view, but you can at least accept that it is their point of view, rather than try to tell them how they should feel about it, when you admit yourself you don't actually understand their point of view.

I have to accept that it is their point of view but I don't have to respect their opinion if they cannot justify it to me rationally.  My problem is that the reasons given seem nothing but B.S., quite frankly.

tmp7704 wrote...  

Also, as far as i can tell the complaint is that the changes make the characters even less realistic, reactive etc. It's a reduction of something that already wasn't perfect, not an on/off thing. And that's something i don't think one can honestly say they aren't seeing, or fail to understand.

Again, my problem is that there were never complaints about this 'imperfect' thing before.

X was never an issue in general.

X + 1 is an issue.


If there had been significant complaints about how the DA:O romances handled things and now there was even more complaining for DA2, then I'd understand.   But the forums were practically silent about this issue of 'unrealistic romances/character integrity/etc.' in DA:O.  I get the impression most people were happy with the BW way of doing these romances in regards to how they are structured and now all of a sudden it's a big issue for some. 

I know it's an issue now, but why?

Modifié par jlb524, 31 décembre 2011 - 11:32 .

[Get Magna Carter]

In Exile wrote...

Get Magna Carter wrote...

My only concerns (in this area within Bioware's games) are when characters seem to be retconned.
In Awakening, Anders was all about how he wants a "pretty girl" and telling Velanna how he likes "girls with tattoos", etc. So him suddenly becoming interested in men feels odd.
I know it can be rationalised (he was in the closet, Justice had taken over, etc) but it still feels odd to me

Maybe he likes pretty guys with tatoos too. Anders didn't suddenly shun women. It just so happend he liked men as well. I don't see the issue, or the retcon (at least re: his sexuality).

If you read I did say it could be rationalised.  
I just find it disconcerting when someone who was constantly talking about his liking for girls suddenly declares an interest in guys

Modifié par Get Magna Carter, 31 décembre 2011 - 11:34 .