922 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

jlb524 wrote...

Given the 'BW approach' of open romances...why limit with just gender?

Like discussed, the limits can be set on things the game can easily determine. This would mean gender, possibly species, class, origin and other such factors. Theoretically things like hair colour, eye colour, skin colour and such could also be included, but at the cost of removing the ability to mod the game (as character mods could easily break such functionality completely)

[Ryzaki]

tmp7704 wrote...
Think that's what Mr.Gaider pretty much said regarding it. I can't unfortunately provide a link -- there was plenty long threads about this subject in the past, and the search for this forums is woefully lacking.

Really? I don't recall such a thing. Closest I remember is him saying such a thing would be seen as more resource friendly. That's about it.

And since romances are such a small part of the game to begin with I'd rather they be resource friendly in regards to the romances and pull out all the big stops on things that are far more important. Like the main plot and not casting bloodmagic spells right infront of templars/such for them to completely ignore it.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 01 janvier 2012 - 06:49 .

[jlb524]

tmp7704 wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Given the 'BW approach' of open romances...why limit with just gender?

Like discussed, the limits can be set on things the game can easily determine. This would mean gender, possibly species, class, origin and other such factors. Theoretically things like hair colour, eye colour, skin colour and such could also be included, but at the cost of removing the ability to mod the game (as character mods could easily break such functionality completely)

So, is it better to have:

Limits on race and morality vs. just a limit on gender?

2 > 1

Also, mods bypass the gender restriction (see my awesome Morrigan/FemWarden romance which was very emotinal and rocked).

[tmp7704]

Ryzaki wrote...

Really? I don't recall such a thing. Closest I remember is him saying such a thing would be seen as more resource friendly. That's about it.

Like i said, there was plenty of long threads. It could've been said in one you didn't read? It could also be the memory playing trick on me -- that's why i said i thought he'd said that.

And since romances are such a small part of the game to begin with I'd rather they be resource friendly in regards to the romances and pull out all the big stops on things that are far more important.

I don't like the idea of treating parts as "not so important" and "resource friendly first" as result of that -- DA2 with its reuse of locations and other shortcuts made at every second corner is a plain example of what happens as the result.

[Abispa]

jlb524 wrote...

Abispa wrote...
NOT EVERYONE IS "BI" IN DA2. And not everyone will be "bi" in future games. Most, but not all, of the LOVE INTERESTS will probably be "bi" or "hero-sexual" in future DA games. Only FOUR of the eight possible party members were "bi" and one of the LI was still "straight."

You rock!

Nah, seriously, your posts are always entertaining XD

Thank you very much. You and Ryzaki rock, too, despite Ryzaki's unnatural and immersion breaking relationship with Legion. Have a Happy New Year.

[jlb524]

Nah, Gaider has stated that the 'all bi' thing is better from a resource perspective.

Just like, no gay-only LIs are better from a resource perspective.

I'm still not convinced what is wrong with that. Considering:

1) Romances aren't even completed by a majority of players.

2) They wish to provide as many options for those that are interested in such things...be they a minority of overall gamers.

Again, considering those that play romances typically do a female romance, why should they even provide an equal amount of male LIs to female LIs?

Abispa wrote...

Thank you very much. You and Ryzaki rock, too, despite Ryzaki's unnatural and immersion breaking relationship with Legion. 

Oh, I don't judge XD

Abispa wrote... 

Have a Happy New Year.

Happy New Year to you too!

Modifié par jlb524, 01 janvier 2012 - 07:00 .

[Ryzaki]

tmp7704 wrote...
Like i said, there was plenty of long threads. It could've been said in one you didn't read? It could also be the memory playing trick on me -- that's why i said i thought he'd said that.

True. But meh. I'm pretty sure if he had said that you wouldn't be the only one to bring it up.

I don't like the idea of treating parts as "not so important" and "resource friendly first" as result of that -- DA2 with its reuse of locations and other shortcuts made at every second corner is a plain example of what happens as the result.

Nature of resource management. I'd take more variable locations and a better plot then fully realistic romance options. I'd use the former a lot more (as would far more gamers). That's just me being selfish though. I want content I'm actually gonna use to take priority.

And forget you Abispa. D: 

*hold Legion close*

I'll always love you Legion. <3:crying:

Modifié par Ryzaki, 01 janvier 2012 - 07:00 .

[jlb524]

Ryzaki wrote...
I'd take more variable locations and a better plot then fully realistic romance options.

So much this.

[tmp7704]

jlb524 wrote...

So, is it better to have:

Limits on race and morality vs. just a limit on gender?

2 > 1

Yes, that's what i personally prefer, since, like i said, i like the idea of NPCs with defined preferences for their potential partner.

However keep on mind it's not a "this or that" thing. Limits on race and morality don't exclude limits on gender, and vice versa. You can just as easily have all three, or --depending on character in question-- certain combination(s) of any of these.

Also, mods bypass the gender restriction (see my awesome Morrigan/FemWarden romance which was very emotinal and rocked).

That's different from what i meant -- if the game was somehow coded to take into account the eye colour of the character, then a mod which would add more colours could make the game confused about how to treat a character with such custom eye colour. Yes, another mod could maybe make the game ignore the restriction/preference altogether, but since i actually like these restrictions, it's not the sort of change that'd "rock" for me.

[jlb524]

tmp7704 wrote...

Yes, that's what i personally prefer, since, like i said, i like the idea of NPCs with defined preferences for their potential partner.

However keep on mind it's not a "this or that" thing. Limits on race and morality don't exclude limits on gender, and vice versa. You can just as easily have all three, or --depending on character in question-- certain combination(s) of any of these.

You can of course...but given the purpose of this thread.

1)  Assume that the BW romance way stands.

2)  Which means, no restrictions in how they structure their romances based on race/class/morality.

is it okay that

3)  Gender restrictions remain while these others do not?

That is the only question I've been trying to get solid answers on.

[tmp7704]

Ryzaki wrote...

Nature of resource management. I'd take more variable locations and a better plot then fully realistic romance options. I'd use the former a lot more (as would far more gamers).

See, i don't disagree but then i'd rather they chose and did one thing well (and other not at all) than two things half-assed. Meaning if there can't be well done romance, then i'd rather none at all and the free resources spent elsewhere.

(although i'd question if DA2 was really in the shape it was due to 'resource management' per se, as opposed to trying to cover too much with too little. But that's another story)

[Ryzaki]

tmp7704 wrote...
See, i don't disagree but then i'd rather they chose and did one thing well (and other not at all) than two things half-assed. Meaning if there can't be well done romance, then i'd rather none at all and the free resources spent elsewhere.

(although i'd question if DA2 was really in the shape it was due to 'resource management' per se, as opposed to trying to cover too much with too little. But that's another story)

I don't mind the halfassedness. Mostly because to me it was good enough to accent the story pretty well. I didn't find the DA2 romances to be that bad. (at least not bad compared to most other BW romances).

And yeah another story another thread. Hope that doesn't jinx it.

[Ryzaki]

And yes DA related. I just found it.

To make this ontopic...I wonder if Cassandra would be a bi option if she was a romance? 

[AngryFrozenWater]

In a perfect game there would be more than enough realistic romances dedicated and specifically designed for each existing sexual orientation. Chances are that BW lacks the resources to make this happen. So if BW would limit the choice to one realistic romance per sexual orientation then human nature kicks in and it is more than likely someone does not want to go for that romance, because for one reason or another the personalities and/ or looks don't match. For an example if the only option for me was as ugly as a broodmother then I would pass.

To increase the number of choices BW could make all LIs bisexual. Perhaps that doesn't approach the illusion of reality, but at least the PC would have more options. The only property that all these characters have is that they also will be available to player characters with another sexual orientation. I can't see that as a problem, because I rather have that than the limitation described in the first paragraph. After all, these non-matching romances would be optional. One can simply refuse or ignore them. BW would still not be able to satisfy all, but it wouldn't be as bad as the situation in the first paragraph.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 01 janvier 2012 - 07:24 .

[tmp7704]

jlb524 wrote...

is it okay that

3)  Gender restrictions remain while these others do not?

That is the only question I've been trying to get solid answers on.

Well, i did try to give you the answer on that already. To recap, some people may feel that having even such limited level of restrictions gives them some of what they prefer, and so they will dislike when it's removed. For them it's "okay" in the sense it's preferable than having no restrictions at all.

I understand you don't view it this way personally and possibly refuse to consider it a "solid" answer, but it really is how it works for them and it does work for them.

[jlb524]

The DA2 romances were some of my favorites.

B/c, as someone said...the LIs were still interesting and worthwhile if you didn't romance them (unlike ME).

For example, the Fenris non-romance friend path is one of my personal favorites. I've grown to really appreciate and love his character outside of a romance path. It's just, really awesome to interact with his character and see his growth (IMO) and it never requires me to initiate a romance with him.

Same with Isabela...I love her friend path to death. To say these characters are nothing but 'romance bots' is insulting to them.

I can say the same for some DA:O characters...I love the Alistair friend path and my female Wardens pretty much always follow that path. I know Alistair is potentially available on a romance path but I don't take it and that never affects my friendship with him. Alistair is typically their 'rock' and someone she can rely on in the face of all the crap she has to deal with...and I love that...his potential romance status doesn't affect my female Warden's feelings towards him. He's just...one of the best friends they could ever wish for.

tmp7704 wrote...
Well, i did try to give you the answer on that already. To recap, some people may feel that having even such limited level of restrictions gives them some of what they prefer, and so they will dislike when it's removed. For them it's "okay" in the sense it's preferable than having no restrictions at all.

I understand you don't view it this way personally and possibly refuse to consider it a "solid" answer, but it really is how it works for them and it does work for them.

But it's all about gender and sexuality.  Limiting me from romancing Morrigan with a female is okay (even though that makes for an awesome story)...but there is no limits on a dwarven male PC when there probably should be.

If we are just talking about story potential, I think FemWarden/Morrigan is a lot better than Morrigan/dwarfmale because the latter is pretty much ignored, while the former makes for a damn good story.

So, it's not a story-line consideration (because I think FemWarden/Morrigan is a really good story)...it's that, you shouldn't even see that possibilty b/c of gender which irks me.

 I understand that they have issues and opinions....I just don't think it's valid.

Ryzaki wrote...

To make this ontopic...I wonder if Cassandra would be a bi option if she was a romance? 

Dammit, I hope so.

I want to romance her with a female elven mage.

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

In a perfect game there would be more than enough realistic romances dedicated and specifically designed for each existing sexual orientation. Chances are that BW lacks the resources to make this happen. So if BW would limit the choice to one realistic romance per sexual orientation then human nature kicks in and it is more than likely someone does not want to go for that romance, because for one reason or another the personalities and/ or looks don't match. For an example if the only option for me was as ugly as a broodmother then I would pass.

To increase the number of choices BW could make all LIs bisexual. Perhaps that doesn't approach the illusion of reality, but at least the PC would have more options. The only property that all these characters have is that they also will be available to player characters with another sexual orientation. I can't see that as a problem, because I rather have that than the limitation described in the first paragraph. After all, these non-matching romances would be optional. One can simply refuse or ignore them. BW would still not be able to satisfy all, but it wouldn't be as bad as the situation in the first paragraph.

*golf-clap*  <3

Modifié par jlb524, 01 janvier 2012 - 07:48 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

I didn't like the LIs in DA2. I rather have "I thought you would never ask" than "I think Sandal is watching me". The LIs in DA:O felt like they were given more attention.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 01 janvier 2012 - 07:45 .

[jlb524]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I didn't like the LIs in DA2. I rather have "I thought you would never ask" than "I think Sandal is watching me". The LIs in DA:O felt like they were given more attention.

Haha, that's an entirely different issue.

I agree that clicking on Merrill and getting the same Sandal crap was annoying.

Of course, Leliana did it better <3

[AngryFrozenWater]

jlb524 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I didn't like the LIs in DA2. I rather have "I thought you would never ask" than "I think Sandal is watching me". The LIs in DA:O felt like they were given more attention.

Haha, that's an entirely different issue.

I agree that clicking on Merrill and getting the same Sandal crap was annoying.

Of course, Leliana did it better <3

I am not sure if that's a different issue, because dealing with romances has everything to do with interaction. If the character interaction in DA3 will be just as shallow as in DA2 then we will get a gazillion of these threads, because then the focus of those will be sexual orientation and not how great the characters were.

There was little to no interaction with DA2's companions and NPCs at all, unless your were summoned by mail or a quest to meet them. The most notable exceptions were Sebastian and Elthina. These two had a more natural interaction that reminded me of DA:O. You could talk to them at any time and they also had something to say about the recent events in which they were involved. Try out the grand cleric and talk to her more often. She even has something to say about your past. I view them as the best portrayed characters in DA2. The game did a great job on those. Of course the downside was that you could never make them act, but that was a more general problem which is not the scope of this topic. Still, I think if the other companions were given the same attention as those two were given then the LIs in DA2 could have been portrayed much better and "I think Sandal is watching me" would have been scrapped.

Edit: Added more detail.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 01 janvier 2012 - 08:25 .

[jlb524]

I dunno, I still like my DA2 LI more than my DA:O LI....based simply on characterization. I personally like Merrill's personal story arc more than Leliana's....even though the reused comment about Sandal sucked.   It actually has nothing to do with the difference in romance content (Leliana had more/better stuff)...but I like Merrill more.  So begins the whole 'substance v/s mechanics arguement').

But...they can always improve.

Modifié par jlb524, 01 janvier 2012 - 08:59 .

[esper]

I don't think that number of times you speak to a character represent how good portrayed they are.
Anders and Morrigan are the two most interesting game characters I have met and that is solely because they are nuanced and complicated. Carver comes close up, but that has more to do with the fact that I personally likes him since he feels like a little grumpy little brother.
That being said I would of course have liked even more interaction with the companion if just because more talk are always good since that is what bioware does really well. And because Hawke was actually interaction with her companions, something I felt the warden never was, I am far more attached to the da2 crew. (Not that I aren't attached to da:o).

[tmp7704]

jlb524 wrote...

But it's all about gender and sexuality.  Limiting me from romancing Morrigan with a female is okay (even though that makes for an awesome story)...but there is no limits on a dwarven male PC when there probably should be.

It's always going to be about something. If it was about species instead, would you be protesting that it's "all about species"? From the tone of your comment it seems dubious, since you're implying that there "should" be such restriction. Now see, you might hold such opinion when it comes to species, while someone else might hold it when it comes to genders. So for them, such limitation does work, even if that may irk you.

So, it's not a story-line consideration (because I think FemWarden/Morrigan is a really good story)...

No, it is a limitation based on what the character's writer apparently though would make sense for the character in question.

Additionally, don't make this mistake that because you think "it'd make a really good story" that makes it not a story-line consideration -- as it's not you but the BioWare writer that ultimately made that call. Maybe they did think it wouldn't make a good story and hence the decision? We don't know that.

I understand that they have issues and opinions....I just don't think it's valid.

But is your opinion that "it's not valid" based on anything other than the fact your own opinion is different?

Because that doesn't really make it not valid. It just means there's a disagreement of opinions.

Modifié par tmp7704, 01 janvier 2012 - 09:29 .

[jlb524]

tmp7704 wrote...
It's always going to be about something. If it was about species instead, would you be protesting that it's "all about species"?

Yes....'tis not fair!  But come on, it's never about species...you aren't that naive about how the world works, are you?

tmp7704 wrote... 
From the tone of your comment it seems dubious, since you're implying that there "should" be such restriction.

No, I don't think there should be restrictions.  Have you actually read my replies?

 

tmp7704 wrote... 
Now see, you might hold such opinion when it comes to species, while someone else might hold it when it comes to genders. So for them, such limitation does work, even if that may irk you.

Why is it about gender then?  I have no issue with species...I merely used that as a counter example.

tmp7704 wrote... 
No, it is a limitation based on what the character's writer apparently though would make sense for the character in question.

Additionally, don't make this mistake that because you think "it'd make a really good story" that makes it not a story-line consideration -- as it's not you but the BioWare writer that ultimately made that call. Maybe they did think it wouldn't make a good story and hence the decision? We don't know that.

Hahah, apparently the BW writers thought the 'all bi LIs' in DA2 made for a good story.

tmp7704 wrote...  
But is your opinion that "it's not valid" based on anything other than the fact your own opinion is different?

Because that doesn't really make it not valid. It just means there's a disagreement of opinions.

jlb524 wrote...

Ah yes, it's totes okay that both Morrigan and Leliana would want to make it with this guy:

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

But it's not totes okay that Merrill and Isabela could possibly want to make it with my atttactive and charming femaleHawke.

 

You've done nothing but argue against my style of argument and you have yet to actually...ya'know...address the actual argument that I've made and you haven't attempted to understand where I'm coming from...but then you expect me to 'try and understand' where the anti-crew comes from?  

Modifié par jlb524, 01 janvier 2012 - 12:07 .

[Uccio]

I have a problem with all bi li´s when it molds all relationships into same format. Each romance should be different and bring out different quests which are not available for all and turn the storyline to a slightly different route.

Modifié par Ukki, 01 janvier 2012 - 12:21 .

[jlb524]

Ukki wrote...

I have a problem with all bi li´s when it molds all relationships into same format. Each romance should be different and bring out different quests which are not awailable for all.

I don't know...each romance seemed different to me.  Isabela romance =/= Merrill romance.

Modifié par jlb524, 01 janvier 2012 - 12:17 .