1536 réponses à ce sujet

[Sutekh]

Ria wrote...

Isabela is a good example. You won't learn much about her past if you don't sleep with her. I think Sylvanpyxie makes an important point here. The friendship paths should be more extensive and satisfying. Romance scenes should include additional content but they should be about building romantic intimacy, not so much about pouring LI's life story on the main character. 

Edit: Actually, I think friedship paths should also have additional content of their own. After all, that sort of relationship has very different dynamics than a romance does. Friendship shouldn't be less of a relationship than a romance. They should be two different type of relationships.

Tbh, I thought of Isabela, but then it occured to me that the very situation of being in a romance, the L word being spoken out loud, was the reason why we learn this and that about her, so it's directly tied to romance (same with Zevran).

But I absolutely agree that friendship - or even rivalry - should be treated equally dialog-wise, for the very reason you don't (generally) confide to a true friend the same things you would a lover, and vice versa. If only to add to replayability.

[hoorayforicecream]

Dakota Strider wrote...

And while it has been at least a half year since I played DA2, I am pretty positive that I could not opt out of the romances.  The only way to avoid them, is not to have the npc in your party, and or to never talk to them. 

False. When the conversation option shows a heart instead of the normal icon in the center of the wheel, if you don't want a romance don't pick that option. Choosing a heart starts a romance. If you want to end the romance, pick the option with the broken heart icon. That will end the romance.

This is not rocket surgery. They have handy icons for you for a reason.

[Massakkolia]

Sutekh wrote...

Tbh, I thought of Isabela, but then it occured to me that the very situation of being in a romance, the L word being spoken out loud, was the reason why we learn this and that about her, so it's directly tied to romance (same with Zevran).

But I absolutely agree that friendship - or even rivalry - should be treated equally dialog-wise, for the very reason you don't (generally) confide to a true friend the same things you would a lover, and vice versa. If only to add to replayability.

Yeah, I guess you're right about that scene being quite tied to the romance arc. Still, the same conversation topic could have surfaced in another context if you befriended her. 

If it's not too resource heavy, the best solution would be that the player could discover different aspects of companions by following different relationship paths. I'd especially love to see what they would do with rivalry. A companion could reveal something about themselves during a heated argument, for example.

As you said, it would greatly increase the replayability.

Modifié par Ria, 16 avril 2012 - 01:19 .

[Dakota Strider]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Dakota Strider wrote...

And while it has been at least a half year since I played DA2, I am pretty positive that I could not opt out of the romances.  The only way to avoid them, is not to have the npc in your party, and or to never talk to them. 

False. When the conversation option shows a heart instead of the normal icon in the center of the wheel, if you don't want a romance don't pick that option. Choosing a heart starts a romance. If you want to end the romance, pick the option with the broken heart icon. That will end the romance.

This is not rocket surgery. They have handy icons for you for a reason.

I guess it depends on when you define the start of a romance.  If you say it is only after the Hero chooses to affirm it...then yes you have a choice.  But, since the game writers saw fit to penalize your rivalry score if you turned down the npc's advance, regardless of how diplomatic the Hero was in doing it.  So, it is my contention, that the romance started before you were able to make a choice, at least in the mind of the npc. 

By your own words, you recognize it is impossible to avoid the romance 

  If you want to end the romance, pick the option with the broken heart icon.  That will end the romance.

So, rocket surgeon, how do you end something, that supposedly has not started? 

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 16 avril 2012 - 01:14 .

[Pasquale1234]

Dakota Strider wrote...
Early Bioware games (BG and NwN series) could be said to be "pro-straight", since the only relationships available, were hetero (that I recall.)   That did not make them anti-gay.  There was not gay-bashing, or anything of that nature.  They could be said to be "gay-neutral" in that regard.    My point is, that you can be Pro-something, and not be Anti-something else.

Okay, so completely ignoring a segment of the population makes you neutral toward them as long as you don't openly bash them.  From that, I can assume that if a game provides multiple s/s romance options and zero o/s options, that game would be "pro-gay" but not "anti-straight".  Got it.

DAO is the first game I recall playing that could be considered "pro-gay", as it had material to include that part of the population with similar ingame relationships.  It was at the same time "pro straight", in my opinion.  This is because straight players were not forced into situations that they normally would not allow themselves to be in.  And if I recall correctly, it was not too hard to avoid romantic situations with either gender, as the flirts were generally initiated by the warden, not the npc.  NPC's may have dropped subtle hints, but it was nothing blatant like "I think you are hot, lets become partners."

Except that if my female Warden developed a high friendship with Alistair, he would give her a rose and hit on her in a romantic gesture.  Applying your apparent definition that pro-straight means not being hit on by a character of the same gender, that would mean that DAO is not pro-gay.

While "my" Hawke was willing to be friends, and more importantly, trusted adventuring companions, there is no way that Anders or Fenris would have ever made the mistake of thinking that "my" Hawke was romantically interested them, at least not enough to create a big enough scene to lose 20 rivalry points.

I can say exactly the same thing about Female Hawke.  And by the way, romantic interest (or lack thereof) is not always strictly determined by sexual orientation.  A protag that is attracted to men in general might not be attracted to Anders.

Perhaps they should go out and advertise that they are the pro-gay, anti-straight company, and that way they will attract more that want s/s?  And that way, people that are not looking for that, will not mistakenly purchase their games, expecting something different? It would be more honest.

It would be more honest only if they supported s/s relationships and bashed straights per your definition.  If they supported s/s relationships and ignored straights, they would be "straight-neutral" per your definition.  But, alas, they offer both types of romances, and in equal measure.

...it shows very little tolerance, from those that claim to seek tolerance, to allow a feature in a GAME that would allow all players to choose the type of experience they want.  We can add a button that will allow players to opt out of straight romance dialogues as well the button to opt out of s/s .

... or we could demonstrate our collective tolerance by accepting NPCs as they are written instead of asking the game to present them only in ways that we are willing to tolerate.

[Sutekh]

Dakota Strider wrote...

But, since the game writers saw fit to penalize your rivalry score if you turned down the npc's advance, regardless of how diplomatic the Hero was in doing it.  So, it is my contention, that the romance started before you were able to make a choice, at least in the mind of the npc.  

Let's get things straight: In one very specific case (choosing a diplomatic answer in a specific conversation) with one specific character (Anders) in the whole game, the character hit on you. You then could shoot him down at the expense of 10 (not 20 - just checked) rivalry points, which is very little and easily recovered (even though I agree rivalry wasn't a good idea here).

Don't make it sound as though it happens with every romanceable companions, easily and no matter what you do, because it is simply not true. Romance in DA2 is very easy to avoid. Just don't click the blighted heart. I know because I avoided it, multiple times.

[edit]And here's the wiki link of the infamous conversation, just in case: http://dragonage.wik.../Talk_to_Anders 

Modifié par Sutekh, 16 avril 2012 - 01:51 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Dakota Strider wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Dakota Strider wrote...

And while it has been at least a half year since I played DA2, I am pretty positive that I could not opt out of the romances.  The only way to avoid them, is not to have the npc in your party, and or to never talk to them. 

False. When the conversation option shows a heart instead of the normal icon in the center of the wheel, if you don't want a romance don't pick that option. Choosing a heart starts a romance. If you want to end the romance, pick the option with the broken heart icon. That will end the romance.

This is not rocket surgery. They have handy icons for you for a reason.

I guess it depends on when you define the start of a romance.  If you say it is only after the Hero chooses to affirm it...then yes you have a choice.  But, since the game writers saw fit to penalize your rivalry score if you turned down the npc's advance, regardless of how diplomatic the Hero was in doing it.  So, it is my contention, that the romance started before you were able to make a choice, at least in the mind of the npc. 

By your own words, you recognize it is impossible to avoid the romance 

I define romance as content that is only available if the romance flag has been set, which begins when you select a heart option. If you want to redefine terms and then tell me I'm wrong based on your definitions which you haven't actually established, then I don't believe that anything I can say will make much difference. I'm not here to argue with you in the court of your own mind.

  If you want to end the romance, pick the option with the broken heart icon.  That will end the romance.

So, rocket surgeon, how do you end something, that supposedly has not started? 

I made a mistake with my wording. Apologies. Selecting a broken heart will disable any possible romance-specific content (as defined above) with the character. Better?

[Dakota Strider]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

(snip snip snip)
... or we could demonstrate our collective tolerance by accepting NPCs as they are written instead of asking the game to present them only in ways that we are willing to tolerate.

True... but does this mean, that in the past, when those that wanted s/s relationships in Bioware games, should be considered intolerant, because they were not accepting what was written into the game?   I remember those days, and while I never publically supported that move, I also never publically denounced that move.  ((Now I am confused, was I intolerant for not supporting the s/s relationship movement, or tolerant for not opposing the game writers?)

Listen, this thread is basically a wish list of what we would like to see in DA3.  I have seen the s/s issue raised over the years, and there are extremists on both sides that get very passionate about it.  I would like the DA3 game to be the best possible, and therefore not have controversy.  Like it or not, what was written into the game of DA2, did cause controversy.  Some say there is no such thing as bad publicity (I would argue against that), so it is possible that helped DA2 sales.   I would like to see DA3 appeal to as large an audience as possible, as well as be a great RPG game, such as Bioware has produced in the past (just not the recent past).  So, my suggestion, was what I thought would be a compromise that would allow most reasonable people to have an experience they enjoy, without feeling the need to denigrate the things that other people enjoy.  If DA3 can be created to be a great RPG (and please, please, please, not a cinematic shooter), then I would like to see the largest possible audience purchase it, so that Bioware sees fit to produce more games like it, rather than the less than successful DA2, and the disappointing ME3.

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 16 avril 2012 - 01:41 .

[LadyJaneGrey]

If it makes you feel better, Dakota, the devs have acknowledged that Anders came on a bit strong and will try to make romantic starters more "player-based" in the future. I'd dig up the quote, but Baby's starting to fuss.

Modifié par LadyJaneGrey, 16 avril 2012 - 01:40 .

[Pasquale1234]

Dakota Strider wrote...
True... but does this mean, that in the past, when those that wanted s/s relationships in Bioware games, should be considered intolerant, because they were not accepting what was written into the game?

Asking to be included and have some of the same opportunities that others enjoy in no way signifies intolerance of what others already have and are able to enjoy.

If I saw you enjoying an apple and asked if I could also have an apple, there is no intolerance shown.  If I asked that the apple be taken away from you, that would be a demonstration of intolerance.

Listen, this thread is basically a wish list of what we would like to see in DA3.  I have seen the s/s issue raised over the years, and there are extremists on both sides that get very passionate about it.  I would like the DA3 game to be the best possible, and therefore not have controversy.

I don't think it's possible to have something that people are passionate about while avoiding controversy.  We don't all like and want the same things, and the most popular, critically-acclaimed products in the world still have haters and detractors.  The devs seem to appreciate the fact that people feel so much passion about their games, and I think there are always going to be some haters that come with the territory.

[Dakota Strider]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

If I saw you enjoying an apple and asked if I could also have an apple, there is no intolerance shown.  If I asked that the apple be taken away from you, that would be a demonstration of intolerance.

[

I ask for forgiveness in advance, because while I will grant that you made a very good analogy with the apple, my inner devil is shouting at me to "improve" upon it, with a reply.

In Baldur's Gate, and Neverwinter Nights, it seemed only a few people got apples.  Those that got no apples, asked for them and got them in DA Origins.  Then Dragon Age 2 comes along,  Those that hand out the apples, decided to cover them in caramel and peanuts, then cut them in half, and gave everyone a half of the same apple. 

Hopefully that is not too painful.  Like I said, I could not resist.   

((btw, not sure if you are familar with the ME3 game, but I thought they did it much better with the comm officer, and the shuttle pilot, can't recall their names at the top of my head.)

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 16 avril 2012 - 02:33 .

[Maria Caliban]

What does this...

Dakota Strider wrote...

At character creation, have a button to click, if you want your character to have same sex flirts/romance. 

<snip>

I do not believe this suggestion is intolerant.  This solution allows the game to be made in a way that should please everyone, with minimul problems.  I recall not so many years past when gays complained about their being NO (0%) choices for gay companions.  Now Bioware has turned it around, so that straight gamers cannot play without being hit on by members of the same sex.  And if straight people are expected to be tolerant of gay peoples' preferences, it should not be too much to ask that the same courtesy is extended in something so simple as a game, when the fix is so easy to make that should satisfy most reasonable people.

Have to do with Anders' romance?

Last I checked, Anders is just as much a douche to FemHawke as he is to DudeHawke.

[Pasquale1234]

Dakota Strider wrote...

I ask for forgiveness in advance, because while I will grant that you made a very good analogy with the apple, my inner devil is shouting at me to "improve" upon it, with a reply.

In Baldur's Gate, and Neverwinter Nights, it seemed only a few people got apples.  Those that got no apples, asked for them and got them in DA Origins.  Then Dragon Age 2 comes along,  Those that hand out the apples, decided to cover them in caramel and peanuts, then cut them in half, and gave everyone a half of the same apple. 

I see.  So people who romanced Leliana or Zevran received only half of an apple instead of a whole one?

Would you prefer to have only 1 (or none) romance option - because that seems to be what you are asking others to accept.  And we already had the talk about wanting to take things away from other people...

((btw, not sure if you are familar with the ME3 game, but I thought they did it much better with the comm officer, and the shuttle pilot, can't recall their names at the top of my head.)

Nope.  I've never played ME.

[Dejajeva]

I'm not only confused now, but really craving apple pie.

[berelinde]

Dakota Strider wrote...

In Baldur's Gate, and Neverwinter Nights, it seemed only a few people got apples.  Those that got no apples, asked for them and got them in DA Origins.  Then Dragon Age 2 comes along,  Those that hand out the apples, decided to cover them in caramel and peanuts, then cut them in half, and gave everyone a half of the same apple. 

How does making apples available to everyone reduce the size of the apple? Your apple did not change just because your neighbor got one too. The amount of time the apples were left on the tree had more to do with any lack than distribution policies. And that's about as far as I can go with that metaphor.

DA2 romances are perceived to be more superficial than the DA:O ones, but that was a design decision, possibly influenced by lack of resources and/or time, not by availability to both genders. I've run most of the romances for PCs of both genders, and the differences between them, if any, are very, very slight.

Also, you may be mis-remembering something about DA;O. If Zevran liked your male PC, he would make an obvious come-on and wait to see how the PC reacted. "Would you be offended if I said that I fancied you?" is pretty unambiguous. Likewise, if you had a female PC, Leliana would inevitably compliment your PC about her hair, and that, too, led to a really obvious flirt. Rejecting the advances of either led to an immediate approval loss. If anything, DA:O was worse because you didn't see the flirt coming. There was no little heart icon to click.

[Dejajeva]

Yeah, totally didn't catch the Leliana flirt- didn't realize we were in a romance until Alistair brought it up. Awkward!

[Dakota Strider]

Alright, time to change the Apple Analogy. Had some time to think about it while away doing real life things.

A tavern owner in the region had the reputation of serving the best banquets in the kingdom. Everybody came for his meals. Now while they varied a little, and sometimes people thought some of the side dishes were not as good as others, but for the most part, his meals were always well received. But, there was one sticking point: The tavernkeeper always served fresh apples with his meals. Now most people liked the apples, but there were some people that wanted grapes, and complained that if some people got apples, they should be able to get grapes.

So, before the next big banquet the tavern keeper acquired some new fruit to try to make all his guests happy. Along with some apples on each plate, he included a pair of something that almost looked like an apple. "I could not get any grapes," he explained. "But try these grapples (they are semi-real, just go with me on this one, artistic license and all). They taste almost exactly like a grape." So the people that liked apples, got their apples, and left the grapples alone. Some of the people that liked the apples, tried the grapples, and thought "These are pretty good". And many of the people that liked grapes, tried the grapples, and found out that they liked them too.

But there were some that still were not happy. "Why do the apple lovers get to have both apples, and grapples, too?" they complained to the tavernkeeper. "Its not fair, they still get more than we do." The tavernkeeper wrung his hands, "I am sorry, but more people like apples than like grapes, or grapples. I thought I was making you happy, going to the effort of bringing you this new fruit." "Its still not fair," said the grape lovers. "We want the same thing as all the apple eaters get."

And so, at his next big banquet, there were no apples served. Nor were there any grapes. But everyone got grapples, even those that did not like the taste of grapes, in the first place. Now the grape eaters were happy, because everyone had the same type of meal that they did. But the apple eaters were displeased. "Why did you stop serving apples?" they asked the tavernkeeper. "Most people here like apples, and these new grapples might look like an apple, but they taste like grapes." The tavernkeeper, however had locked in a contract to provide these grapples, and he did not want to deal with the anti-apple eaters anymore. "Tough break apple eaters. All I have to serve now is grapples, and everyone is going to get them."

The appleaters steamed about this for a while, but then some came up with an idea. They brought it to the attention of the tavernkeeper. "You have lots of time before your next banquet, Sir," they began. Since you have people that love both grapes and apples that attend your great meals, why don't we show you a way that you can get both grapes and apples for the next banquet." They pointed out, that since the tavernkeeper first started serving his great meals, technology had advanced, allowing him to create even larger banquets, and acquire more goodies than he had in the past. "All you have to do," said an appleater, "Is ask everyone before they sit down to eat, to find out if they want apples, grapes, grapples or all of them. Who can complain about that?"

The tavernkeeper thought about this, but word of the appleaters' idea had spread, and some grapeeaters heard about it. "This cannot happen," said the grapeeaters. "It is not right that we are asked to choose what we want on our plate. Mix everything together, so that everyone has the exact same fruit on their plate." The appleaters countered, "There is no need to do that, it is real easy for you to get what you want, and for us to get what we want, and for the people that like everything, they can get that, too." "Absolutely not," declared the grapeeaters. "You have always acted like apples are better than grapes, lording it over us. Now that we finally are getting some grapes, you are going to have them on your plate too. If you don't want to eat them, thats up to you."

THE END.

[Maria Caliban]

I'm resisting the urge to make a joke about someone having sour grapes.

Or gay people being fruits.

[Nurot]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Nurot wrote...

It is nice that you seem to have me all figured out. And you haven't even met me. I bow down to your greatness.

Since the point I was making seems to have passed without incident cleanly over your head, I'd say I'm on the right track.

Oh, I understood your point well enough... Since you obviously did not understand my point (I apologize for using sarcasm), I will explain it to you.

There is no need to be snarky to someone just because you think that his/her opinion is useless (to you, or to Bioware or in general). That kind of behaviour can only lead to bad things really. If you want to play with other people, you should behave better. I and all the other people on this forum are allowed to present our opinions wether they are useful or not, without being made fun of or attacked.

Modifié par Nurot, 16 avril 2012 - 05:52 .

[Piecake]

Mike Laidlaw brought up a point in the Pak Q&A session about limiting advanced classes to 1 so that 1 class can have a bigger impact on the world around you. I am perfectly fine with that, since I think world reaction from your choices, not just dialogue, but every choice you make, be it class, romance, dialogue choices etc

This brings me to romance. I dont like the direction that Bioware is taking romance. I dont like that is become basically a mini game with a whole bunch of options to choose from so that at least 1 suits your preference. The problem with that approach is that that romance will have zero to very little bearing on the rest of the story. Its some self contained thing that just seems unnatural since no one reacts to it besides those two characters.

I would like to see romance options drastically reduced so that if we DO decide to enter into a romance (the 1 or 2 options available) that romance has an impact on your story or at least a great deal of world recognition - just like Mike wants to do with specialization classes. Id rather see 1 or 2 really good romances than like 5 mediocre ones. And cutting out those other romances would let the writers develop the other characters in different, more interesting ways. Frankly, i find having every character developed through romance boring

I would also like to see more characters like Allistar and Morrigan. Those characters really felt like a huge and integral part of the story. I want ALL my characters to be like that, not just 1 or 2 (or 0). If that means sacrificing 1 or 2 or 10 characters, fine by me.

I think this is the same type of problem like the romance one above. You want to create more characters so at least a few characters appeals to everyone. I hate that approach. Its cowardly and breeds mediocrity since none of those characters will feel truly integrated into and apart of the story. I would much rather have fewer characters, but have all of those characters have a strong motivation/goals/reasons for being with you and those characters also having significant impact on the story.

The impact is the key thing since while most games' party characters have motivation to tag along with you, few of those party characters have a significant role to play and/or have a significant impact on your story. More characters like Allistar and Morrigan please (and I didnt really even like Morrigan - but i did find her interesting kept her with me because she was important. I think most people did the same)

I also have a problem with Bioware's recent direction with dialogue choices. No, its not the dialogue wheel versus it being all written out, its tone versus motivation.

That is what I think is lacking. What made BG2 work so well is that you got to choose your motivation, and that motivation determined what kind of person your character would be. Now, all we get is tone. We either get to be a snarky dbag or a goody two-shoes. I find that severely lacking and superficial.

If we got dialogue options where we could reiiterate our motivation - they wouldnt all have to be like this, just a significant amount of them - that would give greater weight and meaning to the dialogue choices where you just get tone. I mean, if your dude's motivation was Revenge, it really doesnt make sense to choose the goody goody option. I think that would make the dialogue choices more satisfying - even if the vast majority of those choices wont impact the world or your surroundings at all because they would feel like they are having a bigger impact on your character's personality than just choosing tone.

Now, i realize that this somewhat limits the story you can tell since you need to tell a story where at least 2 different motivations are plausible, but i think it would make for a far more engrossing and personal experience since you are determining WHY your character is doing what he does, not simply whether he is a dbag or a nice dude while doing what he is doing.

Quick edit - I also feel that making motivation a sigificant part of the dialogue choices is an extremely good way of making that character feel like 'your' character.  And i think its something that bioware can do while still having voice, still having the paraphrase wheel, etc.

I know Mike said in the Pax Q&A that giving the player more choices in how they do things will make that character feel more like their 'own', i agree, but I still think that doesnt address the dialogue.  Having motivation does address it though.  I mean, how could you not feel like that character is your 'own' if you decide, through dialogue, your character is driven by revenge, driven by greed, driven by selflessness, driven by companionship/loyalty, etc?  That is fundemental to what characters are in this game, and determining motivation will not make it feel like you are playing Bioware's hawke/shepard.

Modifié par Piecake, 16 avril 2012 - 06:13 .

[Dakota Strider]

berelinde wrote...

How does making apples available to everyone reduce the size of the apple? Your apple did not change just because your neighbor got one too. The amount of time the apples were left on the tree had more to do with any lack than distribution policies. And that's about as far as I can go with that metaphor. 

Changed that analogy, to a better one, look up.

DA2 romances are perceived to be more superficial than the DA:O ones, but that was a design decision, possibly influenced by lack of resources and/or time, not by availability to both genders. I've run most of the romances for PCs of both genders, and the differences between them, if any, are very, very slight.

I will agree with you that the DA2 romances were more superficial.  But I already had said almost the same thing earlier in this thread.

Also, you may be mis-remembering something about DA;O. If Zevran liked your male PC, he would make an obvious come-on and wait to see how the PC reacted. "Would you be offended if I said that I fancied you?" is pretty unambiguous. Likewise, if you had a female PC, Leliana would inevitably compliment your PC about her hair, and that, too, led to a really obvious flirt. Rejecting the advances of either led to an immediate approval loss. If anything, DA:O was worse because you didn't see the flirt coming. There was no little heart icon to click.

Read my whole answer before you judge me on this.   Before I played DAO, I never checked the forums, and had heard next to nothing of the game, except that it was Bioware's next big effort after NwN's.  So the first I saw of Zevron, was in the cutscene, where he was being hired to assassinate "my" Warden.   He was immediately on my bad side.  Then when we "met" in his ambush on my party, his attitude definitely rubbed me the wrong way.  So, after the battle, I did not give a second thought to finishing him off.  There was nothing I trusted about him.

It was not until I finished my first play through, that I read the forums, and learned that a lot of these gift items in my pack were supposed to go to Zevron.  So, figuring on a 2nd try, I would catch up on roleplay that I missed, and against better roleplay judgement, let him live to join my party.  I also played my main 3 npc's much less (Morrigan, Leliana and Alistair), and used the other characters much more in subsequent play throughs, just to learn more of their individual stories.  Although, Ohgren was a sticking point...I guess we rubbed each other the wrong way, so I avoided taking him out in public as much as possible.

So, by the time Zevron hit on my character, was I shocked?  No, but since he really had done nothing to earn my sparing his life, it was not hard to reject him flat, rather than be diplomatic.  (A different tact that I took with Fenris in DA2, who was easier for me to get along with.)  

And those stupid hearts and such in the dialogue wheels of DA2 are another pet peeve of mine.  To quote someone earlier in this thread, it does not take "rocket surgery" to figure out what type of reactions certain responses will make.  And if you choose wrong, thats part of roleplay too.  Don't need no silly rp crutches, thank you.

[Dakota Strider]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'm resisting the urge to make a joke about someone having sour grapes.

Or gay people being fruits.

Ok, I had not thought of the "sour grapes" line.  Good one.

I had been thinking that people would make the "gays are fruits" assumption.  But just remember, I am not the one that started the apple analogy in the first place.  I just figured I would keep using it, with modifications.

[Nurot]

tmp7704 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Let's attempt to discern what Nurot thinks "epic" means through deduction.

It means doubleplusgood nowadays (extension of "grand in scale or character") in common/advertising lingo. hth.

Hardly need to single someone out for it, i think.

Thank you for claryfying this!

I like to remind people that not all forum users are native English speakers. I certainly am not. I may have misused the word "epic" and probably a lot of other words/expressions in my other posts.

The thing is, while we do learn English in school, we don't get all of our vocabulary from there. English simply contain to many words for that. Most of the words in our vocabulary are learnt from seeing them used in context. Most of the times we get it right, but sometimes (as with "epic) we don't.

What I meant with epic was grand/big/something like that. I guess I was a bit unclear with my use (or misuse) of the word though. When I talked about romances being epic, I actually wasn't talking about scale, but about having them feel epic (or rather grand, big whatever). If I was speaking Swedish I would say that I want them to feel "storslagna".

Maybe I was unclear about the differences by good dark and gritty and bad (in my opinion) dark and gritty, as well. I will try to explain. You can put in a lot of dark stuff just for schock value, but never really do something with it. This Is what I feel is "bad" dark and gritty. Or you can put in a lot of dark stuff (you can still use it for schock value, but not just schock value) and do somthing more with it. I think the writing team for DAO and DA2 are doing it right (that is, the way I prefer it). They schock you with their dark stuff, but they also make you think. Some events have been circling through my mind for ages after I played them.  I also want to clarify that my discussion on dark and gritty did not have anything to do with my view on infidelity in romances. I just put my views on both topics in the same post. Infidelity is not automatically "bad" dark and gritty, I just prefer not to have it in the romances of future games, for reasons explained before (yes, explained by misusing the word epic:P).

[the_one_54321]

When gay men hit on me, I thank them. Because it means they find me attractive. Being attractive is awesome. That doesn't mean I'm going to let them have their way with me. I wish gay men would hit on me more often. It would mean I was even more attractive.

[Dakota Strider]

the_one_54321 wrote...

When gay men hit on me, I thank them. Because it means they find me attractive. Being attractive is awesome. That doesn't mean I'm going to let them have their way with me. I wish gay men would hit on me more often. It would mean I was even more attractive.

Sooooo......what does that have to do with apples?