649 réponses à ce sujet

[Cantina]

Dakota Strider wrote...

The DAO system for romances were by far, much better than DA2 for me.  Just imagine replaying any of the DAO LI's, but instead of the multiple options in a conversation, only make your choices based by the icon next to the dialogue    or , or a  and a .  That really increases the excitement doesn't it? (that was sarcasm).  Instead of picking the choice based on the wording of what you felt, you are treated like you are illiterate. 

And I think the DA2 romances would have been much improved if they were treated like DAO, and the player had to go by either instinct or common sense, instead of letting the game hold them by the hand.  Why even bother with printing out the conversations?  They could save some money just by marking everything with icons. 

Also, it would be nice to have some interactions with any of your companions, that are fun/light-hearted, that are not considered to be come-ons flirts.  I recall being able to make some jokes with Alistair, or even give him a hard time about things.  There was nothing like that in DA2.  It seemed to be either entirely quest related, or LI related.  I know you could do that with Varric, but if they were one of the four that were deemed to be the LI's, that option was not available.

The thing is with the system above, not only do I feel like its hand holding, but limits what you can say.

With Alistair, I could ask him numerous things in a single conversation and the conversation would not end unless I chose it to end. In Dragon Age 2, that “power” was taken from my character and the companion always ended the conversation. Its like "OK! I'm done talking to you. Let me wander over here and stare at this wall or in space."

A good example would be Anders in Act 3. I wanted to say the following to him:

“I’m more worried about you.”

“Give him the key to the cellar”

“Go to bed with him”

The problem however I was limited to only choosing two options and well, to be blunt it sucked. I prefer the conversation to flow as far as the player wants to take it, not as far as the companion wants to or the game feels, “Oh this is a good cut off point.”

If I want to ask my companion how he/she is doing, then flirt with them, then go back to normal banter, I should be able too.
Beyond that lets say with Anders first conversation in Act 2, its very sweet, but it came off as reading a script more than anything. I have not spoken to him in a while; I want to ask him how he is doing, flirt with him and then respond to that flirt with a variety of options. As in this conversation case….

“I don’t want to lose you”

“Promises, Promises”

“Your right” (or something to that effect)

There are several points in conversations, especially with companions that have only three options to choose. Fenris was not too bad; I could at least ask him about his back-story, with Anders, I could not question anything about his past. Then when it came to flirting, he felt the need to tell me not to do this, I could not simply ask why or how about saying if he was afraid of the Templars snooping around, here have this key or you can stay with me in my mansion and I will protect you. Or how about something simple as, "Please, stop with the warnings, I am aware of it."

Alternatively, go in a simple direction, this is my choice too, not just yours. Options tagged to lines not only make the conversation more meaningful, but the companion too. Having those options pop up only when the player MAY have a question in regards to it, is not proper conversation. Some people may question everything that companion says or does. Dragon Age 2 had too much constriction when it comes to companion conversations.

Sure, I may have met Isabella, Merrill and Anders in the previous game, but that is no excuse not to learn about who they are by asking them in Dragon Age 2.

Just because my Warden knew them, does not mean Hawke does too. It was disappointing having to figure more about my companions by opening a Codex. It takes away that connection feeling towards that companion. I loved it, especially in Awakening were after the main bit of information on that character, their biography would update as the game progressed, using the choices you made with that companion on the journey. It gave that feeling you are a part of their life and made an impact.

Getting to know a companion is particularly important if you chose to romance them. And if you chose to romance them there should be options that unlock asking them questions you could otherwise not ask if you were not in a romance.

I give Bioware props for bringing in romances, but the connection they had between companions from Origins to Dragon Age 2 was severed. I believe this a reason why people came off as not caring, understand or not connecting with all their companions or some. I hope in Dragon Age 3 that connection makes a comeback, because I certainly did miss it in Dragon Age 2.

Modifié par Cantina, 01 mai 2012 - 02:42 .

[AkiKishi]

[quote]LiquidGrape wrote...

The Complete and Comprehensive Guide to DAO Romance:

1. Collect gifts.
2. Impart said gifts onto your prospective loved one, regardless of ethical and/or interpersonal dissonance.
3. Get it on.
4. The End

[quote]

I don't see anything wrong with it. Works in real relationships, why should it not work in game relationships?
No one is outright hostile, or they would not be with the Warden in the first place.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 01 mai 2012 - 02:41 .

[wsandista]

[quote]BobSmith101 wrote...

[quote]LiquidGrape wrote...

The Complete and Comprehensive Guide to DAO Romance:

1. Collect gifts.
2. Impart said gifts onto your prospective loved one, regardless of ethical and/or interpersonal dissonance.
3. Get it on.
4. The End

[quote]

I don't see anything wrong with it. Works in real relationships, why should it not work in game relationships?
No one is outright hostile, or they would not be with the Warden in the first place.[/quote]

DA2 guide to romance

1.Flirt
2.???
3.Relationship;)

Modifié par wsandista, 01 mai 2012 - 03:35 .

[the_one_54321]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
"They didn't say they weren't" isn't good enough? Why do people have to be heterosexual by default in a fantasy realm?

It is a question of verisimilitude, as David mentioned.

David Gaider wrote...
I'd rather leave it up to the player to believe what they wish, unless it's relevant to their character (such as in Isabela's case). If you feel the need to definitively categorize the character's sexuality, that's your problem and not ours.

The combination of both solutions doesn't seem all that difficult to me, on its surface. I think you could give everyone the options and cohesiveness in this without breaking character relevance. I suppose you probably know better on it than I do, though. (that wasn't sarcasm)

[Gibb_Shepard]

 Since Giader won't be talking about this in the other thread, i'll post it here and hope to see a reply:

David Gaider wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...
So you don't plan on writing anymore characters that show their sexuality outside of the PC's company then? Because the only way to create characters that cannot be classified as "bisexual" but "whatever-floats-your-boat-exual" is to make their sexualities completely hidden from non-alterable game sections.

Isabela was bisexual, and talks about it outside of the PC's company. Being a very flirtatious character, it would be strange if she didn't. The other romances don't discuss it, but that was hardly a compromise as their sexuality isn't a big part of their characterization-- at least when not dealing with someone in whom they were actually sexually interested.

So, no, I don't see it as that big a concern. People who say it is seem to be magnifying it into the only aspect of the character that makes up their identity, when that's hardly true.

No, but nuances do make up a character's identity. Morrigan was hardly a Zevran or Isabella, but the fact that she was known to be a dangerous seducer of men was definitely a nice little part of her character. Sexuality can be seen as a nuance, like in Morrigan's case, and the more of those in a character the better. I didn't like the all or nothing approach in DA2 (Either extremely over the top about sexuality, or seemingly celibate ouitside of the PC's company).

[Dakota Strider]

As requested, this is moved here, from another thread.

David Gaider wrote...

SeanMurphy2 wrote...
I find it absurd for Bioware to make all romance characters bisexual for "equality" reasons. Yet if writers are forced to rigidly follow that rule. Then a straight or gay romance character is unable to exist in that world.

I get why some folks might not like the "subjective sexuality" of some of the characters, even if that subjective nature only becomes evident on multiple playthroughs (or if you spend a lot of time on the forums, first). For some, it's an issue of verisimilitude... because once they understand that this character might also romance different genders in alternate realities (other games) they have difficulty wrapping their minds around which neat little box they can put that character into.

It was not that hard to figure out.  On my first playthrough, I realized that at least 3 of the characters were gay or bisexual, and I did not go to the forums until long after I played DA2.  And it was pretty easy to conclude that all four possible LI's were bi after that.  So, that meant of the 7 possible companions in the game, (Varric, Aveline and your sibling included) over half of the party was bi.  It broke immersion for me.  I mean...yeah that is very possible for something like that to happen randomly, though the odds would be small.  But it would generally take someone actively seeking to make the majority of the party to be bisexual/gay for that to happen logically.

The benefit, of course, is that it allows others to play their game the way they wish. Whether it's a good enough trade-off is up to the individual, but from our perspective the ability to provide more choices to our fans far outstrips the "oh but that's not realistic" argument.

I understand what you are trying to do, but it just doesn't work for me.  I guess it gave more choices for some of your fans.  Especially with Anders, I did not feel like I had an opportunity to be just a friend, I had to either be his LI, or he would consider my character a jerk.

What I don't get is how some people go right to "everyone is bisexual". Which they're not. Fenris might romance a male character or Merrill a female character in an alternate reality from the game you're currently playing, but that does not make them "bisexual". That seems to stem from a need to slap a label somewhere where it doesn't belong.

In a perfect world, your theory would be true.  But unfortunately, it is hard to turn off our brains, and ignore what we know about the characters.  And because we know what we know, it makes the experience feel cheapened, because it feels like the companions had their personalities split in half, which cheapened them.  Would adding two more companions as LI's be that difficult?   Then two that are bi, two gay, and two straight? 

  Whether or not we'll change our approach in the future depends mostly on time/resources. The "spread" of options that gets mentioned from time to time is probably the ideal in terms of options/verisimilitude, but it's also the most expensive in terms of resources... which is why it gets mentioned so often on forums, as resources are never an issue here.

And that of course is the problem....time and resources.  All that we can do is take some solace that our opinions are being listened to.  Having played Bioware fantasy rpgs for almost 15 years, I keep coming back to Bioware, because no other company makes games the way you guys do.  I would be happy playing your games if there were no LI's at all.   But I do not want to do, as Mr. Eplar seemed to suggest, and go play other type of games, because Bioware has chosen a new direction. 

[Aly666]

i agree with this topic because having romance opens up more in-game, makes better interaction with your companions, could open up more quests, even if you could romance to someone outside your companions like a king or queen (which was available in origins). My bf doesn't car much for romancing in dragon age he just rather kill like everything but i did enjoy it in origins not so much dragon age 2. I feel since there's always room for improvement why not improve this?

[Atakuma]

BobSmith101 wrote...

LiquidGrape wrote...

The Complete and Comprehensive Guide to DAO Romance:

1. Collect gifts.
2. Impart said gifts onto your prospective loved one, regardless of ethical and/or interpersonal dissonance.
3. Get it on.
4. The End

I don't see anything wrong with it. Works in real relationships, why should it not work in game relationships?
No one is outright hostile, or they would not be with the Warden in the first place.

If your relationship is based around giving gifts to make the other happy, then that's kind of sad.

Modifié par Atakuma, 01 mai 2012 - 04:23 .

[jlb524]

liesandpropaganda wrote...

i wanted to make a Skyrim guide to relationship but it's too complicated and i gave up

Inorite...getting my Skyrim romance to work was waaaay more difficult than DA:O cuz Dead!Lydia kept showing up at the wedding and bride_to_be kept running out on me.

I had to use a console cheat to res Lydia and apologize to the bride_to_be ...it was a damn mess.

Modifié par jlb524, 01 mai 2012 - 04:39 .

[SeanMurphy2]

I don't think equality should mean that each gender or sexuality should get access to the exact same content.

Players can't do whatever they want in a game. They can't romance Varric or Aveline. But they should not feel offended if they found out that Varric would only romance a male Dwarf commoner with a brown beard and a specific tattoo on the right side of his face.

Put more gay content in the game and bisexual characters.  But I don't agree that we have to have equality by giving each gender and sexuality the same content.

[jlb524]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...
No, but nuances do make up a character's identity. Morrigan was hardly a Zevran or Isabella, but the fact that she was known to be a dangerous seducer of men was definitely a nice little part of her character. 

Ironically, that seems to describe Leliana more than Morrigan.

Modifié par jlb524, 01 mai 2012 - 04:56 .

[Maria Caliban]

Ironically, that seems to describe Zevran as well.

[Dutchess]

Cantina wrote...


There is a difference though between Origins and Dragon Age 2. In Origins it did not matter if you pissed of your entire party, they would still help you at the end with the Archdemon (unless you were a big ass and told them to leave). The thing is in Dragon Age 2 the more people you ****** off the less likely they stand by you in the end. I in particular do not want to be fighting Orsino with just my dog or a couple of party members who chose to stay for whatever reason. So I tend to go through the game trying to be friends with them (except for Merill) because I need more bodies for the end game fight. Granted there are ways to get friendship points X times over with party members, but this creates a cramp in who I want in my party.

I beg your pardon? You could lose a lot of companions in DAO by making choices that pissed them off. You can lose Leliana (Sacred Ashes), Wynne (Circle Tower, Sacred Ashes), Zevran (Talisien), Morrigan (Dark Ritual), Shale (Deep Roads) and Alistair (Landsmeet), although you get Loghain instead then. My evil Warden was left with dog, Oghren, Sten, Shale and Loghain for the end battle.

In DA2, when you reach max rivalry (I assume rivalry is what you mean with pissing them off), your companions will not betray you, but stand by you in the end. A fully rivaled Fenris will not betray you if you side with the mages (I think you have to have done his quests as well for this, but still). 

[AkiKishi]

Atakuma wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

LiquidGrape wrote...

The Complete and Comprehensive Guide to DAO Romance:

1. Collect gifts.
2. Impart said gifts onto your prospective loved one, regardless of ethical and/or interpersonal dissonance.
3. Get it on.
4. The End

I don't see anything wrong with it. Works in real relationships, why should it not work in game relationships?
No one is outright hostile, or they would not be with the Warden in the first place.

If your relationship is based around giving gifts to make the other happy, then that's kind of sad.

Did you not think that through ? Try forgetting your other halfs birthday or anniversary and see how a relationship is not based on gift giving...

What do you do when you propose ? Buy a ring that costs 3 months pay...

[jlb524]

Fandango9641 wrote...
I have so much respect for Biowares stance on in game sexuality but I can’t agree with those supporting the idea of an all BI cast of characters for any game. I mean the claim that one should be able to romance any character, regardless of race, sex or sexual orientation is, on its face, ridiculous right?

So is being able to romance any character even if you are really ugly.

But hey, that's been a feature in every BW game.

[Cantina]

renjility wrote...

Cantina wrote...


There is a difference though between Origins and Dragon Age 2. In Origins it did not matter if you pissed of your entire party, they would still help you at the end with the Archdemon (unless you were a big ass and told them to leave). The thing is in Dragon Age 2 the more people you ****** off the less likely they stand by you in the end. I in particular do not want to be fighting Orsino with just my dog or a couple of party members who chose to stay for whatever reason. So I tend to go through the game trying to be friends with them (except for Merill) because I need more bodies for the end game fight. Granted there are ways to get friendship points X times over with party members, but this creates a cramp in who I want in my party.

I beg your pardon? You could lose a lot of companions in DAO by making choices that pissed them off. You can lose Leliana (Sacred Ashes), Wynne (Circle Tower, Sacred Ashes), Zevran (Talisien), Morrigan (Dark Ritual), Shale (Deep Roads) and Alistair (Landsmeet), although you get Loghain instead then. My evil Warden was left with dog, Oghren, Sten, Shale and Loghain for the end battle.

In DA2, when you reach max rivalry (I assume rivalry is what you mean with pissing them off), your companions will not betray you, but stand by you in the end. A fully rivaled Fenris will not betray you if you side with the mages (I think you have to have done his quests as well for this, but still). 

<shakes head>

That is considered situational circumstances. Yes, you could lose them that way. However, in one my games I managed to agree to keep them around but still they were rivals with me. Yes, you could lose them if you chose to go that route, or you could go the route of being a rival to them without having to do something that completely removes them from your party.

That's odd though, in my game Fenris was at complete Rivlary and pretty much gave me the finger and I ended up fighting him. So I went back and had to do games with him as a friend.

[Wulfram]

renjility wrote...

I beg your pardon? You could lose a lot of companions in DAO by making choices that pissed them off. You can lose Leliana (Sacred Ashes), Wynne (Circle Tower, Sacred Ashes), Zevran (Talisien), Morrigan (Dark Ritual), Shale (Deep Roads) and Alistair (Landsmeet), although you get Loghain instead then. My evil Warden was left with dog, Oghren, Sten, Shale and Loghain for the end battle.

In DA2, when you reach max rivalry (I assume rivalry is what you mean with pissing them off), your companions will not betray you, but stand by you in the end. A fully rivaled Fenris will not betray you if you side with the mages (I think you have to have done his quests as well for this, but still). 

I think the point was that DA:O characters didn't generally turn on you because their approval was low, but instead because of specific decisions you make.

Whereas in DA2, you need to have high friendship or rivalry to keep a fairly large chunk of the part on side.  Which increases the need to try to get high friendship or rivalry

[AkiKishi]

jlb524 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...
I have so much respect for Biowares stance on in game sexuality but I can’t agree with those supporting the idea of an all BI cast of characters for any game. I mean the claim that one should be able to romance any character, regardless of race, sex or sexual orientation is, on its face, ridiculous right?

So is being able to romance any character even if you are really ugly.

But hey, that's been a feature in every BW game.

Appearence is never acknowledged. Maybe it should be

Just a question for anyone who has played both sides of a bi character, are there any significant differences ?Does it require lines being done twice for instance ? Or changes in cinematics?

[Maria Caliban]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

If your relationship is based around giving gifts to make the other happy, then that's kind of sad.

Did you not think that through ? Try forgetting your other halfs birthday or anniversary and see how a relationship is not based on gift giving...

What do you do when you propose ? Buy a ring that costs 3 months pay...

Yes, she thought it through. I sometimes give gifts to people, but that doesn't mean the relationship is based around giving gifts to make the other people happy.

[whykikyouwhy]

Fandango9641 wrote...

I have so much respect for Biowares stance on in game sexuality but I can’t agree with those supporting the idea of an all BI cast of characters for any game. I mean the claim that one should be able to romance any character, regardless of race, sex or sexual orientation is, on its face, ridiculous right? Much better to have a cast of clearly defined characters, with a wide variety of sexual desires and motivations than the one size fits all approach some here seem to be advocating.

But the cast is not "all BI." We don't even know how half of the characters within the game (companions *and* other NPCs) would identify themselves because that topic does not come up in conversation...much like IRL. 

There are only 5 romancable characters in DA2. How are those 5 representative for the entire cast? And I would argue that the characters in the game are indeed clearly defined. They may not be wearing their sexual identities on their sleeves, but they are well defined and well rounded in other ways.

BobSmith101 wrote...

Did you not think that through ? Try forgetting your other halfs birthday or anniversary and see how a relationship is not based on gift giving...

What do you do when you propose ? Buy a ring that costs 3 months pay...

 
Some relationships may implement gifts as tokens of affection, or as some sort of pacification for things-done-wrong, as you are suggesting. But not all relationships. It's unfair to judge all reltionships on this criteria.

[AkiKishi]

Maria Caliban wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

If your relationship is based around giving gifts to make the other happy, then that's kind of sad.

Did you not think that through ? Try forgetting your other halfs birthday or anniversary and see how a relationship is not based on gift giving...

What do you do when you propose ? Buy a ring that costs 3 months pay...

Yes, she thought it through. I sometimes give gifts to people, but that doesn't mean the relationship is based around giving gifts to make the other people happy.

Nor is DA, gifts are supplemental, you still have to converse.

[Cantina]

Maria Caliban wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

If your relationship is based around giving gifts to make the other happy, then that's kind of sad.

Did you not think that through ? Try forgetting your other halfs birthday or anniversary and see how a relationship is not based on gift giving...

What do you do when you propose ? Buy a ring that costs 3 months pay...

Yes, she thought it through. I sometimes give gifts to people, but that doesn't mean the relationship is based around giving gifts to make the other people happy.

Oh gawd, please no gift giving involved to keep the romance happy. I had that headache in Fable.

It would be nice to have gifts you could buy and give to your romance. But there not a necessity.

But that is something far down on the list, I'd like to see. First I'd like to see the dialogue and the romance scenes fixed before tossing in fluff.

[AkiKishi]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Some relationships may implement gifts as tokens of affection, or as some sort of pacification for things-done-wrong, as you are suggesting. But not all relationships. It's unfair to judge all reltionships on this criteria.

Got any examples where that is not the case ? I've never experienced or heard of any.

I have a florist on speed dial for nights when I have to work late.