443 réponses à ce sujet

[nightscrawl]

BobSmith101 wrote...

If you pay the guy who voices Anders for 100 lines how you split them is down to you.

Well the rational thing to do is to save 1 person rather than prolong the agony of 4. In game terms though, if you are a player who must have a gay character in order to relate and you must have your choice of LI's then DA2 will be preferable, even if it is objectively worse.No matter how much banana cream is on offer if you don't like banana cream it's not going to matter.

I believe the characters are there to serve the story not be a fantasy playmate for the player. As such they need to be as complelte and detailed as budget allows. Splitting that budget makes for worse characters.

Do you know for certain that they pay by the line, or is it just a time investment? If the VA says the same line different ways for an hour until the director likes it --- there is a clip in the LotR Two Towers special features showing Viggo (Aragorn) saying the same line repeatedly with emphasis on every single word in the sentence --- Is it only just the one line payment, for an hour's work? I kind of doubt it.

Why should someone who "must have a gay character in order to relate" be the exception? Or rather, it's just too bad if they feel that way, because heterosexuality is the norm? Sorry, there's no room for you, gay person? Because heterosexuality has been catered to in every form of entertainment since the dawn of time? I think they've had enough primacy. Having shared time is NOT a bad thing.

I think the "fantasy playmate" line is a bit unfair. Just because I want to be able to play as the character I want and have the option to romance the person I want doesn't mean I'm looking for a dating sim. I don't just want the option for myself, I want the option for everyone. There are 4 romance options in DA2. I tried Isabela once because I find her history interesting. I've never once romanced Merrill and never plan to. I primarily stick with Fenris, and rarely Anders (mainly for testing m/f f/r differences). My preferences in DA2 are basically 1/4, but I certainly don't begrudge anyone who wants to romance the companions I don't care for.

If in DAO I'm playing a female gay character but found Leliana's faith or girlishness (shoes, hair, bleh) to be annoying and I don't want to romance her, well that's just too bad for me? If I'm playing a male gay character and find Zevran's lustiness and constant allusions to sex to be unappealing, that's just too bad for me? If you think so, well that's fine. I just happen to disagree. And frankly, nothing you say about budgets or partial characters will convince me otherwise.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 01 juin 2012 - 11:12 .

[nightscrawl]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Even if those lines -would- still be put into that specific NPC, we're still not "gaining" very many of them for a hetero/****** LI. The amount of gender-unique dialogue is hardly anywhere close to the ratio of 5/25 (1/5) like in your example, for instance. It's very rare that companions mention a gender in any way.

That is, -if- they were put into the same NPC. Much of the line economy would likely be shuffled over to other places where it can be used to flesh out plot lines that are currently on the weaker side. At least that's what I believe.

But you don't know. I'll bet no one in this thread does.

Part of the reason for the numbers as they were was to keep the example simple. And I actually should have made clearer that I was referring to 25 lines for the specific conversation after you go to the Chantry with Anders, rather than the entire character throughout the game.

Other than various pronouns -- and I'm unsure whether Anders sticks "love" at the end of various sentences for male Hawke since I'm still in Act 1 of that play -- the only examples I know of direct gender mentions or exclusive content are (1) Anders's remarks about Karl; (2) Fenris's remark about conversing with a "beautiful woman" during the history conversation, which I'm pretty sure he bypasses that line completely for male Hawke; and (3) post-sex, since Fenris appears to be have some concern, a male Hawke can ask if it was "strange to be with another man", whereas female Hawke can ask about his markings hurting, Fenris responds in the exact same way for each of these: "It's not that..." There are also a few party banter differences here and there.

While again, I can't attest for Isabela/Merrill, Anders's remarks about Karl are certainly the most numerous. Even then though, they're only a very small portion of the hundreds of lines those characters have throughout the game. I hardly see how an extra line here or there if the NPC was a single-sex romance would have added much, other than to just be more.

[AkiKishi]

nightscrawl wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

If you pay the guy who voices Anders for 100 lines how you split them is down to you.

Well the rational thing to do is to save 1 person rather than prolong the agony of 4. In game terms though, if you are a player who must have a gay character in order to relate and you must have your choice of LI's then DA2 will be preferable, even if it is objectively worse.No matter how much banana cream is on offer if you don't like banana cream it's not going to matter.

I believe the characters are there to serve the story not be a fantasy playmate for the player. As such they need to be as complelte and detailed as budget allows. Splitting that budget makes for worse characters.

Do you know for certain that they pay by the line, or is it just a time investment? If the VA says the same line different ways for an hour until the director likes it --- there is a clip in the LotR Two Towers special features showing Viggo (Aragorn) saying the same line repeatedly with emphasis on every single word in the sentence --- Is it only just the one line payment, for an hour's work? I kind of doubt it.

Why should someone who "must have a gay character to relate" be the exception? Or rather, it's just too bad if they feel that way, because heterosexuality is the norm? Sorry, there's no room for you, gay person? Because heterosexuality has been catered to in every form of entertainment since the dawn of time? I think they've had enough primacy. Having shared time is NOT a bad thing.

I think the "fantasy playmate" line is a bit unfair. Just because I want to be able to play as the character I want and have the option to romance the person I want doesn't mean I'm looking for a dating sim. I don't just want the option for myself, I want the option for everyone. There are 4 romance options in DA2. I tried Isabela once because I find her history interesting. I've never once romanced Merrill and never plan to. I primarily stick with Fenris, and rarely Anders (mainly for testing m/f f/r differences). My preferences in DA2 are basically 1/4, but I certainly don't begrudge anyone who wants to romance the companions I don't care for.

If in DAO I'm playing a female gay character but found Leliana's faith or girlishness (shoes, hair, bleh) to be annoying and I don't want to romance her, well that's just too bad for me? If I'm playing a male gay character and find Zevran's lustiness and constant allusions to sex to be unappealing, that's just too bad for me? If you think so, well that's fine. I just happen to disagree. And frankly, nothing you say about budgets or partial characters will convince me otherwise.

Voice actors are paid by the number of lines not by the hour. I can't comment on Bioware specifics obviously.

You missed the AND must have your choice of LI's. That's kind of important.

Options are nice, but not when it means less depth. Fewer LI's mean more depth for those remaining. In real life you don't have the option to romance who you want. It should be no different in an RPG. Hence the term fantasy playmate.

There is as much roleplaying value in failure as success.If you are absolutely dead set on romancing anyone whatever the negatives, then of course we won't agrree.

[whykikyouwhy]

BobSmith101 wrote...
Options are nice, but not when it means less depth. Fewer LI's mean more depth for those remaining. In real life you don't have the option to romance who you want. It should be no different in an RPG. Hence the term fantasy playmate.
 

Regarding the bolded - This is a statement that seems to be the ready counterargument for LIs that are available to the PC, regardless of gender. 

In real life, I would not be flinging fireballs from my fingers. In real life, I would not be hefting a greatsword around. In real life, I would not be facing off with a dragon. In real life, I would not be scrounging to fund an expedition into dwarven ruins.

With regard to romance, in real life, I wouldn't know that there are a game mechanic set number of individuals available for me to attempt to get to know and flirt with. In real life, I would take my chances chatting someone up and either receive a (hopefully polite) rejection or be pleasantly surprised by interest given in return. In real life, I have a whole broad world to seek romance in, should I choose to do so. 

It's simply interesting where and when people choose to use "real life" as some comparative measurement for how things should be in a game.

For the record, your PC is a "fantasy playmate" of sorts. Though that term is rather offensive. 

[AkiKishi]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
Options are nice, but not when it means less depth. Fewer LI's mean more depth for those remaining. In real life you don't have the option to romance who you want. It should be no different in an RPG. Hence the term fantasy playmate.
 

Regarding the bolded - This is a statement that seems to be the ready counterargument for LIs that are available to the PC, regardless of gender. 

In real life, I would not be flinging fireballs from my fingers. In real life, I would not be hefting a greatsword around. In real life, I would not be facing off with a dragon. In real life, I would not be scrounging to fund an expedition into dwarven ruins.

With regard to romance, in real life, I wouldn't know that there are a game mechanic set number of individuals available for me to attempt to get to know and flirt with. In real life, I would take my chances chatting someone up and either receive a (hopefully polite) rejection or be pleasantly surprised by interest given in return. In real life, I have a whole broad world to seek romance in, should I choose to do so. 

It's simply interesting where and when people choose to use "real life" as some comparative measurement for how things should be in a game.

For the record, your PC is a "fantasy playmate" of sorts. Though that term is rather offensive. 

You would if your real life was in Thedas. But unless you used blood magic people in Thedas still have free will so you would not just be able to pick your partner.

Your character is your avatar not a playmate. You don't play with your character, you play through your character.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 01 juin 2012 - 11:33 .

[nightscrawl]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Options are nice, but not when it means less depth. Fewer LI's mean more depth for those remaining. In real life you don't have the option to romance who you want. It should be no different in an RPG. Hence the term fantasy playmate.

There is as much roleplaying value in failure as success.If you are absolutely dead set on romancing anyone whatever the negatives, then of course we won't agrree.

There are a lot of things in both games that are not equal to real life, in any way. The very least of which are the romance options.

You also said even "if it is objectively worse." Other than actual budget reasons, which a previous person quoted DG as saying that providing these higher options is more expensive, I don't see how it is worse, or objective. You still have not convinced me that that you have lesser characters because of it. Even if they did single-sex romances in DA2, there is no reason to believe that those same other few line resources for the other gender might not have gone into improvements to Act 3 instead, or even into another random Wounded Coast cave design, rather than just adding more for the romances.

And really, unless some Bioware person comes here and tells us how resources are allocated, or will be allocated for the next game, it's pointless to argue over them or even use them as examples. It's only enough to know that it is an issue, but it's an issue with every aspect of game development.

BobSmith101 wrote...

You would if your real life was in Thedas. But unless you used blood magic people in Thedas still have free will so you would not just be able to pick your partner.

In the game you are limited to the set amount of LI the developers decide on, you do NOT have the entirety of Thedas to choose from, as you would if Thedas were our real lives. Hawke should be able to go shag that horny guy at the Hanged Man, but she can't because the game doesn't allow it.

As a woman, if I were rejected by Morrigan and didn't like Leliana, real Thedas certainly has more women out there that I can go talk to, who may or may not like me in return. The game limits me from doing that, so I can either only hope I get lucky with the small selection offered (in this case one for Leliana), or hope for a larger variety, which is what I choose to do.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 01 juin 2012 - 11:54 .

[syllogi]

If you want to role play a character who doesn't romance every npc, what's to stop you from doing that in DA2, simply by not picking the heart options when they appear?

I have role played characters who didn't get any romance at all, by ignoring the dialogue options that would have led to flirting. I also ignore "jerk" options when I'm playing a do-gooder. Is it unrealistic to have those options, because in real life, I don't really get opportunities to be a massive jerk the way Hawke does?

[AkiKishi]

nightscrawl wrote...

You also said even "if it is objectively worse." Other than actual budget reasons, which a previous person quoted DG as saying that providing these higher options is more expensive, I don't see how it is worse, or objective. You still have not convinced me that that you have lesser characters because of it. Even if they did single-sex romances in DA2, there is no reason to believe that those same other few line resources for the other gender might not have gone into improvements to Act 3 instead, or even into another random Wounded Coast cave design, rather than just adding more for the romances.

And really, unless some Bioware person comes here and tells us how resources are allocated, or will be allocated for the next game, it's pointless to argue over them or even use them as examples. It's only enough to know that it is an issue, but it's an issue with every aspect of game development.

In the game you are limited to the set amount of LI the developers decide on, you do NOT have the entirety of Thedas to choose from, as you would if Thedas were our real lives. Hawke should be able to go shag that horny guy at the Hanged Man, but she can't because the game doesn't allow it.

See Daves post about versitility. It's somewhere a couple of pages back.

The character will hook up at some point since the characters existence continues after the game ends. If it were the Witcher2 she would be able to do that. That's a different issue entirely.

[nightscrawl]

syllogi wrote...

I have role played characters who didn't get any romance at all...

Man I can't do that... I get a pang if I skip out on Fenris to romance Anders simply to see differences in friend/rival etc. They really need a hug emote, I really want to just hug Fenris, he needs one .

With DAO my main reasoning is that If I am going to invest 85 hours into a game (my longest play with DAA and all DLC) I'd better make sure I enjoy it. Consequently, I play it basically the same almost every time. It's much easier to try different things with DA2.

[Kidd]

BobSmith101 wrote...

It depends if the lines are being recorded or just reused. If they are being recorded then you are paying for them. You could just as easily be paying for twice as many unique lines.

If Merrill says "I love you" to a ManHawke or a LadyHawke, it's the same line, and costs the exact same. Merrill's VA is not one penny more expensive...

BobSmith101 wrote... 

Because those lines are not free they come out of the VA budget. Take all of femhawkes lines and give them to mhawke you get twice as many lines and hence a deeper character with more interaction. Of course there is a price which is what we are talking about here. The price here is less choice, because characters will be fixed.

... but yes, ManHawke's lines add cost. I have a feeling many would be sad if we cut the male protagonist's voicing to have both genders voiced by Wyatt/Hale/someone else for DA3 though. Not gonna happen. And now we're treading into silent/voiced protagonist territory which isn't even what the discussion was about.

[nightscrawl]

BobSmith101 wrote...

The character will hook up at some point since the characters existence continues after the game ends.

Says who? Maybe I'm a gay guy who pined away for Alistair until I died a lonely death, a hermit, in some cave. The whole point of an RPG is to role play your character in the game. Whatever nebulous head thing you come up with doesn't count if it doesn't happen in game.

I'm sure there are hundreds of Alistair fangirls with Cousland Wardens who have head cannoned them having royal babies and living happily ever after. I'm sure there were hundreds of Leliana fangirls and boys who have imagined themselves going off into the sunset with her and having all sorts of fun bardic adventures. But that hasn't happened in game has it? It hasn't happened in game because Bioware has future plans for these characters that have nothing to do with your head canon, so you can't rely on it being a permanent fixture in the story of your Warden or Hawke as long as you continue to play the games.

[Wulfram]

If your overriding objective was to have as many lines per romance as possible, the obvious logical conclusion would be that we should have one potential LI, who is bisexual.

[Kidd]

Fandango9641 wrote...

I just don’t support the idea of diluting each and every one for the sake of those unwilling to role-play different characters.

This is a baseless statement. While for those who want to run the same character every time, the all-bi approach would indeed be preferable, that mindset is by no means a prerequisite to appreciate said design choice.

And honestly, I don't see why either me or you should consider our way of playing the "better" way.

Modifié par KiddDaBeauty, 01 juin 2012 - 01:50 .

[syllogi]

Fandango9641 wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

For the record, your PC is a "fantasy playmate" of sorts. Though that term is rather offensive. 

Offensive or not, with the exception of a few people like yourself, the main objection to setting sexuality seems to be that it limits people’s ability to have every LI as a romantic option. That’s fair enough, but (and this isn’t directed at you) enough already with this guff about it not affecting characterisation. Did you see my earlier post quoting David with regards his approach to writing Alistair’s romance arc? Do you see how that approach lends itself to a depth of characterisation that wouldn’t be possible (at least without a great deal of extra work) with a hero-sexual cast of characters?

It's nice that he talked to female gamers about what they wanted in a video game romance, but that doesn't mean that every female gamer, everywhere, found him ideal.  Alistair was unappealing to many people who played female characters who wanted an more mature, experienced romance, or didn't like how very deferential he was most of the time.  And on the other side, there were gamers who played male characters and adored him, and used mods to access his romance.

All this proves is that, even if a writer goes to a certain demographic for inspiration, it doesn't mean that every member of that demographic is going to love the results, or that other groups are barred from enjoying it.  I can totally see how a male Warden romancing Alistair would have much of the same dialogue (he's never been with anyone at all, and at the end of the game, his issues with staying with the Warden would be similar to the obstacles faced with a non-human and/or mage female Warden).  If the romance was still enjoyable, what does it matter that it was written with a Warden of a different gender in mind?

I've read somewhere on the BSN that Mr. Gaider was thinking about a male Hawke when writing the Fenris romance.  That doesn't stop me from romancing Fenris with my female character, and it doesn't change my enjoyment of the relationship knowing that I didn't play it the "right" way, whatever that may be.

[Reznore57]

I see it almost as a pre fix gender pc stuff ...Having a gender define before for the pc allow for more interaction gender based in a game .
A lot of woman were happy to play Shepard because they could play a bad ass savior .I don't like female Shepard much , but i play her and I'm glad to have the opportuny to play a female.
Would a company made a game with only a female pc ?There's been Lara Croft but you had to suffer the huge breast and i guess it was just an action game with eye candy.

The truth is yeah all bi thing might leave out some characterisation for SOME npc , that the romance will be less gender based ( not specially written to please woman for example) and I don't think it's wrong .
it means that people from "minority" won't be left with breadcrumbs .And that the romance won't be written with the idea "girls likes pink , boys likes blue " .
I guess it's challenging for a written , but even if it left out some things it's an opportunity for something new.

[robertthebard]

BobSmith101 wrote...

You would if your real life was in Thedas. But unless you used blood magic people in Thedas still have free will so you would not just be able to pick your partner.

Your character is your avatar not a playmate. You don't play with your character, you play through your character.

Can't stop laughing.  If my real life was in Thedas, I would never know that Anders says something different to mHawke than fHawke.  Isn't it funny that you claim metagame knowledge should carry over, but defend that by saying that your real life is in Thedas, a totally role play perspective.  You sir, are argueing to argue.  However, regarding romancing, you can flirt with non LI's in game.  It was fun to flirt with Aveline, on a fHawke, while doing The Long Road.  The option is there for mHawke, but I didn't see the point of pursuing it once I'd already done it once.  She doesn't even shoot you down, it just kind of goes over her head.  You can also flirt with Varric, regardless of gender.  You can flirt, sort of, with Meredith.  You may even get some additional dialog that other Hawkes don't get, regardless of gender, so I guess she is shallow too, since she has dialog that I have never seen.  After all, according to your position, I should get the dialog regardless of taking the necessary steps to get it.  To get Anders' "bonus material", you have to meet certain conditions, one of which is being male.  You also have to choose to attempt to romance him
 
I have never gotten those dialog options, and didn't even know you could until I read it here.  But even with that, I still picked up on there was something going on I didn't know about.  Since it's not plot specific, it doesn't matter.  Not knowing doesn't make or break the game in any way.  Knowing doesn't change the outcome of Act III, so it's irrelevent to the game.  It really doesn't add anything either, other than a fishing attempt by Anders.

[robertthebard]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Begemotka wrote...

I`d wager many players found their chosen favourite DA2 romance options just as engaging as the DAO ones.
If the DA2 companions appeared shallow,I am much more inclined to put it down to strained development schedule,limited zots and such.

That certainly wasn’t the case for me, though my views regarding that game are tainted by what I perceived to be a severely rushed development cycle. As for your point about David’s approach to writing Alistair working for a character designed to appeal to people of every sexual persuasion, we’ll have to disagree (and for obvious reasons). I can agree with you on preferring a wide variety of personalities however - I just don’t support the idea of diluting each and every one for the sake of those unwilling to role-play different characters.

So you're both saying the same thing, but you disagree?  Then how is it that, early on, there were a lot ofpeople that wanted to romance him, despite not being female?  I don't see the reason as being anything else than you preferred it to be that way.  Of course, I made my opinion of Alistair clear back in those days, and the line in my sig should point that out rather clearly.  It was, after all, created specifically for him.

The biggest flaw with LI's, and I've alluded to this earlier here, was lack of opportunity for dialog, not lack of content within the dialog, which can come back to limited time.  Had we had more oppurtunities to talk with them, there would have been more develpment.  Again, they weren't diluted because they weren't written to be gender specific, but they were diluted by having very few oppurtunities to talk with them at all, even if you weren't romancing them.  So if we are going to assert that they were diluted to cater, then they were diluted to cater to EA's schedule.

[syllogi]

Fandango9641 wrote...

That certain people didn’t dig Alistair for reasons of character is testament to the good work David did when writing him. I see that as a strength, not a weakness! And what’s the alternative - remove the things that might preclude some people from finding him absolutely scrummy? I’ve lost you. Is yours point made in defence of being able to romance whoever you want, or is this about wanting to find everyone attractive?

I'm not sure how you lost me, but I'll repeat myself; I didn't say anything about it being a weakness, and I pointed out that appealing to a certain demographic (in this case, the female gamers he talked to), does not mean that Alistair is a "perfect" one-size fits all male LI tailored for female player characters.  And that's fine.  No character is going to appeal to every single gamer, especially when it comes to romances.  I am attracted to certain personalities and don't find others as attractive.  That's realistic.

Barring me from at least *trying* to romance the character whose personality I prefer, no matter their gender, is not realistic, in my opinion.  I like to play female characters.  I don't want to play a male character *just* for romance purposes, especially when I may only play the game once, or I like a female NPC better than the male choices I've been given.  If I do something in game that the NPC doesn't like, that makes them dislike my character, so be it, I'd appreciate that mechanic.  Making the NPC unaccessible solely based on gender, however, seems very arbitrary in the larger scheme of things.

[jlb524]

Fandango9641 wrote...
Did you see my earlier post quoting David with regards his approach to writing Alistair’s romance arc? Do you see how that approach lends itself to a depth of characterisation that wouldn’t be possible (at least without a great deal of extra work) with a hero-sexual cast of characters?

I've seen some modded Male Warden/Alistair romance scenes on youtube.

From that, I don't see why Alistair as written could not be herosexual and that has nothing to do with who his 'intended' audience was but the final product that shows up in game.

Morrigan's the same...I've done the modded Female Warden/Morrigan romance and it seemed to fit rather well (made the final choice interesting and I rather enjoyed playing through it).  Only issue was being referred to as 'he' on occasion and the fact that she offered my female Warden the DR instead of suggesting Alistair do it.

Modifié par jlb524, 01 juin 2012 - 02:34 .