533 réponses à ce sujet

[Cantina]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

wsandista wrote...

I could go for the ball, seems like a very Orlesian thing to do and when in Rome...
Hugs is somehing I haven't really thought of, but it felt strange not to be able to hug certain LIs, Morrigan or Fenris don't seem like the types who would go for that though.

I really wanted to just give Merrill a hug after her Act III quest. She was sobbing so much and I couldn't even console her with a hug while telling her what I did.

I wanted to hug her......with my knife

But I hear you, after the quest "Dissent" with Anders, I so wanted to give him a hug. That and after his "event" in Act 3. I wanted to hug him there too.

I still wish (on the mage side) before the final battle he give me a kiss, but no, no kiss for Hawke. I hope they fix issues like that for Dragon Age 3.

AND of course IF they hand out a tool set and someone fixes that part, I am so uploading that.

[Wulfram]

Hugging Morrigan would be funny

"What is it with this hugging thing? I really do not see what it is supposed to accomplish"
...
"I did not tell you to stop"

[Cantina]

Wulfram wrote...

Hugging Morrigan would be funny

"What is it with this hugging thing? I really do not see what it is supposed to accomplish"
...
"I did not tell you to stop"

LOL!


You know it would be interesting to lets say for example a companion joins your party and that companion is involved with another companion.  It would be interesting IF you could take away one or the other companion.

Ooooo think of the drama, its practically oozing!

[Sutekh]

Cantina wrote...

You know it would be interesting to lets say for example a companion joins your party and that companion is involved with another companion.  It would be interesting IF you could take away one or the other companion.

Ooooo think of the drama, its practically oozing!

Speaking of which, I want the return of break up. But I also want the possibility to resume the relationship. Should take efforts and a lot of work and convincing, though. The more dynamic the romance, the better (and also, I'm a sucker for fluff / angst).

[TEWR]

Wulfram wrote...

Hugging Morrigan would be funny

"What is it with this hugging thing? I really do not see what it is supposed to accomplish"
...
"I did not tell you to stop"

LOL this would be awesome. It'd be even funnier for a Dwarf warden that's hugging her.

[Dave of Canada]

I've said this countless times, and I'll say this to my grave, though I wouldn't mind everybody being bisexual if it basically wasn't a swap of "I love him" and "I love her".

Introduce different conflicts, let the player deal with them in different ways which build characterization rather than simply be there for the player to "feel good".

Example:
You're forced to elope as a FemProtag with the nobleman you love as he was already "sold" to another noblewoman to forge an allegiance to that house and they fear any potential child heir could harm everything. You deal with the consequences of that or just break the relationship off, knowing you love them but can't do it for the sake of everything else.

On the other hand, MaleProtag is viewed simply as an on-the-side deal which doesn't breach the marriage contract, however you might not want to simply be viewed as on-the-side and try to intervene in the marriage / break it off or accept it and deal with your lover's unloving wife.

While I know not everybody would play the content, it would make those who do replay the game experience something new from the same character. Most players find their one "romance" and replay it until the end of the earth, introducing new ways to see the character would be interesting.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 03 mai 2012 - 11:52 .

[wsandista]

jlb524 wrote...

wsandista wrote...
Yes.

Then why is it so bad to forget about versimilitude for the sake of providing more options via a 'herosexual' or 'all bi' romance system?

wsandista wrote... 
I played a broshep in ME3 and I couldn't have Traynor or Garrus as an LI, because that goes against who those characters are. Traynor is a lesbian and nothing can change that because that is just who she is. No character should have their personality tailored to fit how the PC is built(alignment, class, gender, race, etc.).

Again this really has nothing to do with my line of questioning...they didn't have to make Traynor 'exclusive' to one gender and she could have been open to both.

No they didn't have to make Traynor an exclusive to female Shepards, but they wanted to and they did. They didn't have to make Carver or Bethany die in the first 30 minutes of DA2 either but the writers did for their own reasons.
 
It is bad beause it makes the character's base personality dependent on how the PC was built. The character should always start the same independent of the PC before they interact.

Like the point I made earlier is that having every LI be bi marginalizes homosexuality by not including a LI who is only atracted to the same sex and is simply not intrested in PCs of the opposite sex. 

[Red by Full Metal Jacket]

wsandista wrote...
I don't want all bi LIs, I want exclusively gay and lesbian LI's, as well as exclusively straight LIs, as well as LIs that are exclusive due to other factors such as choices and class(and specialization).

Don't count on it.  Too few people would pick it to be worthwhile to code. Cortez and Traynor were probably one-time (failed) experiments.  They recently did a romance poll and Cortez came in last place.  The only LI that got less votes was freaking DIANA ALLERS.

[Cantina]

Sutekh wrote...

Cantina wrote...

You know it would be interesting to lets say for example a companion joins your party and that companion is involved with another companion.  It would be interesting IF you could take away one or the other companion.

Ooooo think of the drama, its practically oozing!

Speaking of which, I want the return of break up. But I also want the possibility to resume the relationship. Should take efforts and a lot of work and convincing, though. The more dynamic the romance, the better (and also, I'm a sucker for fluff / angst).

Yes, I noticed this was a complaint some players had that there was no way to get out of the relationship. I mean I know there was with Anders but that was him breaking up with you.

I think that is one thing Dragon Age 2 lacked compared to Origins. In Origins you had control over the relationship through the whole game. In Dragon Age 2, that control was pretty much removed.

For starters in Origins you could:

*Speak to your romance any time, any place

*Break-up with them at any time

In Dragon Age 2, you had neither of those options. I mean you could technically break-up with the romance but it was not exactly easy. You had to wait until they wanted to speak with you and its not like the option was available to you each time you did speak with them.

Another thing I disliked with the romance in Dragon Age 2, is you had to chose what you wanted to say-carefully. Because in some cases you could only choose two of the options before the conversation ended. Needless to say I spent more time reloading a previous save before the conversation to figure out the best combination of dialogue. It some cases it was nice see the other alternatives, but in most case it sucked.

My point is it should be up to the player when and if they want to speak to their companion. Beyond that the player should have control over what to say no matter how long it takes and finally have the power to end the conversation when they want.

I rather stand there for 15 minutes listening to my (potential)romance talk about his/her past then read about it in a Codex. Takes away that connection feeling to that companion.

Modifié par Cantina, 04 mai 2012 - 12:00 .

[wsandista]

Red by Full Metal Jacket wrote...

wsandista wrote...
I don't want all bi LIs, I want exclusively gay and lesbian LI's, as well as exclusively straight LIs, as well as LIs that are exclusive due to other factors such as choices and class(and specialization).

Don't count on it.  Too few people would pick it to be worthwhile to code. Cortez and Traynor were probably one-time (failed) experiments.  They recently did a romance poll and Cortez came in last place.  The only LI that got less votes was freaking DIANA ALLERS.

DA2 consistently polls lower than DAO, but judging from an interview with David Gaider, DA3 is likely to be closer to DA2. So poll opinion doesn't seem to be making much impact.

Was the poll just for romance, or was it how well-liked the characters were. I didn't romance Cortez, but I thought he was well written and well executed. So while I wouldn't vote for him as "favorite romance", I would for "best new character in ME3".

[Red_Sonja]

Nyoka wrote...

I don't think too much is lost. Ashley is a great multilayered character in ME1. I have no idea how that video makes her lose verosimilitude or anything else for that matter.

Second point - of course it's reasonable to expect for the romanceable characters to be romanceable. That's the whole point about being romanceable. I don't understand why the need to make different characters to do scenes that work perfectly well with my characters. If there is something wrong with the conversation, then ok. But it works, doesn't it? If it works, I see no point in taking away that choice.

I'd rather consider who my character would like according to personality and looks rather than finding out who the game arbitrarily decided to let me romance.

If people are concerned that predefined sexual identity is an important thing that should be depicted in the game for the sake of realism of whatever other reason, fine - make non romanceable NPCs predefined. They're not romanceable anyway so you're not taking away choices from the players. There. You're offering every player the same experience, you're letting them decide if their character would romance this one or that one for their own reasons, instead of deciding for them... and you have sexual identity represented in the game. Perfect, no?

No! The ‘too much is lost’ comment was more of a general point (and one I’ve made several times in this thread already) about the limitations of having party members reinvent  themselves to suit the different ways people want to play. I’m not going to repeat myself.

As for your second point, we’ll have to disagree; I fail to see the value in having each and every romantic option available to a single protagonist over and above actually wanting to get to know (and believe in) them as people. You know, separate from the way I would like them to be for the purposes of sexy sexy?!

As for your line about ‘finding out who the game arbitrarily decided to let you romance’...well it was kind of telling. You really do want to roleplay in a world where you can romance whoever you want don't you? It's the smorgasbord thing again isn't it?  Let’s find out. Say hypothetical DA3 presented an equal number of romantic options to people of every sexual persuasion, but those romances were exclusive to each orientation - would you object and (assuming you do) why?

Modifié par Red_Sonja, 04 mai 2012 - 12:02 .

[Red by Full Metal Jacket]

wsandista wrote...

DA2 consistently polls lower than DAO, but judging from an interview with David Gaider, DA3 is likely to be closer to DA2. So poll opinion doesn't seem to be making much impact.

Was the poll just for romance, or was it how well-liked the characters were. I didn't romance Cortez, but I thought he was well written and well executed. So while I wouldn't vote for him as "favorite romance", I would for "best new character in ME3".

It doesn't make much difference if they go back to Origins, as there were no gay/lesbian romances in DA:O either.  And I'm sure that people liked Cortez as a character, but it doesn't matter as nobody wanted to romance him.  If they do another strictly gay character it will be as a non-romancable squaddie like Varric or Aveline.

[slashthedragon]

Red by Full Metal Jacket wrote...
  If they do another strictly gay character it will be as a non-romancable squaddie like Varric or Aveline.

That would be good.  It seems "off" that the non romanceable characters were seemingly only straight.  (I don't know if there is a term for people who love crossbows).

[jlb524]

wsandista wrote...
It is bad beause it makes the character's base personality dependent on how the PC was built. The character should always start the same independent of the PC before they interact.

You assume there's some sexuality change going on at some point.

wsandista wrote... 
Like the point I made earlier is that having every LI be bi marginalizes homosexuality by not including a LI who is only atracted to the same sex and is simply not intrested in PCs of the opposite sex. 

Not sure how giving my homosexual PC two homosexual romance possibilities (like with DA2) instead of one (DA:O) marginalizes homosexuality.

I think it does the opposite...it says to me that sexuality isn't important and all kinds of gamers deserve a crack at the romances in game.

Seems to be the opposite of marginalizing.

Hey, if you want gay characters...you can always add in non-LI gay NPCs.

Also, I don't know for sure if you understand my original question.

I'm not asking, "why should they add in gay exclusive characters?"

I'm asking, "why should they add in s/s romances (either with gay exclusive characters or bisexual characters) at all?"

Red by Full Metal Jacket wrote...

Don't count on it.  Too few people would pick it to be worthwhile to code. Cortez and Traynor were probably one-time (failed) experiments.  They recently did a romance poll and Cortez came in last place.  The only LI that got less votes was freaking DIANA ALLERS.

I also doubt they'd put as much time/effort into exclusively gay characters as they would for bisexual ones.

The problem Cortez has is Kaidan...most people who want m/m are going to prefer him since he's more familiar (been there since ME1) and is more developed considering he's a full squad mate.

With Traynor, it's Liara.

I won't even be touching the Traynor romance b/c the Liara one just blows it away and I can't 'not' romance her.

Modifié par jlb524, 04 mai 2012 - 12:18 .

[wsandista]

Red by Full Metal Jacket wrote...

wsandista wrote...

DA2 consistently polls lower than DAO, but judging from an interview with David Gaider, DA3 is likely to be closer to DA2. So poll opinion doesn't seem to be making much impact.

Was the poll just for romance, or was it how well-liked the characters were. I didn't romance Cortez, but I thought he was well written and well executed. So while I wouldn't vote for him as "favorite romance", I would for "best new character in ME3".

It doesn't make much difference if they go back to Origins, as there were no gay/lesbian romances in DA:O either.  And I'm sure that people liked Cortez as a character, but it doesn't matter as nobody wanted to romance him.  If they do another strictly gay character it will be as a non-romancable squaddie like Varric or Aveline.

I didn't say they should go back to DAO(although I think they should) I was using how DAO polls better than DA2 yet DA3 is going to be more like DA2 as an example of how much the writers take poll opinon into account.
The main reason I think most people didn't romance Cortez(other than the fact most ME players play a heterosexual broshep) is because many continued the romances they already had going on from ME or ME2. DA3 will almost certainly feature a new protagonist, if so, players will be more likely to romance new characters.

[mousestalker]

slashthedragon wrote...

Red by Full Metal Jacket wrote...
  If they do another strictly gay character it will be as a non-romancable squaddie like Varric or Aveline.

That would be good.  It seems "off" that the non romanceable characters were seemingly only straight.  (I don't know if there is a term for people who love crossbows).

gastraphetephile

Now you know. :innocent:

[slashthedragon]

mousestalker wrote...

slashthedragon wrote...

Red by Full Metal Jacket wrote...
  If they do another strictly gay character it will be as a non-romancable squaddie like Varric or Aveline.

That would be good.  It seems "off" that the non romanceable characters were seemingly only straight.  (I don't know if there is a term for people who love crossbows).

gastraphetephile

Now you know. :innocent:

....awesome.
Thank you!

[wsandista]

jlb524 wrote...

wsandista wrote...
It is bad beause it makes the character's base personality dependent on how the PC was built. The character should always start the same independent of the PC before they interact.

You assume there's some sexuality change going on at some point.

wsandista wrote... 
Like the point I made earlier is that having every LI be bi marginalizes homosexuality by not including a LI who is only atracted to the same sex and is simply not intrested in PCs of the opposite sex. 

Not sure how giving my homosexual PC two homosexual romance possibilities (like with DA2) instead of one (DA:O) marginalizes homosexuality.

I think it does the opposite...it says to me that sexuality isn't important and all kinds of gamers deserve a crack at the romances in game.

Seems to be the opposite of marginalizing.

Hey, if you want gay characters...you can always add in non-LI gay NPCs.

Also, I don't know for sure if you understand my original question.

I'm not asking, "why should they add in gay exclusive characters?"

I'm asking, "why should they add in s/s romances (either with gay exclusive characters or bisexual characters) at all?"

There is a sexuality change if when the PC is male all LIs are attracted to men, but when the Pc is female all LIs are attracted to women. (for herosexual)

There has been NO homosexual LI in DA yet, you can have homosexual relationships, but those are only with bisexual characters not homosexual ones.

I already answered your original question. Again, homosexual relationships should exist so PCs who want them can have them

You responded to that answer with another question and that is what led us here.

Edit: forgot to include disclaimer in first line

Modifié par wsandista, 04 mai 2012 - 12:30 .

[jlb524]

wsandista wrote...
There is a sexuality change if when the PC is male all LIs are attracted to men, but when the Pc is female all LIs are attracted to women.

Not when they are bisexual.

wsandista wrote... 
I already answered your original question. Again, homosexual relationships should exist so PCs who want them can have them

You responded to that answer with another question and that is what led us here.

I also asked 'even if it means someone's versimilitude is ruined'...and you said...'yes'.

Then I asked why it's different with 'all bi' then?  Why not give options even if versimilitude is sacrificed?

It seems odd to give people who want to do homosexual romances limited options when compared to heterosexual ones (like, DA:O).

"Oh you can have romances...just not these special ones over here...those aren't for you."

[Karlone123]

Romance is going to go at a different pace in DA3 then in DA2. Romance in DA2 evolves over the ten year span where as Romance in DA3 is probably going to be more like Romances in DAO only more improved because of the quick pace in the storyline rather then taking the time to get to know each other like in DA2.

[wsandista]

jlb524 wrote...

wsandista wrote...
There is a sexuality change if when the PC is male all LIs are attracted to men, but when the Pc is female all LIs are attracted to women.

Not when they are bisexual.

wsandista wrote... 
I already answered your original question. Again, homosexual relationships should exist so PCs who want them can have them

You responded to that answer with another question and that is what led us here.

I also asked 'even if it means someone's versimilitude is ruined'...and you said...'yes'.

Then I asked why it's different with 'all bi' then?  Why not give options even if versimilitude is sacrificed?

It seems odd to give people who want to do homosexual romances limited options when compared to heterosexual ones (like, DA:O).

"Oh you can have romances...just not these special ones over here...those aren't for you."

There you go again, It seems that you don't like the thought of having LIs with different sexualities. What is your problem with characters who just aren't intrested in both genders? 

Yes certain romances should only be for certain PCs. A male PC should not be able to be in a relationship with a lesbian chracater because she is not intrested in him. A blood mage PC should not have a righteous Templar as an LI. Why is it wrong for possible LIs not to be attracted to the PC?

edited for spelling

Modifié par wsandista, 04 mai 2012 - 12:57 .

[wsandista]

Karlone123 wrote...

Romance is going to go at a different pace in DA3 then in DA2. Romance in DA2 evolves over the ten year span where as Romance in DA3 is probably going to be more like Romances in DAO only more improved because of the quick pace in the storyline rather then taking the time to get to know each other like in DA2.

How is taking the time to get to know each other bad for a romance?

[slashthedragon]

I'd like the ability to hide +/- romance/rivalry points on the screen. For me, it feels too meta--I'm looking to see what triggers a +/- instead of naturally trying to pursue a romance.
Also, I'd like small things, like a companion mentioning that she used to spends hours as a child tending to her rose garden. Then somewhere along the way you find a flower shoppe where you can buy roses for her if you want and/or if you even remember that she mentioned it.

Modifié par slashthedragon, 04 mai 2012 - 01:02 .

[meanieweenie]

wsandista wrote... 

Yes certain romances should only be for certain PCs. A male PC should not be able to be in a relationship with a lesbian chracater because she is not intrested in him. A blood mage PC should not have a righteous Templar as an LI. Why is it wrong for possible LIs not to be attracted to the PC?

edited for spelling

Actually, I agree with this part. I would imagine that being turned down for certain aspects of your PC's make up - not sexual preferance, mind you - would add to the role play aspect. Same as when Alistair said "Sorry, you're not a human noble and I won't marry you. But you can be my side slice."

[jlb524]

wsandista wrote...
There you go again, It seems that you don't like the thought of having LIs with different sexualities. What is your problem with characters who just aren't intrested in both genders? 

I've stated that's it's fine in a setting in which sexuality is an issue and the writers decide to explore those issue via LIs characters with different sexualities.  I don't see the benefit of depicting different sexualities in a setting where it doesn't matter over the benefit of giving people choices.

wsandista wrote... 

Yes certain romances should only be for certain PCs. A male PC should not be able to be in a relationship with a lesbian chracater because she is not intrested in him. A blood mage PC should not have a righteous Templar as an LI. 

You still fail to answer what I asked you and keep going back to this point over and over again. 

This is what I asked:

jlb524 wrote...
I also asked 'even if it means someone's versimilitude is ruined'...and you said...'yes'.

Then I asked why it's different with 'all bi' then?  Why not give options even if versimilitude is sacrificed?

It seems odd to give people who want to do homosexual romances limited options when compared to heterosexual ones (like, DA:O).

"Oh you can have romances...just not these special ones over here...those aren't for you."

You keep saying a male PC shouldn't be able to romance a lesbian character.

Okay.

That's completely unrelated.

wsandista wrote...  
Why is it wrong for possible LIs not to be attracted to the PC?

 

I'm not saying it's wrong...I just don't see the point of limiting LIs (who exist to be romanced in the first place) when it's not needed to depict 'show us something cool' about the story/setting/etc. 

Modifié par jlb524, 04 mai 2012 - 01:44 .