533 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

FieryDove wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

In a game where you can be a blood mage, it would be a bad idea to have a romancable companion who hates blood mages and would kill them on sight. If you're going to have a romancable templar, you make them so they're against blood magic but willing to ether make an exception or become less strict on the matter.

That's common sense.

We had two in DA2 who hated Blood mages. I don't know, perhpas in 3 general NPC's (and companions) will notice if we are a BM or not. Time will tell I guess. Will be interesting if it happens!

But they made an exception for the PC.

[TEWR]

Maria Caliban wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

In a game where you can be a blood mage, it would be a bad idea to have a romancable companion who hates blood mages and would kill them on sight. If you're going to have a romancable templar, you make them so they're against blood magic but willing to ether make an exception or become less strict on the matter.

That's common sense.

We had two in DA2 who hated Blood mages. I don't know, perhpas in 3 general NPC's (and companions) will notice if we are a BM or not. Time will tell I guess. Will be interesting if it happens!

But they made an exception for the PC.

I wouldn't call that "making an exception", considering they never remarked upon it.

I can be a worse blood mage then Merrill, yet neither Fenris nor Anders comment on me being a blood mage.

"Oh you're using our blood Hawke? Go ahead, that's fine! But damn you to the Void Merrill for being a blood mage that uses only your blood for your spells!"

To me, making an exception would consist of some hostility towards Hawke for being a blood mage but over time -- and through effort -- they'll begin to let up.

Of course, this still keeps the dilemma of how they treat Merrill if Hawke is worse. Poor Merrill.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 04 mai 2012 - 08:31 .

[wsandista]

[quote]jlb524 wrote...


Why do you assume an all bi cast will violate 'the premise of the NPC'?

How exactly does that work?[/quote]

When did I say "an all bi cast violates the premise of the NPC"? If you used the example I gave in context I was highlighting a problem I had with the DAO romance system, which was that you cold violate the premise of Leliana(a very devout individual) by still romancing her after you did the most blasphemous thing possible in her religion. "violating the premise of a NPC" is a case-by-case thing not a blanket statement like "having only elves in the party violate the premise of an NPC"

[quote]We aren't talking about a situation where you have a clearly homosexual PC ( "hey, I'm gay and won't date a member of the opposite sex") all of a sudden dating a member of the opposite sex half-way through the game.  I have no idea why you keep bringing that point up over and over again...that's not the same thing as what BW did with DA2.[/quote]

When did I say that Bioware did that in DA2?

Again you took what I've said out of context 

[quote]I don't see how my choice to romance either Isabela or Merrill as a female violated either of their character premises.  If it did, explain how.[/quote]

Again, where dos this come from, have I stated that romancing a bisexual character violated the character premise?


[quote]I don't know why you'd infer that.

My point was, because of the way these things typically work, you will miss out on charcter dev if you do not do a romance with a character (I'm not saying that this shouldn't be the way it works)...however, this isn't an issue with non-LI NPCs.[quote] 

[quote]The only possible problem here is that you'd probably have to romance them to get all their 'gay character development' (that sounds awful) whereas everyone could see 'what it's like to be gay in Thedas' if you use a non-LI that doesn't require following the romance path[/quote]


You state that you can not get all character development from a potential LI unless you romance them. That is why I inferred it that way 


[quote]But you support the DA:O system, no?  I thought you stated that you wanted to go back to that one?[/quote]

I support going back to the DAO system, over the DA2 system yes. The system how romance works, NOT the same number of options or the SAME options. Did I ever say"I wish we had the same number of LIs available as in DAO"? Again, you seem to not be taking what I write in context.

[quote]Then you say things like this:


[quote]wsandista wrote...   
Maybe if they had done a better job to differentiate the romances, people like me who thought that having allbi homogenizes LIs would be warmer to the idea, but it was poorly implemented, IMO.
[/quote]

Were the DA:O Lis homogenized as well to an extent b/c any class could romance Alistair (even Blood Mages) and dwarves could romance anyone, etc?[/quote]

I was referring to the romances in DA2, I thought that was clear, they did feel too similar, they worked at the same pace, and had almost uniform results.

Yes the DAO romances were homogenized in that regard, which is a problem I had. Just because I like DAO better does not mean I believe it is the golden standard.


[quote]I just cannot understand how you can complain about the DA2 romances being subpar b/c they were rushed (and the game was rushed) but then suggest they add in more romance options and more work just to allow for 'diversity' of options (i.e., exclusiveness) when there's no reason to do so within the DA setting.[/quote]

The diversity is for the companions, would you like an all-mage party, how about an all-elf party or all-dwarf party. Why is there no reason to do so in DA?

[quote]Well, if they don't write 'male LI X' as gay but bisexual then we won't have the hypothetical problem you brought up in the last post, now will we?

I don't know why you keep focusing in on this idea that there will be clearly defined homosexual/heterosexual characters that open up to become bisexual due to the players whims and that's why the DA2 system is bad.[/quote]

You seem to not be understanding what I've been saying, the character should always be the same when they first meet the PC. The core of a character, whether it is their sexuality, prejudice, or religious beliefs should not change to fit the PC.

Did you even read anything I wrote? It seems like you keep taking quotes out of context to build some straw-man to beat on. If you are going to call me out on something please make sure you read what I write and take it in context first.

Modifié par wsandista, 04 mai 2012 - 08:52 .

[Maria Caliban]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I wouldn't call that "making an exception", considering they never remarked upon it.

I can be a worse blood mage then Merrill, yet neither Fenris nor Anders comment on me being a blood mage.

"Oh you're using our blood Hawke? Go ahead, that's fine! But damn you to the Void Merrill for being a blood mage that uses only your blood for your spells!"

For you, making an exception needs explicit acknowledgement, for me it's enough that it happens. I suspect part of it is that you're thinking about Fenris as a person, while I'm talking about him as nothing more than the creation of another. If David writes Fenris as hating blood mages but never writes him as hating a PC blood mage, then there's an exception being made though some might view that as an inconsistency.

[wsandista]

Sutekh wrote...

I said nothing about a Templar accepting, let alone approving, demonic craft or human sacrifice to demons or whatever. Actually, when I said "the romance fails", I was thinking about this kind of situation. And it's also why such a romance should be difficult, and not just about clicking hearts or delivering cheesy pick-up lines. If I want my Evil Blood Mage to romance Mr Shiny Templar, I must roleplay the convincing, the seduction, but also accept that if I don't change my Evil Blood Mage ways, it can't work. This romance is interesting because it's difficult and challenging, forbidden and tragic (unless the Templar is Cullen, in which case all bets are off -- just kidding ).

But I can also be a Not-Evil Blood Mage type (not to start a debate on the evilness of Blood Magic, just bear with me), who doesn't possess people unless it's for the greater good, or practice a Dalish type blood magic, like the Vallaslin and such. I could then try to convince my Shiny Templar that Blood Magic isn't inherently evil etc...

Now seeing that we're talking about a computer game, forbidding Templar/Blood Mage would probably be done by checking a flag (PCIsBloodMage) and then blocking all possible romance dialog lines, just because someone has decided that a Blood Mage can never romance a Templar, while I can roleplay it another way.

See? I don't ask for the Templar to become a Blood Mage lover because he bangs me. It takes two to tango, after all

Excellent point, how ever it all depends on the Templar, certain Templars may be more open to accepting BloodMages than others. I guess that having certain situations where the LI could leave you would work out better, like allowing(or even assisting in) a possession. 

The wardens are wardens. Only in Awakening did we ever play an all-wardens team, and I doubt it will be the case in The Next Thing. Characterization-wise, a warden is a warden first, so it makes sense. In a standard team, if you don't accept romance because of ideology, then you shouldn't accept teaming up either because it dilutes the characterisation even more. Without minimal attraction or chemistry - and out of the wardening context - there is absolutely no reason for that teaming to happen at all.

I have to disagree with you, the point I was trying to make is that when a threat is big enough for individuals who hate each other to band together to deal with the threat. Grey Wardens were just the DA example of this. A real world example is when the U.S. worked with the Soviet Union during WW2 to deal with the Axis powers, both nations hated each other yet they put aside their differences to deal with a common foe.

Which is why romance shouldn't be forbidden. Either the NPC evolves, and all si well, or they don't, and the romance fails. But at least, the romantic journey it's still there, even when it led to nothing (or despair and sorrow, depending).

You make a good point, that was actually how I was thinking a Mage-Templar romance would work, with certain factors going against the romance, and it has a chance to fail if the PC does things that go against the core of the LI.

And that leads me to the arbitrary nature of criteria. You think that the paladin should kill the witch. I might not. Maybe my reasons are silly, maybe they're absolutely sound, but what you think shouldn't have any incidence on my game. So, in your game, kill the witch. In my game, I roleplay my witch romance. I might end up choosing duty or end up choosing love. But I should have the choice.

Excellent point, I agree as long as abandoning duty means the PC is no longer a paladin, seeing as a paladin would be compelled to smite any evil, as is the nature of a paladin. The choice to pursue an "incompatible" romance should mean that the PC should have to evolve.

[TEWR]

Maria Caliban wrote...

For you, making an exception needs explicit acknowledgement, for me it's enough that it happens. I suspect part of it is that you're thinking about Fenris as a person, while I'm talking about him as nothing more than the creation of another. If David writes Fenris as hating blood mages but never writes him as hating a PC blood mage, then there's an exception being made though some might view that as an inconsistency.

You'd be correct in that suspicion. So fair enough.

[wsandista]

Double post

Modifié par wsandista, 04 mai 2012 - 08:54 .

[AkiKishi]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

In a game where you can be a blood mage, it would be a bad idea to have a romancable companion who hates blood mages and would kill them on sight. If you're going to have a romancable templar, you make them so they're against blood magic but willing to ether make an exception or become less strict on the matter.

That's common sense.

We had two in DA2 who hated Blood mages. I don't know, perhpas in 3 general NPC's (and companions) will notice if we are a BM or not. Time will tell I guess. Will be interesting if it happens!

But they made an exception for the PC.

I wouldn't call that "making an exception", considering they never remarked upon it.

I can be a worse blood mage then Merrill, yet neither Fenris nor Anders comment on me being a blood mage.

"Oh you're using our blood Hawke? Go ahead, that's fine! But damn you to the Void Merrill for being a blood mage that uses only your blood for your spells!"

To me, making an exception would consist of some hostility towards Hawke for being a blood mage but over time -- and through effort -- they'll begin to let up.

Of course, this still keeps the dilemma of how they treat Merrill if Hawke is worse. Poor Merrill.

Hawke is magic because Templars ask if he's seen any blood mages totally missing the one standing right in front of them, or two if you could Merril.

Nothing quite so stupid as tossing blood magic around in support of the Templars.

Just one of DA2's many problems.

[Sutekh]

wsandista wrote...

Excellent point, how ever it all depends on the Templar, certain Templars may be more open to accepting BloodMages than others. I guess that having certain situations where the LI could leave you would work out better, like allowing(or even assisting in) a possession.

There's a lot to say about possession or any "Evil Thing" used for the greater good  (The Exorcist final scene comes to mind), but I see what you mean and I agree. If I do something unacceptable for my Templar - especially if I know it, since he's my Templar - then it should end there and then.

I have to disagree with you, the point I was trying to make is that when a threat is big enough for individuals who hate each other to band together to deal with the threat. Grey Wardens were just the DA example of this. A real world example is when the U.S. worked with the Soviet Union during WW2 to deal with the Axis powers, both nations hated each other yet they put aside their differences to deal with a common foe.

Indeed, the common enemy is a known trope. But I can't see it working with a companion without altering the NPC personality, or you would have a mandatory 100% rivalry coming. We're talking about people, not nations. Emotions and such would quickly get in the way, IMHO, because it would be personal.

Excellent point, I agree as long as abandoning duty means the PC is no longer a paladin, seeing as a paladin would be compelled to smite any evil, as is the nature of a paladin. The choice to pursue an "incompatible" romance should mean that the PC should have to evolve.

Absolutely. That's part of the fun, actually. Hard choices and their consequences. Plus, what's not to love in a fallen paladin?

[dracuella]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

For you, making an exception needs explicit acknowledgement, for me it's enough that it happens. I suspect part of it is that you're thinking about Fenris as a person, while I'm talking about him as nothing more than the creation of another. If David writes Fenris as hating blood mages but never writes him as hating a PC blood mage, then there's an exception being made though some might view that as an inconsistency.

You'd be correct in that suspicion. So fair enough.

It could be seen as just the way he's written but I'm part of the ones who see it as an inconsistency. Not necessarily deliberate, it could be due to lack of time? Dev. resources? Script? I don't know, I can think of tons of reasons something comes into software in the rough (*cough* my own code *cough*)

Whatever the reason, it's something I, too, would really like to have in DA3: My LI as well as my companions commenting and reacting to me when I act in discordance with their beliefs/views. I was about to write "more comprehensive interaction" but I realised that without elaboration, it didn't necessarily make sense to anyone but myself.

[wsandista]

Sutekh wrote...

Indeed, the common enemy is a known trope. But I can't see it working with a companion without altering the NPC personality, or you would have a mandatory 100% rivalry coming. We're talking about people, not nations. Emotions and such would quickly get in the way, IMHO, because it would be personal.

Of course there would be friction among the individual who the PC has a problem with, diffusing the situations that pop up between the PC and that character can be a great challenge and I think that adds to the roleplaying experience. There should be at least one situation that can result in you having to kill them(or at least they leave the party) as well as the option to reject the character from entering the party.

Modifié par wsandista, 04 mai 2012 - 10:03 .

[MILK FOR THE KHORNE FLAKES]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I wouldn't call that "making an exception", considering they never remarked upon it.

I can be a worse blood mage then Merrill, yet neither Fenris nor Anders comment on me being a blood mage.

"Oh you're using our blood Hawke? Go ahead, that's fine! But damn you to the Void Merrill for being a blood mage that uses only your blood for your spells!"

For you, making an exception needs explicit acknowledgement, for me it's enough that it happens. I suspect part of it is that you're thinking about Fenris as a person, while I'm talking about him as nothing more than the creation of another. If David writes Fenris as hating blood mages but never writes him as hating a PC blood mage, then there's an exception being made though some might view that as an inconsistency.

IT'S NOT LIKE THE LACK OF DIALOGUE OPTIONS RE: PC BLOOD MAGIC WAS A DESIGN DECISION OR ANYTHING. APPARENTLY (I FORGET THE EXACT INTERVIEW) THE RELEVANT DIALOGUE WAS WRITTEN BEFORE THE GAME DESIGN END HAD SETTLED ON HAVING BLOOD MAGE AS A SPEC AT ALL. IN A RECENT INTERVIEW, LAIDLAW GAIDER ET. AL HAVE CONFIRMED THAT PEOPLE WILL REACT TO PC BLOOD MAGIC IN [UNNAMED FUTURE DRAGON AGE GAME.]

[Tirigon]

FieryDove wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Red_Sonja wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

rapscallioness wrote...

I just hope they go back to a more DA:O type of AListar / DOG/Warden romance. I thought that was really well done. It progressed and shifted throughout the game.

From what I know of the BW games, I do believe that was one of, if not the best, romance subplot I've seen.

Fixed.

And again.

Fixed back.

No no no! Now its fixed!

Bestiality'd.

Also fixwar.

[Tirigon]

BobSmith101 wrote...

In response to your answer.... What happens if you don't like Liara ?

Then it is a truly sad thing because you miss out on a character that is both great and purely fanservice.

But unless you hate her exclusively for being fanservice, even though you like her otherwise, it doesnt matter.

[Kidd]

Sutekh wrote...

If I do something unacceptable for my Templar - especially if I know it, since he's my Templar - then it should end there and then.

Haha these words inspired me to write the sappiest scenario I've ever written. Enjoy =D
http://pastebin.com/RUtipi3G

[dracuella]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Sutekh wrote...
If I do something unacceptable for my Templar - especially if I know it, since he's my Templar - then it should end there and then.

Haha these words inspired me to write the sappiest scenario I've ever written. Enjoy =D
http://pastebin.com/RUtipi3G

Poor templar! I could never go against my LI that way! Battle him/her to the death?! No no no, that cannot be. I was all "NUUUUUU" when I read the "was it worth it" part :'<

Good stuff, though! 

[Kidd]

dracuella wrote...

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

Sutekh wrote...
If I do something unacceptable for my Templar - especially if I know it, since he's my Templar - then it should end there and then.

Haha these words inspired me to write the sappiest scenario I've ever written. Enjoy =D
http://pastebin.com/RUtipi3G

Poor templar! I could never go against my LI that way! Battle him/her to the death?! No no no, that cannot be. I was all "NUUUUUU" when I read the "was it worth it" part :'<

Good stuff, though! 

Thanks =)

As for the whole thing about refusing to duel LIs, well I quite agree. It's great when such things happen though. I remember I just wanted to see how things turned out if you defiled the ashes, and I did so on a run where I romanced Leliana. Not only did she turn hostile and face off with my rogue, my damn character got a finishing blow on her and cut her head off =S It felt hoooorrible XD Reloaded~~

I can see some people could enjoy continue playing after such a thing though. Talk about giving your playthrough some spice =)

[brushyourteeth]

So, something that Mr. Gaider said in Part 1 of this thread just caught my eye and I'd like to resurrect it if I could. I'll quote the part I'm interested in but you can find proof of it here.

[quote] David Gaider wrote...
What this tells me, however, is that you liked the Alistair romance and disliked the Anders romance-- and yet used a single example to paint all the romances as if they were the same.

It's odd, too, because one of the points you brought up was how static "DA2 romances" were-- and yet Anders is actually the worst example of that, considering the character arc he has over the course of the game and how it can change based on his friendship/rivalry. Alistair is the least static of DAO romances, meanwhile, but only because he's the one most strongly tied into the main plot. You decide his fate in the end, but the amount you can actually change him is quite limited... and the other romance characters far less so. So generalizations based on these two examples don't really hold up.

An argument can be made that romances are better when they're tied to the main plot more strongly... but while that does allow a romance to be larger (Alistair was easily twice the content of the other characters in DAO), that does mean less of them. Great, you say? Sure... if you like Alistair. If one's recommendation is that romances should have more, more, more of everything... MORE conversations! MORE sex scenes! MORE interactions! MORE nuances!... I'm not saying you're actually proposing this yourself, but it's an attitude I see quite often here, and I doubt we'll ever reach the level of simulation that these people keep suggesting. Not without romance being the focus of the game.

And if one's suggestion is that, because they like Alistair, we should just keep doing that and only that-- repeatedly-- well, I'm glad they like Alistair so much. But that's really all I'll say about it.

I've mentioned elsewhere about some of the changes insofar as character/romance interactions go, but the answer is not just heaping more content onto them. Or, at least, that's not a realistic answer that I can actually consider.[/quote]

Without any snark at all, I'd like to ask the question "why not"? Why can't there simply be more content involved in our romances in DAIII? I realize that this is content that may not be universal across a single playthough because certain scenes or cuts of dialogue would be limited to a romance, but some can be adapted to just a strong friendship. I can hear that Mr. Gaider is frustrated when he says that some fans just want



[quote]more, more, more of everything... MORE conversations! MORE sex scenes! MORE interactions! MORE nuances!...[/quote]Guilty. I just want more. More content, more dialogue, more time for the relationship to develop (and not time-skip time, I mean explorable emotional ground-cover). Is that really so bad?

I realize this has challenges to implementation, but I'm far from the first fan to hope for it. If it was done with Alistair in DA:O (and it was great to hear Mr. Gaider say he had more content, because it always felt that way in DA:O and that's why I always ended up kicking myself if I romanced anyone different) - then why can't it be done again in DAIII? Why can't it be done for more love interests in DAIII? I mean, that's what sequels do, right? - they take what stood out as fantastic in a game and make it even better.

It wasn't just Alistair's character (though he is amazing, Mr. Gaider - I hope you take a bow every day for writing him) that made his romance special, it was the level of depth that we were able to reach with him. I *almost* felt like I was there with Zevran. Morrigan too. I can't speak for anyone else, but if they're feeling what I'm feeling it's that flirting twice and having sex doesn't make a great romance. I felt like that was what I got in DAII. My intention isn't to insult, but simply to be honest. Those pivotal years of the growth from friend to lover were lost in the shuffle from acts one to two and I felt like we never regained that ground again - it simply happened behind the curtain of "probably."

It sounds Mr. Gaider like you believe you guys have a great reason for not reaching that level of depth again. I'd be super open and interested to hear it. In the meantime, if I'm guilty of fan-greed, I hope you know that it's just because I'm a fan of the Bioware writing team and too much will never be enough for me.[/quote]

Modifié par brushyourteeth, 07 mai 2012 - 09:26 .

[wsandista]

[quote]brushyourteeth wrote...

So, something that Mr. Gaider said in Part 1 of this thread just caught my eye and I'd like to resurrect it if I could. I'll quote the part I'm interested in but you can find proof of it here.

[quote] David Gaider wrote...
What this tells me, however, is that you liked the Alistair romance and disliked the Anders romance-- and yet used a single example to paint all the romances as if they were the same.

It's odd, too, because one of the points you brought up was how static "DA2 romances" were-- and yet Anders is actually the worst example of that, considering the character arc he has over the course of the game and how it can change based on his friendship/rivalry. Alistair is the least static of DAO romances, meanwhile, but only because he's the one most strongly tied into the main plot. You decide his fate in the end, but the amount you can actually change him is quite limited... and the other romance characters far less so. So generalizations based on these two examples don't really hold up.

An argument can be made that romances are better when they're tied to the main plot more strongly... but while that does allow a romance to be larger (Alistair was easily twice the content of the other characters in DAO), that does mean less of them. Great, you say? Sure... if you like Alistair. If one's recommendation is that romances should have more, more, more of everything... MORE conversations! MORE sex scenes! MORE interactions! MORE nuances!... I'm not saying you're actually proposing this yourself, but it's an attitude I see quite often here, and I doubt we'll ever reach the level of simulation that these people keep suggesting. Not without romance being the focus of the game.

And if one's suggestion is that, because they like Alistair, we should just keep doing that and only that-- repeatedly-- well, I'm glad they like Alistair so much. But that's really all I'll say about it.

I've mentioned elsewhere about some of the changes insofar as character/romance interactions go, but the answer is not just heaping more content onto them. Or, at least, that's not a realistic answer that I can actually consider.[/quote]

Without any snark at all, I'd like to ask the question "why not"? Why can't there simply be more content involved in our romances in DAIII? I realize that this is content that may not be universal across a single playthough because certain scenes or cuts of dialogue would be limited to a romance, but some can be adapted to just a strong friendship. I can hear that Mr. Gaider is frustrated when he says that some fans just want



[quote]more, more, more of everything... MORE conversations! MORE sex scenes! MORE interactions! MORE nuances!...[/quote]Guilty. I just want more. More content, more dialogue, more time for the relationship to develop (and not time-skip time, I mean explorable emotional ground-cover). Is that really so bad?

I realize this has challenges to implementation, but I'm far from the first fan to hope for it. If it was done with Alistair in DA:O (and it was great to hear Mr. Gaider say he had more content, because it always felt that way in DA:O and that's why I always ended up kicking myself if I romanced anyone different) - then why can't it be done again in DAIII? Why can't it be done for more love interests in DAIII? I mean, that's what sequels do, right? - they take what stood out as fantastic in a game and make it even better.

It wasn't just Alistair's character (though he is amazing, Mr. Gaider - I hope you take a bow every day for writing him) that made his romance special, it was the level of depth that we were able to reach with him. I *almost* felt like I was there with Zevran. Morrigan too. I can't speak for anyone else, but if they're feeling what I'm feeling it's that flirting twice and having sex doesn't make a great romance. I felt like that was what I got in DAII. My intention isn't to insult, but simply to be honest. Those pivotal years of the growth from friend to lover were lost in the shuffle from acts one to two and I felt like we never regained that ground again - it simply happened behind the curtain of "probably."

It sounds Mr. Gaider like you believe you guys have a great reason for not reaching that level of depth again. I'd be super open and interested to hear it. In the meantime, if I'm guilty of fan-greed, I hope you know that it's just because I'm a fan of the Bioware writing team and too much will never be enough for me.[/quote][/quote]

Well, I wouldn't call it "fan greed" to want a high-quality game. You do pay for the game, which if brand new runs about $60(sorry to those outside of US, I don't know cost of games anywhere else). If you live in Texas(or any other state with low-minimum wage) $60 is quite a bit of money. So wanting the most for your money isn't greed, it is being a smart consumer.

[hoorayforicecream]

brushyourteeth wrote...

Without any snark at all, I'd like to ask the question "why not"? Why can't there simply be more content involved in our romances in DAIII? I realize that this is content that may not be universal across a single playthough because certain scenes or cuts of dialogue would be limited to a romance, but some can be adapted to just a strong friendship. I can hear that Mr. Gaider is frustrated when he says that some fans just want

They have a limited number of zots dedicated to romances. If you have more content for each, you have to cut somewhere. That means fewer overall romances.

There are X total zots. They spend A, B, C, D zots (roughly the same number) on companions M, N, O and P, where X = A + B + C + D. If you want to double the amount of zots per romance (or anything, really), you have to halve the number of romances because X isn't going to change.

[Maria Caliban]

I wouldn't mind BioWare going back to one male and one female romance.

[Zack_Nero]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I wouldn't mind BioWare going back to one male and one female romance.

I wouldn't mind that either, but if it is going same-sex it be nice to see a unique story path, help to make it feel special

[mesmerizedish]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I wouldn't mind BioWare going back to one male and one female romance.

Obviously, the chances of finding a romance I enjoy are greater with more options. But, I have loved every female romance in DA so far. So I doubt I would mind this.

[mousestalker]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

Without any snark at all, I'd like to ask the question "why not"? Why can't there simply be more content involved in our romances in DAIII? I realize that this is content that may not be universal across a single playthough because certain scenes or cuts of dialogue would be limited to a romance, but some can be adapted to just a strong friendship. I can hear that Mr. Gaider is frustrated when he says that some fans just want

They have a limited number of zots dedicated to romances. If you have more content for each, you have to cut somewhere. That means fewer overall romances.

There are X total zots. They spend A, B, C, D zots (roughly the same number) on companions M, N, O and P, where X = A + B + C + D. If you want to double the amount of zots per romance (or anything, really), you have to halve the number of romances because X isn't going to change.

Clearly they should devote less zots to those who obsess over other people having or not having hot gay sex and spend them on dwarven or elven romantic companions. The dwarves especially have been shorted in the romance department.

[wsandista]

mousestalker wrote...


Clearly they should devote less zots to those who obsess over other people having or not having hot gay sex and spend them on dwarven or elven romantic companions. The dwarves especially have been shorted in the romance department.

Or they could make every companion an LI