533 réponses à ce sujet

[Red_Sonja]

Cantina wrote...

Red_Sonja wrote...

wsandista wrote...

I like the idea of having exclusive romances(not just by sex, but by choices, race, and class BTW). It just seems strange that the PC can get whoever they want, even if they are completely incompatible(Anders and Templar-supporting Hawke comes to mind). l also would like to see the PC being rejected once in a while.

Agreed. I’d like to see relationships in DA3 factor in things like religion, race, gender and class. I guess specialisations could play a part also (thinking specifically about blood magic). Anything that adds variety and depth to that dynamic would be of great value to me.

Hmm, wouldn't religion be a bit of an issue to incorporate? I mean its not like Neverwinter Nights, to were there is a variety of religious options.

Unless you want to toss in the Old Gods too.

Oh I don’t know, something along the lines of having to believe in the Maker to float a Li’s boat or whatever. Having a religious LI would offer a pretty good opportunity to shed a little more light on the theology of Thedas. I dig it.

[upsettingshorts]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
I'm guessing I'm the only one that wants to see the neutral presentation of a love story and has no interest in playing Dragon Age: Dating Sim....

Any thread about the romances is implicitly a discussion over a small amount of ingame content.  That people have strong opinions about it is nothing new.

But what do you mean by a "neutral presentation of a love story" and in what way is that different from "Dragon Age: Dating Sim?"

I don't want a simulation of a growing romance through extended interaction/gift exchange/what-have-you. Just write a love story and let me view it. This can include dialog, and it can include multiple options for the romantic interest. I'm saying I don't want it to be a mini-game, of any kind.

It seems to me that almost everyone interested in these romantic intersts as DA mini-games.

Not really.  I mean, Friendmance vs. Rivalmance doesn't really count as one does it?  All it does is give you, effectively, two different romances to play through depending on your character.

I mean sure there's gift giving but it was seriously toned down in DA2.

What's the difference between "extended interaction" and a love story you can view?

[Cantina]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Mmw04014 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

And I do think that having romances be tied to race, class, and more importantly choices should happen. If I'm pro-mage yet anti-possession, Anders shouldn't hate me for that and lump me in as a pro-Templar ****. He needs to recognize the distinction.

You know I was wondering this about DA2. I'm planning to play a character who is pro mage but will rival Anders. which I'd never done before, and I was wondering if he'd mention the difference in his questioning beliefs. Based on this, I'm assuming he doesn't?

He doesn't. He thinks you're supporting the Templars, even if you took him on a few pro-mage quests you do.

Some people chalk it up to him being crazy, which works. I just chalk it up to bad implementation of the romance aspect that doesn't recognize the permutations that can exist.

It's why I couldn't Rival Anders anymore and be pro-mage.

Hell, I was tempted to rival romance, Anders just for curiosity. However after digging into it before doing it, I did not like the fact the game did not recognize I was not supporting the Templars. So I threw that idea out the window. Plus to me personally Anders seems happier when your friends with him and I like Anders being happy.

Sides its not like if you rival him the end game changes. I rather be his friend and support him, then be his mother and see him be pissy all the time.

[Dakota Strider]

Mmw04014 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

And I do think that having romances be tied to race, class, and more importantly choices should happen. If I'm pro-mage yet anti-possession, Anders shouldn't hate me for that and lump me in as a pro-Templar ****. He needs to recognize the distinction.

You know I was wondering this about DA2. I'm planning to play a character who is pro mage but will rival Anders. which I'd never done before, and I was wondering if he'd mention the difference in his questioning beliefs. Based on this, I'm assuming he doesn't?

I also believe that companion reactions to the protagonist, cannot be metagamed away, by not including a companion on a quest, because you know that he/she will have an adverse reaction to the choices you make.  Do we believe that if you choose to turn a mage over to the Templars, that the party members not with you at that moment, will not find out about it later?  

Make all rivalry/friendship points gained affect all party members, whether or not they are with you at the time of the decision.

It will obviously lead to situations where some companions will like you more than others, some may outright hate your guts.  But it is much more realistic, than using a simple game device to avoid the consequences of your actions. 

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 02 mai 2012 - 06:59 .

[wsandista]

Cantina wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Cantina wrote...

Red_Sonja wrote...

wsandista wrote...

I like the idea of having exclusive romances(not just by sex, but by choices, race, and class BTW). It just seems strange that the PC can get whoever they want, even if they are completely incompatible(Anders and Templar-supporting Hawke comes to mind). l also would like to see the PC being rejected once in a while.

Agreed. I’d like to see relationships in DA3 factor in things like religion, race, gender and class. I guess specialisations could play a part also (thinking specifically about blood magic). Anything that adds variety and depth to that dynamic would be of great value to me.

Hmm, wouldn't religion be a bit of an issue to incorporate? I mean its not like Neverwinter Nights, to were there is a variety of religious options.

Unless you want to toss in the Old Gods too.

Pro-Chantry or Anti-Chantry, would be good to implement, IMO

That's a good route to go.

But what if you don't have an opinon on the matter. Maybe you just don't care, or maybe your some strange human who worships the Creators or choses to follow the Dwarven Ancestors...LOL!

Anti-Chantry could mean atheist or heathen(in this case I mean non-chantry religion)

[Rinji the Bearded]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I don't want a simulation of a growing romance through extended interaction/gift exchange/what-have-you. Just write a love story and let me view it. This can include dialog, and it can include multiple options for the romantic interest. I'm saying I don't want it to be a mini-game, of any kind.

It seems to me that almost everyone interested in these romantic intersts as DA mini-games.

While I can agree that the romances or even approval shouldn't hinge on the number of gifts you give to them, like how Morrigan's friendship played out for many players in DA:O, the romances are not presented as a "mini-game."  The dialogue choices are presented just as any other choices/dialogue are in the game, but the romance dialogue is an optional branch that the player can follow to pursue a different kind of relationship with a character.

I do hate the "romance sim" accusation because that would be making the assumption that the romance content is the most developed content and the most important.  In actuality, it's a very small sliver of content that a group of people happen to enjoy.  If it were really a dating sim, the story would present itself much, much differently (as in, there wouldn't be a story outside the romance, and you wouldn't be able to finish the story without romancing one of the options).

[TEWR]

In an effort to remake my post on why I feel the all bi approach shouldn't be done in the future, I'd like to... well... remake my post.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

You misunderstand.  What typically happens is:

I read an argument against bisexual romances in Dragon Age.  Some are transparently and unapologetically homophobic, we can agree that neither of us are defending those.  Some display a poorly disguised discomfort with bisexuality or homosexuality, such as "I don't like that he could be romancing another man in someone else's game," you can see how those are problematic, too, I take it.  Some are incredibly vague and assert that there are problems with the bisexual approach and claim there is some inherent superiority to another approach.  The latter group of posts is the one I'm talking about.  

When those posters get into a long discussion over precisely what they mean when they say how much better a straight/gay approach is, my impressions are without exception uniformly as I've described.  As such, I have come to expect more of the same.  It would be prejudicial to always assume this to be the case, I'll freely admit that, but given that posters have consistently failed to convince me otherwise it's not a position I'll easily abandon just because some people indignantly protest as I side-eye them.  If you want to convince me, convince me, don't try to make me feel bad because I've heard the same thing countless times and have drawn conclusions.

It's an issue for everyone.  On these boards new arguments are rare.   People pick up on what each other has been saying and repeat arguments, consciously or unconsciously, and if you hang around long enough the patterns become pretty easy to spot.  You have a few posters who come here often enough that they set the tone of discussion, the boundaries, the definitions of terms, and broad arguments.  It doesn't take very long for all the threads and posts to start feeling familiar.  

I'd like to take a shot at giving a halfway decent reason why I think the all bi LIs approach shouldn't be done in the future. More then likely, it'll just be me saying what would make me accept it, rather then why I think it's a bad idea.

But suffice to say, I think it damages the... versimilitude I guess? I dunno. That doesn't mean I think it's a bad idea nor does it mean I can't accept it.

But things outside of the player's companions would need to happen to make me feel that it's not bisexuality for the sake of bisexuality, but rather that the companions are bisexual because they're bisexual.

I do however think that not all romances should be bisexual. While that certainly allows for more options -- and if it continued to happen I wouldn't be upset, though I wouldn't care for the design choice itself -- I do want there to be a balance between the romance types.

Having a predominantly bisexual cast of romances kinda offsets everything.

Now, if the companions will always remain bisexual, there should be two things methinks:

1) NPC romances of a different nature. Gay, straight, or bi. That way, it doesn't seem like Thedas is just a hive-mind of bisexuality. Not that it's a bad thing to be bisexual, but it would personally strain my credulity. I don't mean "PC is married to NPC and they have babies", but rather casual flings that can happen. Of course, I wouldn't object to the former if it were to happen. But I doubt it would. I miss being able to romance NPCs depending on what gender I was.

2) Better gender differences other then a paltry "He said/She said".

3) no PC sexuality.

I mean, it wouldn't really mesh well for Thedas if I came across an entire clan of Elves that were bisexual or gay/lesbian. Not because it's a bad thing to be bisexual, but because they want to make sure that the Elves don't die out.

So if they were all -- or predominantly -- gay/lesbian/bisexual, that would seem like it's being done for the sake of bisexuality, rather then because it makes sense for the clan.

Now, this hasn't happened yet. And I'm not saying it will happen. It's purely an illustrative example.

But... this isn't exactly stuff pertaining to why bisexual LIs shouldn't happen, but rather just how all sexual orientation things should and shouldn't happen.

I don't know... I'm not against all bisexual LIs, but I'm not for it either. And I can't really give a good explanation why right now. Maybe if I generate a few responses I can think it out better.

Hopefully this didn't come off as homophobic, but I have a strong feeling it did. And that makes me sad, because I'm not a homophobe.

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Not really.  I mean, Friendmance vs. Rivalmance doesn't really count as one does it?  All it does is give you, effectively, two different romances to play through depending on your character.

I mean sure there's gift giving but it was seriously toned down in DA2.

What's the difference between "extended interaction" and a love story you can view?

DAII may have the better set-up, in this way. Extended interaction is the need to go through dialog options and hit the right ones, or to keep raising approval (or rivalry) before anything opens up. I'd prefer a simple selection. It doesn't need to be anything terribly blunt, just a decision point where you establish which character is the romantic interest. Then the story continues in its various stages from there. Without the consistent need of maintenance from the player, other than initiating dialog.

RinjiRenee wrote...
I do hate the "romance sim" accusation because that would be making the assumption that the romance content is the most developed content and the most important.

There are players asking for the ability to go on a dinner date wtih the character. A la ME3. <_<

I wouldn't mind seeing this kind of thing scripted. I dislike the idea of it functioning as a reward for playing the "correct" way.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 02 mai 2012 - 07:10 .

[TEWR]

Dakota Strider wrote...

I also believe that companion reactions to the protagonist, cannot be metagamed away, by not including a companion on a quest, because you know that he/she will have an adverse reaction to the choices you make.  Do we believe that if you choose to turn a mage over to the Templars, that the party members not with you at that moment, will not find out about it later?  

Make all rivalry/friendship points gained affect all party members, whether or not they are with you at the time of the decision.

It will obviously lead to situations where some companions will like you more than others, some may outright hate your guts.  But it is much more realistic, than using a simple game device to avoid the consequences of your actions. 

Awakening had this, to a very small degree. If you recruited people but they weren't in your party and you did something they wouldn't like, you'd still lose approval.

I'm not sure if it was a bug or intentional. But it was there.

[upsettingshorts]

@The Ethereal Writer Redux:  It falls more into the whole "why does a host of bisexual LIs break versimilitude, yet any number of unrealistic things in the game do not" folder, does it not? That's not essentially homophobic, but I don't really get why it's a big deal.  Perhaps you can explain further.

Like David Gaider was saying, Isabela excepted because her sexuality is important to her character, you as a player can interpret the other romances as being alternatively straight, gay, or bisexual:

Isabela is basically canonically bisexual. No room to imagine out of that one.
Anders has a gay relationship he may or may not tell you about. Depends how easily the player can ignore alternative options like the Karl comments to Male Hawke.
Fenris does not mention his sexual history in any way, but can sleep with Isabela. This doesn't take place if the player romances him, though.
Merrill does not mention her sexuality in any way I can recall, but does flirt with Carver. She seems completely open to imaginative interpretation.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 mai 2012 - 07:05 .

[Rinji the Bearded]

the_one_54321 wrote...

RinjiRenee wrote...
I do hate the "romance sim" accusation because that would be making the assumption that the romance content is the most developed content and the most important.

There are players asking for the ability to go on a dinner date wtih the character. A la ME3. <_<

I wouldn't mind seeing this kind of thing scripted. I dislike the idea of it functioning as a reward for playing the "correct" way.

So?  A few people ask for a bit more relationship/character-building scenes?  People in love can and will go on dates, it is known.  The purpose of things like this is ultimately for more character development for people who took the options. I don't think anyone asking for additional content is asking for the story to hinge on their date. I'm also not sure how this is punishing players who choose not to romance anyone, as romances are always presented as optional content.  Heck, in ME3, you went on friend dates with some of the squadmates.

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 02 mai 2012 - 07:07 .

[the_one_54321]

RinjiRenee wrote...
So?  A few people ask for a bit more relationship/character-building scenes?  People in love can and will go on dates, it is known.

And I'm not interested in Dating Sim mini-games. Like I said.

[Rinji the Bearded]

the_one_54321 wrote...

RinjiRenee wrote...
So?  A few people ask for a bit more relationship/character-building scenes?  People in love can and will go on dates, it is known.

And I'm not interested in Dating Sim mini-games. Like I said.

So... don't... do them...?  The game will continue on without it.  And there's that Dating Sim accusation again, *sigh*.

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 02 mai 2012 - 07:11 .

[the_one_54321]

RinjiRenee wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

RinjiRenee wrote...
So?  A few people ask for a bit more relationship/character-building scenes?  People in love can and will go on dates, it is known.

And I'm not interested in Dating Sim mini-games. Like I said.

So... don't... do them...?  And there's that Dating Sim accusation again, *sigh*.

What you just described is a dating simulation.

I like the romance stories. I'd prefer that they not also be dating simulations.

[Darth Krytie]

Whatever negatives are inherent in the "everyone's bi" system, in my opinion, are negated by the fact that I'd love to not be pigeonholed into any particular romance based on sexuality alone. I'd like to be able to romance the character I liked best.



I think I'd enjoy if the player choosing to do a, b, or c can preclude you from getting a romance with a character. I think that makes sense. Though, I did enjoy rivalmances. Still, there's got to be non-starters with characters.

I'd also like to be able to randomly cuddle or not go from "intense convo" to "intense convo" to "sex before we all go on our suicide mission" romance line.

Modifié par Darth Krytie, 02 mai 2012 - 07:13 .

[Mmw04014]

the_one_54321 wrote...

There are players asking for the ability to go on a dinner date wtih the character. A la ME3. <_<

I wouldn't mind seeing this kind of thing scripted. I dislike the idea of it functioning as a reward for playing the "correct" way.

I have no problem with a date scene as long as it was all dialogue. It could provide good characterization and relationship building. I wouldn't want it to be a reward, but I think it would be a good way to progress the romance in a natural way. The only way it would be a problem if you had to go out to buy an outfit or pick which dinner you want to eat and if you pick wrong you fail, etc.. That would be weird, but I don't think it would ever happen.

[the_one_54321]

Mmw04014 wrote...
I have no problem with a date scene as long as it was all dialogue. It could provide good characterization and relationship building. I wouldn't want it to be a reward, but I think it would be a good way to progress the romance in a natural way. The only way it would be a problem if you had to go out to buy an outfit or pick which dinner you want to eat and if you pick wrong you fail, etc.. That would be weird, but I don't think it would ever happen.

I agree with everything except the bold.

It's been sounding to me like there's a lot of players that would enjoy that kind of thing. And that worries me. Talk about completely breaking the tone of the game.

[mousestalker]

1. I do like dating sim mini games. To be honest, I could do with less violence and more romance.

2. What would be really awesome is an enemy agent type as a romance. Betrayal by your LI could make for some excellent gaming moments.

3. Could y'all give the whole bi/gay/straight thing a rest for a while? Given that the last thread consisted of people gnawing over the same gristly bones repeatedly why not discuss other aspects, at least for a bit?

[Rinji the Bearded]

the_one_54321 wrote...

What you just described is a dating simulation.

I like the romance stories. I'd prefer that they not also be dating simulations.

The objective of DA games is to take part in the world-changing events and to witness the world of Thedas, not to get laid.   You do not have to romance someone to complete the game.  So, no, Dragon Age is not and never will be a dating sim.  Romance elements do not necessarily equal a dating sim.

Generalization is never a compelling argument.

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 02 mai 2012 - 07:17 .

[upsettingshorts]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I like the romance stories. I'd prefer that they not also be dating simulations.

Arbitrary distinction is arbitrary.

Rinji's distinction on the other hand makes sense.

[the_one_54321]

RinjiRenee wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
What you just described is a dating simulation.

I like the romance stories. I'd prefer that they not also be dating simulations.

The objective of DA games is to take part in the world-changing events and to witness the world of Thedas, not to get laid.   You do not have to romance someone to complete the game.  So, no, Dragon Age is not and never will be a dating sim.  Romance elements do not necessarily equal a dating sim.

Generalization is never a compelling argument.

Mini-game.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
I like the romance stories. I'd prefer that they not also be dating simulations.

Arbitrary distinction is arbitrary.

Rinji's distinction on the other hand makes sense.

And when did I claim I wasn't being arbitrary? I said "I like this, but I don't like that." I have no illusions of there being a superior argument in this. I'm expressing my preferences.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 02 mai 2012 - 07:19 .

[wsandista]

the_one_54321 wrote...

RinjiRenee wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

RinjiRenee wrote...
So?  A few people ask for a bit more relationship/character-building scenes?  People in love can and will go on dates, it is known.

And I'm not interested in Dating Sim mini-games. Like I said.

So... don't... do them...?  And there's that Dating Sim accusation again, *sigh*.

What you just described is a dating simulation.

I like the romance stories. I'd prefer that they not also be dating simulations.

If I may butt in...

@RenjiRenee the reason I do not want what "relationship/character-builidng scenes" is the same reason I do not want an arena or multiplayer mode: it will take the focus on what I buy DA games for, a role-playing expierence. It'senough for me to know that my PC and their LI are having sex, I don't need to see scens for it, I'm more intrested in the story of the romance. Before you jump on me I don't mean that all you want is to see sex scenes, I just didn't know how to slip "date scene" into the statement without it reading awkwardly.

[Red_Sonja]

So is Anders’ Karl conversation exclusive to the gay relationship path? Moreover, is Anders sexuality actually determined by the gender I choose to play? If so that’s a shame and an argument in support of having LI's with a single, clearly defined, sexual preference.

[upsettingshorts]

Red_Sonja wrote...

So is Anders’ Karl conversation exclusive to the gay relationship path? Moreover, is Anders sexuality actually determined by the gender I choose to play? If so that’s a shame and an argument in support of having LI's with a single, clearly defined, sexual preference.

Word of God says that Anders is always bisexual, but since he doesn't mention Karl to FemHawke players are free to pretend otherwise.

(Source, source)

Considering how often people headcanon bigger things, that doesn't seem like much of a stretch.

Also, why is it a shame?  In what tangible ways is Anders' undermined by his bisexuality?  In what tangible ways would having a "defined sexual preference" have improved his character?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 mai 2012 - 07:21 .

[Rinji the Bearded]

the_one_54321 wrote...

RinjiRenee wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
What you just described is a dating simulation.

I like the romance stories. I'd prefer that they not also be dating simulations.

The objective of DA games is to take part in the world-changing events and to witness the world of Thedas, not to get laid.   You do not have to romance someone to complete the game.  So, no, Dragon Age is not and never will be a dating sim.  Romance elements do not necessarily equal a dating sim.

Generalization is never a compelling argument.

Mini-game.

It is not a mini-game unless you also consider all dialogue options and persuasion-checks and what not to also be a mini-game.

the_one_54321 wrote...
And when did I claim I wasn't being arbitrary? I said "I like this, but I don't like that." I have no illusions of there being a superior argument in this. I'm expressing my preferences.

Your preference is for there to be no dialogue choices in the game, am I correct?

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 02 mai 2012 - 07:22 .