96 réponses à ce sujet

[Esbatty]

I'm still waiting on the Flemeth "Romance".

[Lenimph]

Esbatty wrote...

I'm still waiting on the Flemeth "Romance".

Me too 

[Maria Caliban]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

There's nobody sane to romance in DA ][, anyway (imo, of course. For a human who likes humans).

Isabela is human and sane.

[Esbatty]

Maria Caliban wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

There's nobody sane to romance in DA ][, anyway (imo, of course. For a human who likes humans).

Isabela is human and sane.

No no, she is the Goddess of the Sea and in various states of inebriation. /awesome

[caradoc2000]

It would seem we need Dragon Age:Qunari as the next game:

- no romances whatsoever for either gender
- no class selection - Tamassrans choose it for you
- you don't even get to choose your quests - the Ari-whatever chooses those for you.
- no loot - the Qunari don't have private property or currency

[M0RD3CA1 VII]

caradoc2000 wrote...

It would seem we need Dragon Age:Qunari as the next game:

- no romances whatsoever for either gender
- no class selection - Tamassrans choose it for you
- you don't even get to choose your quests - the Ari-whatever chooses those for you.
- no loot - the Qunari don't have private property or currency

Worst ... game ... ever

I think I would die. not joking at all.

Didn't expect this to be such a controversial thread lol. 'Tis interesting to see peoples differing opinions though. It would seem that most of you guys actually approve of the whole "subjective sexuality", so I guess Bioware will probably just stick with it. lol.

[Silfren]

Monica21 wrote...

Inclusivity in any context deters replayability. It's not just the unrealistic sexuality of the LI's, but that's part of it. If I can have essentially the same experience romancing Anders as a male as I do as a female, then why should I replay?

I simply don't like it when games try to be all things to all people. They sacrifice depth for breadth, and that makes for a boring grind of a game.

I would guess, then, that you are part of a demographic NOT traditionally shafted by an industry that routinely ignores people who aren't white, straight, generally all-round heteronormative people.  Because it's just too easy for people who DO see their interests represented by a game to dismiss the complaints of those of us who don't.

[SirGladiator]

Subjectivity, the DA2 style, is indeed as it should be, and its what most of the major games these days are going with (Skyrim, Fallout NV, etc.) because its simply a case of everybody wins, nobody loses. You get to romance who you want, and you aren't forced to romance anyone you don't want. To compare it to a different gaming feature, its the same as saying 'Just becaus the sword is REALLY huge, and some people feel a woman couldnt use it, we're going to let you use it anyway, and if you want to roleplay a woman too weak to use it, you can just not use it, but if you believe she should be able to use it, then she can'. The DA2 system works the same way, if you don't think Merrill wouldn't go for Lady Hawke, then you can simply not romance her as Lady Hawke, but if you would like her to, then you can. This system is certainly a million times better than the ME system, where you're artificially limited to who you can and can't romance for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Sure, I like Liara the best and would choose her over Ashley, but there's no reason why I shouldn't have the choice. Same in DA2, I like Merril better than Isabella, but I've romanced both because I actually have a choice, and I really like having a choice. Choice is ultimately what RPGs are all about, and this is definitely one of the best improvements that DA2 made, hopefully it will continue this way in DA3.

[Silfren]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

I don't like it either, but there's nothing I can do about it anyway, so it doesn't bother me.

There's nobody sane to romance in DA ][, anyway (imo, of course. For a human who likes humans).

Anders is the only LI who qualifies as clinically insane.  Fenris is angry and bitter and probably suffers some degree of PTSD, but that doesn't make him insane, really.  Merrill is naive and largely ignorant of the world, but that's NOT insane, and Isabela doesn't have any issues that could at all mark her as insane.  

[Silfren]

M0RD3CA1 VII wrote...

caradoc2000 wrote...

It would seem we need Dragon Age:Qunari as the next game:

- no romances whatsoever for either gender
- no class selection - Tamassrans choose it for you
- you don't even get to choose your quests - the Ari-whatever chooses those for you.
- no loot - the Qunari don't have private property or currency

Worst ... game ... ever

I think I would die. not joking at all.

Didn't expect this to be such a controversial thread lol. 'Tis interesting to see peoples differing opinions though. It would seem that most of you guys actually approve of the whole "subjective sexuality", so I guess Bioware will probably just stick with it. lol.

Why would you not have expected this thread to be controversial?  Please tell me you DIDN'T think that you'd get a unanimous response in favor of your own opinion, or even a majority in agreement with it.  I would hope you are aware that plenty of people play DA who either aren't straight or like to play non-straight characters and certainly do appreciate the inclusive approach Bioware chose to take.  Moreover, this isn't the first thread on the subject, but something like thread #126590809.  You didn't really think you were introducing a new argument, did you?  Anyway it doesn't matter what any of us say here.Bioware has already made their stance on being inclusive in their approach toward DA romances, and the people who are opposed to that aren't going to change that policy by creating a million threads to whine about how unrealistic it is.

[Monica21]

Silfren wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Inclusivity in any context deters replayability. It's not just the unrealistic sexuality of the LI's, but that's part of it. If I can have essentially the same experience romancing Anders as a male as I do as a female, then why should I replay?

I simply don't like it when games try to be all things to all people. They sacrifice depth for breadth, and that makes for a boring grind of a game.

I would guess, then, that you are part of a demographic NOT traditionally shafted by an industry that routinely ignores people who aren't white, straight, generally all-round heteronormative people.  Because it's just too easy for people who DO see their interests represented by a game to dismiss the complaints of those of us who don't.

If my demographic consists of role-players who, you know, like to roleplay instead of fanwanking why a character or a PC does a certain thing, then I guess you could say I do get shafted. Did you read anything else I wrote? I did say  hey, let's have an openly gay LI and an openly bi LI in addition to a hetero LI.

Anders, Isabela, Fenris, and Merrill will sleep with the PC no matter what. Even if they hate you. Frankly, that's just pandering. Write a decent character and a decent relationship and I'll be on board with just about anything. Pretending that your LI options are really anything more than just lazy writing under the guise of inclusivity is pretty ridiculous.

[Silfren]

Monica21 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Inclusivity in any context deters replayability. It's not just the unrealistic sexuality of the LI's, but that's part of it. If I can have essentially the same experience romancing Anders as a male as I do as a female, then why should I replay?

I simply don't like it when games try to be all things to all people. They sacrifice depth for breadth, and that makes for a boring grind of a game.

I would guess, then, that you are part of a demographic NOT traditionally shafted by an industry that routinely ignores people who aren't white, straight, generally all-round heteronormative people.  Because it's just too easy for people who DO see their interests represented by a game to dismiss the complaints of those of us who don't.

If my demographic consists of role-players who, you know, like to roleplay instead of fanwanking why a character or a PC does a certain thing, then I guess you could say I do get shafted. Did you read anything else I wrote? I did say  hey, let's have an openly gay LI and an openly bi LI in addition to a hetero LI.

Anders, Isabela, Fenris, and Merrill will sleep with the PC no matter what. Even if they hate you. Frankly, that's just pandering. Write a decent character and a decent relationship and I'll be on board with just about anything. Pretending that your LI options are really anything more than just lazy writing under the guise of inclusivity is pretty ridiculous.

Anders, Fenris, Merrill, and Isabela won't sleep with you no matter what.  They'll sleep with you if they're in a relationship with you (Well, Isabela doesn't require a relationship).  It isn't pandering at all.

Rival =/= hate.

Anyway, I've known enough combative or just outright abusive relationships in my life that I don't see anything about the rivaled relationships that amounts to lazy writing or pandering.  It actually provides an entirely different experience that you don't get from the friended versions, and it shows that not all relationships are perfect and healthy.  The rivalmances don't detract from roleplay, they ADD to it.

The point of making all the romances accessible to either (all?) genders is simply so that players who want to romance a given companion don't have to limit themselves to one, and only one, gender in order to do so.  This ENABLES them to roleplay as they choose without having to mod the game and deal with lore-breaking awkwardness as a result of the game not recognizing something due to the modded world state.  It isn't enough to have one gay, one bi, and one hetero option because that set up completely ignores the players who may want to romance the gay option, but ONLY want to do it from one gender's perspective, and thus finding themselves closed off from doing so.  Or maybe it isn't that they want to roleplay the gay option, but that the gay option is the only character they find interesting enough to romance, but the only way to access that romance is to play a specific gender. 

THAT is why the LIs are wide-open as far as sexual orientation goes: so that you can access all of them regardless of which gender you prefer for your PC.

This is so freaking obvious it says more about you and other opponents that you dismiss trying to fix that problem as just "fan pandering."

Modifié par Silfren, 07 mai 2012 - 09:22 .

[Monica21]

So what does it say about me? Don't hold back. It sounds like you're taking it personally and I'd like to know what it is that you think I think. Please, tell me my reasons.

Modifié par Monica21, 07 mai 2012 - 09:19 .

[Silfren]

Monica21 wrote...

So what does it say about me? Don't hold back. It sounds like you're taking it personally and I'd like to know what it is that you think I think. Please, tell me my reasons.

I think my statement was clear enough without me having to spell out anything specific.  But I won't be goaded into making a personal attack, so don't bother trying.  

I'm not taking anything personally, but you'll have to excuse me being completely NOT impressed with people who take issue when game Devs do their best to be inclusive to as large a section of their fanbase as possible, and screawm that it's unrealistic, immersion-breaking, or, most insulting of all, fan-pandering.  

Really?  Making it possible for people who want to experience a specific LI from the gender THEY want to play is pandering?  No, that's not offensive at all, in the way it completely dismisses the concerns of people who want to have THEIR perspective recognized by the game.  

People who DON'T want to play a love interest in a particular way aren't affected by this, because they can simply choose not to play a love interest from that angle.  But the same is not true for people who want to do the opposite and experience a LI from the gender they choose.  The one is exclusive, the other is inclusive.

Being exclusive closes people off from something they want to enjoy.  But you call it pandering to attempt to make people feel included.  Niiiiiiice.

[Monica21]

Your statement wasn't clear enough, actually. So what I'll take away from your comment is that for some reason I dislike one-size-fits-all LIs. Which is actually true. Because people aren't one-size-fits-all. So guys couldn't romance Alistair and chicks couldn't romance Morrigan. Big deal. But no, BioWare, either because of lack of resources or because they decided inclusivity was more important than, you know, anything making sense, decided to make LIs for everyone.

And I am actually very nice, but not when I'm being indirectly insulted.

[GavrielKay]

I haven't read all the posts... but it would seem that as you can only be one character on any given play through, that your Hawke never knows that the NPCs would have gone for you no matter what. If you as a player don't like what you learn by meta-gaming, well, that could apply to a lot of things.

DA2 has been faulted by many players for having a lack of choices and distinct outcomes. At least in the romance category they didn't skimp on choice.

As the player you can't romance any character unless you make certain dialogue choices. I'm not sure why having those available for people who want them should be so offensive.

[Ryzaki]

Silfren wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Inclusivity in any context deters replayability. It's not just the unrealistic sexuality of the LI's, but that's part of it. If I can have essentially the same experience romancing Anders as a male as I do as a female, then why should I replay?

I simply don't like it when games try to be all things to all people. They sacrifice depth for breadth, and that makes for a boring grind of a game.

I would guess, then, that you are part of a demographic NOT traditionally shafted by an industry that routinely ignores people who aren't white, straight, generally all-round heteronormative people.  Because it's just too easy for people who DO see their interests represented by a game to dismiss the complaints of those of us who don't.

Good lord I agree with you on something.

[Ryzaki]

Monica21 wrote...

Your statement wasn't clear enough, actually. So what I'll take away from your comment is that for some reason I dislike one-size-fits-all LIs. Which is actually true. Because people aren't one-size-fits-all. So guys couldn't romance Alistair and chicks couldn't romance Morrigan. Big deal. But no, BioWare, either because of lack of resources or because they decided inclusivity was more important than, you know, anything making sense, decided to make LIs for everyone.

And I am actually very nice, but not when I'm being indirectly insulted.

So how does all Bi LIs make any less sense than Hawke being a mage, magic itself existing, dragons or all the other mindboggling ridculous things that occur in Dragon Age? 

[esper]

Monica21 wrote...

Your statement wasn't clear enough, actually. So what I'll take away from your comment is that for some reason I dislike one-size-fits-all LIs. Which is actually true. Because people aren't one-size-fits-all. So guys couldn't romance Alistair and chicks couldn't romance Morrigan. Big deal. But no, BioWare, either because of lack of resources or because they decided inclusivity was more important than, you know, anything making sense, decided to make LIs for everyone.

And I am actually very nice, but not when I'm being indirectly insulted.

These aren't people they are computer characthers in a computer world. In the real world if there isn't someone on off your oritation and/or like around you can go out an meet others. That are impossible in a computer world since only three to four people in the whole world are coded as being interested in you.

Also you assumes that everyone replays. Fact is that only a small portion (which of course is overrepresented here on BSN since we are fans of the setting) replays a game, not to mention long games. Why should they not have all the LI's being LI's for them.  And then we have not even talked about players who only play one gender - again they are also a large portion.

And if we talk about roleplay then everyone isn't interested in you unless you go out of your way to make it so. Fenrs and Merrill never shows any interest in my Hawke in 8/10 playthrough, actually I would say that Isabella too never have shown interest beyong some few comments and hint about sex in act 1 per act 2 where she knows Hawke they are definitly both not interested. 

I honestly don't see what is wrong with having a almost purely aesthectiv gender. It is nice to not have to be insulted because of ones gender and/or sexual orientation. I don't see how the characthers sexual orientation detracts from their characthers even if they are player-sexual. I am still angry beyond the black city to be excluded from Morrigan and I don't see how her being interested in a female warden would have made her and the crisises in the relantionship with her any less good. (The same for alistar). And I don't see how it detracts from your precious roleplaying. If you don't want all size fits all then simply make some roleplaying rules for yourself saing that for example Fenris will never romance a male Hawke and then follow those rules. You are free to place your own limitations on the games, don't force them onto the rest of us.

[Xewaka]

It was deemed the most efficient way to have the most love interests available for each gender for the alloted zots.

[hoorayforicecream]

Monica21 wrote...

But no, BioWare, either because of lack of resources or because they decided inclusivity was more important than, you know, anything making sense, decided to make LIs for everyone.

Are you saying that inclusive love interests and making sense are mutually exclusive? Because I think that's rather close-minded.

[Monica21]

GavrielKay wrote...

I haven't read all the posts... but it would seem that as you can only be one character on any given play through, that your Hawke never knows that the NPCs would have gone for you no matter what. If you as a player don't like what you learn by meta-gaming, well, that could apply to a lot of things.

DA2 has been faulted by many players for having a lack of choices and distinct outcomes. At least in the romance category they didn't skimp on choice.

As the player you can't romance any character unless you make certain dialogue choices. I'm not sure why having those available for people who want them should be so offensive.

I really don't appreciate my saying "dislike" and having it translated to "offensive." I NEVER said I was offended. The only thing that I'm currently offended by is some insinuation that I might be white and straight and therefore not part of a disenfranchised group of people so the very idea of bisexual characters gives me the heebie jeebies because I like the the straight ones, thankyouverymuch.

I dislike characters that are poorly written because of a rushed timeline. I dislike a lot of things about DA2 because they're poorly written and the timeline was rushed. I simply stumbled upon this on thread, and suddenly it's "blah blah blah, shut it since you're not disenfranchised." Neither you nor anyone else knows how I play my game. You don't know if my femHawke is shacking up with Merrill or Isabela or if my male Hawke is diddling Anders or Fenris.

One of the very few things I really want in an RPG is good characterization and IMO BioWare fails to deliver on that, and not just in terms of LI's and companions. In fact, the most well-written companions in DA2 are the ones you can't romance.

Disclaimer that I shouldn't have to add: All that was my opinion.

[Fox In The Box]

Monica21 wrote...

Your statement wasn't clear enough, actually. So what I'll take away from your comment is that for some reason I dislike one-size-fits-all LIs. Which is actually true. Because people aren't one-size-fits-all.

Video game characters are not people. Actual, living people usually require a lot more of potential romantic partners than them just having the right gender - compatibility, personality, physical attraction, et cetera. In Origins, I could have two very attractive humans and an elf all vying for the attention of  a dwarf who looked like she'd repeatedly fallen face-first onto a meat hammer, simply because she had the correct gender flag. Any kind of male warden I create can be The Only Person In The World able to melt their way into Morrigan's heart, completely regardless of any other personal factor, simply because they are male.

That honestly doesn't strike me as being very "realistic". Others, of course, might disagree with me and the option is there for people who do. It's impossible to accurately portray interpersonal relationships when the pool of potential romantic partners is narrowed to only four characters that are incapable of independently judging the PC beyond how far up the friendship scale they are and whether or not they've flirted with them. Giving people more options so they can roleplay however they want and in a manner that makes sense to them is the best course of action, in my opinion.

So guys couldn't romance Alistair and chicks couldn't romance Morrigan. Big deal. But no, BioWare, either because of lack of resources or because they decided inclusivity was more important than, you know, anything making sense, decided to make LIs for everyone.

It might not seem like such a big deal to you, but for people who never, ever see themselves portrayed in popular media - and in the rare cases they do, it's as gross stereotypes - it is a very big deal.

What exactly doesn't make sense? That there are four people potentially willing to bed the PC instead of three? That those four people are bisexual? Is that less probable than having the only lyrium-tattooed elf in thedas, the only grey warden abomination, a dalish blood mage with one of the last remaining eluvians, a pirate who's personally managed to ****** off the Arishok, the prince of Starkhaven, the Captain of the City guard all end in the same ragtag group of friends?

[keesio74]

I can't believe people are so bothered by quasi-bi-sexual companions. I can care less. That is a non-issue compared to recycled environments, inconsistent graphics and stupid wave mechanics combat.