930 réponses à ce sujet

[LolaLei]

wsandista wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

wsandista wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

wsandista wrote...


Do the LI's get a say in this? Why don't you want to have gay LI's?

You're forgetting one important thing: These aren't real people, the LI's "say" is all down to what DG 'n' co want them to believe/feel/etc. So you might wanna take that one up with them.

Should Fenris love mages if Hawke is a mage?

Well he clearly had no problems in shagging one. Plus he makes it clear all the way through that he still hates them, but he loves his mage lover, for who he/she is, not what he/she is. Something that DG 'n' co wanted him to believe/feel/etc.

That doesn't answer the question. 

Ok, to put it bluntly I couldn't give a toss what Fenris does, if he doesn't want to date one then that's his (or rather DG 'n' co's choice.) If he wouldn't date a mage and I wanted to romance him then I'd make a warrior or rogue. Simple.

[Ryzaki]

wsandista wrote...
You are comparing apples to oranges. One is determined by a PC's actions, the other is determined by the PC's gender at creation.

I'd say their actions should have as much if not greater impact than their gender at creation. But it doesn't. Somehow a female can be extremely repulsive to Alistair's core personality yet he'll still romance her if she says the right things because she has ovaries. She can have him change himself to be a sterner man with just ONE SENTENCE. Morrigan? Same. Leliana? SAME.

In ME1 Shepard can cause a fully grown man at least 3 years older than her to turn from a paragon to a renegade! (Same with Ashley) just because he/she's in a relationship with her/him!

If that's not conforming to Player desires I don't know what is.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 09 juin 2012 - 04:33 .

[LolaLei]

Ryzaki wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

wsandista wrote...
Absolutely, the characters and the world should not change to accomodate the desires of the player. I don't know why this has suddenly become controversial, in fact getting rejected by a homosexual(or heterosexual) companion could lead to some great dialogue. 

Oh you should hate DAO then since you can "soften" Morrigan and "harden" both Leliana and Alistair! That's changing to accomdate the PCs to the desire of the player. Or does that only matter when it comes to sexuality?

You are comparing apples to oranges. One is determined by a PC's actions, the other is determined by the PC's gender at creation.

I'd say their actions should have as much if not greater impact than their gender at creation. But it doesn't. Somehow a female can be extremely repulsive to Alistair's core personality yet he'll still romance her if she says the right things because she has ovaries.

If that's not conforming to Player desires I don't know what is.

THIS!

[PsychoBlonde]

John Epler wrote...

With a non-companion, though, you have to either build content specifically for them (side quests, etc.), or you have to shoe-horn a lot more characterization and development into those in-camp dialogues. Or, you make them a 'light' option. You won't know as much about them as your companions, but that's not necessarily a barrier to romance - thus the concept of 'light' romances versus 'full' romances.

This made me think of Skyrim (I've been playing Skyrim lately), and the "romances" there.  It don't get much lighter than this:

"Hey, do you think I'm cute?"
"Heck yeah!"
"Wanna get hitched!"
"Sure!"
*Go to the temple and get hitched*
"Great, now come live in my house!"
"Okay!  Imma start a store!"

Fin

[wsandista]

Emzamination wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Do the LI's get a say in this? Why don't you want to have gay LI's?

Of course LI should have defined preferences and that's all it should be.If isabella or merill prefers men that's fine but that doesn't mean she should be immune to being seduced by a female hawke who has been there with them through thick and thin.

She should be immune to seductipn if she isn't intrested, whether that is with a male or a female. The PC should not determine the sexuality of the LI.

What you're saying is not only should they like the opposite gender but they should have a constant aversion to the same gender no matter what therefore reforming their way of thinking to 'your' beliefs and way of thinking.How do the LI get a say when you do that?

No that isn't what I've been saying. If you actually have been paying attention to my posts instead of building up a straw-man, you would see that I have advocated for homosexual LIs.

Again, Why do you not want a homosexual LI?

So what you're saying is she should be written and programmed to just not be interested in your gender no matter what your deeds, yes?

So a lesbian should be interested in a man if he saves a bunch of kids from a fire or something? Sexuality is not something one chooses or that can be changed at will, they are intergeral parts of what make characters who they are.

No, you advocated for bias and segregation in love, I advocate for equality.

You advocate for no gays. You advocate for the player to decide who the LI is. I advocate for characters to be who they are.

[Ryzaki]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

John Epler wrote...

With a non-companion, though, you have to either build content specifically for them (side quests, etc.), or you have to shoe-horn a lot more characterization and development into those in-camp dialogues. Or, you make them a 'light' option. You won't know as much about them as your companions, but that's not necessarily a barrier to romance - thus the concept of 'light' romances versus 'full' romances.

This made me think of Skyrim (I've been playing Skyrim lately), and the "romances" there.  It don't get much lighter than this:

"Hey, do you think I'm cute?"
"Heck yeah!"
"Wanna get hitched!"
"Sure!"
*Go to the temple and get hitched*
"Great, now come live in my house!"
"Okay!  Imma start a store!"

Fin

To be fair they at least give me money and stuff. Only thing BW Lis give me is useless stuff and warm fuzzies.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 09 juin 2012 - 04:34 .

[wsandista]

LolaLei wrote...

wsandista wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

wsandista wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

wsandista wrote...


Do the LI's get a say in this? Why don't you want to have gay LI's?

You're forgetting one important thing: These aren't real people, the LI's "say" is all down to what DG 'n' co want them to believe/feel/etc. So you might wanna take that one up with them.

Should Fenris love mages if Hawke is a mage?

Well he clearly had no problems in shagging one. Plus he makes it clear all the way through that he still hates them, but he loves his mage lover, for who he/she is, not what he/she is. Something that DG 'n' co wanted him to believe/feel/etc.

That doesn't answer the question. 

Ok, to put it bluntly I couldn't give a toss what Fenris does, if he doesn't want to date one then that's his (or rather DG 'n' co's choice.) If he wouldn't date a mage and I wanted to romance him then I'd make a warrior or rogue. Simple.

 Answer yes or no. It is that simple. Should a character conform to who a player is at creation?

[Ryzaki]

wsandista wrote...
Answer yes or no. It is that simple. Should a character conform to who a player is at creation?

Let me ask you this: You know all those characters sexualities defintively? 

How do you know Morrigan and Alistair are fully straight? They not once decline the s/s Warden based off sexuality. Not once. The Warden simply never attempts to approach them or vice versa. And not approaching someone isn't a definitive way of telling someone's sexuality either.

As for your Fenris example. It's shown mulitple times in game he doesn't hate mages he simply distrusts them. In particular weak mages. Strangely I doubt he even hates Merrill. He's growly and snarky but for the most part that's in an attempt to steer her from the path she's own. Before Hawke can romance him Hawke has to talk to him and in essence gain his trust. Rival or friendship they trust each other. (to an extent of course as seen when Hawke's rivalry isn't maxed and he/she sides with the templars). As their relationship builds they give each other more and more trust. Why wouldn't Fenris since he doesn't hate all mages not romance a mage he trusts and finds strong enough to overcome the weakness many mages fall into? 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 09 juin 2012 - 04:41 .

[wsandista]

Ryzaki wrote...


I'd say their actions should have as much if not greater impact than their gender at creation. But it doesn't. Somehow a female can be extremely repulsive to Alistair's core personality yet he'll still romance her if she says the right things because she has ovaries. She can have him change himself to be a sterner man with just ONE SENTENCE. Morrigan? Same. Leliana? SAME.

I agree, if you look at an older thread(something about a roaring comeback) I stated something similar.

In ME1 Shepard can cause a fully grown man at least 3 years older than her to turn from a paragon to a renegade! (Same with Ashley) just because he/she's in a relationship with her/him!

If that's not conforming to Player desires I don't know what is.

Those are PC actions not player desires. 

[Ryzaki]

wsandista wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...


I'd say their actions should have as much if not greater impact than their gender at creation. But it doesn't. Somehow a female can be extremely repulsive to Alistair's core personality yet he'll still romance her if she says the right things because she has ovaries. She can have him change himself to be a sterner man with just ONE SENTENCE. Morrigan? Same. Leliana? SAME.

I agree, if you look at an older thread(something about a roaring comeback) I stated something similar.

In ME1 Shepard can cause a fully grown man at least 3 years older than her to turn from a paragon to a renegade! (Same with Ashley) just because he/she's in a relationship with her/him!

If that's not conforming to Player desires I don't know what is.

Those are PC actions not player desires. 

So the desire to make Kaidan a renegade and Ashley a paragon to conform with Shepard's alignment aren't player desires?  Everything OPTIONAL is fueled by the player's desires. Shep romancing a character? Player's desires of their PC to romance that character. I'm not sure how your're trying to seperate OPTIONAL PC actions from player desires. The second any action becomes optional is when player preference steps in. And since changing K/A entails being in a romance with them and persuading them to change alignement when there's choices to leave them alone means...yeah they're being forcibly altered by Shepard to cater to the player's whims. And this is romance exclusive.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 09 juin 2012 - 04:45 .

[LolaLei]

wsandista wrote...

You advocate for no gays. You advocate for the player to decide who the LI is. I advocate for characters to be who they are.

Ok, so, hypothetically say all the companions in DA3 are completely new and unknown. BUT all the romanceable ones are bisexual. Would you still be insisting that these particular companions should be "who they are" if you have no previous knowledge of their past, their background story or previous sexual preferences.

Have you stopped to consider that perhaps these bisexual companions are exactly that - bisexual and it's just part of who they are?

[Emzamination]

wsandista wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Do the LI's get a say in this? Why don't you want to have gay LI's?

Of course LI should have defined preferences and that's all it should be.If isabella or merill prefers men that's fine but that doesn't mean she should be immune to being seduced by a female hawke who has been there with them through thick and thin.

She should be immune to seductipn if she isn't intrested, whether that is with a male or a female. The PC should not determine the sexuality of the LI.

What you're saying is not only should they like the opposite gender but they should have a constant aversion to the same gender no matter what therefore reforming their way of thinking to 'your' beliefs and way of thinking.How do the LI get a say when you do that?

No that isn't what I've been saying. If you actually have been paying attention to my posts instead of building up a straw-man, you would see that I have advocated for homosexual LIs.

Again, Why do you not want a homosexual LI?

So what you're saying is she should be written and programmed to just not be interested in your gender no matter what your deeds, yes?

So a lesbian should be interested in a man if he saves a bunch of kids from a fire or something? Sexuality is not something one chooses or that can be changed at will, they are intergeral parts of what make characters who they are.

No, you advocated for bias and segregation in love, I advocate for equality.

You advocate for no gays. You advocate for the player to decide who the LI is. I advocate for characters to be who they are.

If they are her kids or close to her in some compacity, yes it is completely realistic for romantic feelings to form from his heroic deed. and with that said, stop beating around the bush answer my question, are you saying a romance should be pre written and pre programmed to reject the protagonist based on gender?

You advocate for characters to be who you are, you just throw in gay LI so you won't look bias, my bs blinders are on.

Modifié par Emzamination, 09 juin 2012 - 04:46 .

[wsandista]

Ryzaki wrote...

wsandista wrote...
Answer yes or no. It is that simple. Should a character conform to who a player is at creation?

Let me ask you this: You know all those characters sexualities defintively? 

How do you know Morrigan and Alistair are fully straight? They not once decline the s/s Warden based off sexuality. Not once. The Warden simply never attempts to approach them or vice versa. And not approaching someone isn't a definitive way of telling someone's sexuality either.

They should have had an option to flirt with them as s/s Warden. Since they didn't I conclude that they are not interested simply because they do not pursue/or are able to be romanced s/s.

How do you know Sten isn't into bestiality? He seems to like Dog and never explicitly staes that he isn't intrested. NOT ONCE.

BTW, I am in no way shape or form saying that homosexuality is the ame as bestiality. 

As for your Fenris example. It's shown mulitple times in game he doesn't hate mages he simply distrusts them. In particular weak mages. Strangely I doubt he even hates Merrill. He's growly and snarky but for the most part that's in an attempt to steer her from the path she's own.

That is BS. It is fairly obvious Fenris has some deep-seated hatred for mages, unless constantly attacking mages is him just being broody. Look at any dialogue involving Fenris and mages and post one instance where he said anything to indicate otherwise.

[LolaLei]

wsandista wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

wsandista wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

wsandista wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

wsandista wrote...


Do the LI's get a say in this? Why don't you want to have gay LI's?

You're forgetting one important thing: These aren't real people, the LI's "say" is all down to what DG 'n' co want them to believe/feel/etc. So you might wanna take that one up with them.

Should Fenris love mages if Hawke is a mage?

Well he clearly had no problems in shagging one. Plus he makes it clear all the way through that he still hates them, but he loves his mage lover, for who he/she is, not what he/she is. Something that DG 'n' co wanted him to believe/feel/etc.

That doesn't answer the question. 

Ok, to put it bluntly I couldn't give a toss what Fenris does, if he doesn't want to date one then that's his (or rather DG 'n' co's choice.) If he wouldn't date a mage and I wanted to romance him then I'd make a warrior or rogue. Simple.

 Answer yes or no. It is that simple. Should a character conform to who a player is at creation?

It's not a simple yes or no question.

If you're refering to personality in regards to what they like/dislike (disregarding sexuality for a moment) then no they shouldn't conform to who a player is at creation because that would be boring.

In regards to sexuality as I said in a previous post (which I presume you didn't read) I'm not bothered what their sexuality is as I could simply create a different gendered character if I want to romance them, so no they shouldn't conform to the player at creation BUT just because DA might decide to make all the romanceable companions bisexual in DA3, doesn't mean they should neccessarily find your character attractive. The attraction should be based on how your character behaves and the choices he/she makes during quests... perhaps instead they would even decide to romance one of your other companions or NPC's instead after a certain point.

Modifié par LolaLei, 09 juin 2012 - 04:52 .

[wsandista]

Emzamination wrote...
If they are her kids or close to her in some compacity, yes it is completely realistic for romantic feelings to form from his heroic deed. and with that said, stop beating around the bush answer my question, are you saying a romance should be pre written and pre programmed to reject the protagonist based on gender?

I have already stated that I do beleive that. Did you not even read the previous posts?

BTW, there is a difference between gratitude and sexual attraction. A gay man who has NO interest in women would not be sexually attracted to one just because of her deeds.

You advocate for characters to be who you are, you just throw in gay LI so you won't look bias, my bs blinders are on.

Have I ever said there should only be heterosexual LIs? I honestly don't know where you keep pulling this BS from.

Modifié par wsandista, 09 juin 2012 - 04:54 .

[Ryzaki]

wsandista wrote...

They should have had an option to flirt with them as s/s Warden. Since they didn't I conclude that they are not interested simply because they do not pursue/or are able to be romanced s/s.

How do you know Sten isn't into bestiality? He seems to like Dog and never explicitly staes that he isn't intrested. NOT ONCE.

BTW, I am in no way shape or form saying that homosexuality is the ame as bestiality.

I wait for this...drumroll.

I don't.

Not for certain. I can assume he's not. But if my assumptions are proven wrong that doesn't mean he was changed to cater to PC's whims. Just that I was wrong.

*le gasp!*

Shocking that I don't know everything about a character I didn't write you know? Shocking.

That is BS. It is fairly obvious Fenris has some deep-seated hatred for mages, unless constantly attacking mages is him just being broody. Look at any dialogue involving Fenris and mages and post one instance where he said anything to indicate otherwise.

Deep seated hatred for magic. Actually. And where does he constantly attack mages? I see him constantly attacking weak mages, and mages being free because some of them can't sadly be trusted with magic. Where oh where does he attack Bethany? I don't see him do such once. Everytime he attacks Hawke it's after an encounter with one of the people who tormented him for 5+ years. I don't expect him to be logical in such a situation. When he's not being hounded by Hadrianna or backstabbed by his sister most of his dialogue regarding mages is on the rather mellow side.

"How many temptations would you offer a man before he gives in?" is what he has to say about mages. Not that they're all evil, he acknowledges that yes some a good and noble men but they face the same temptations as those who give in. He doesn't want to risk the fall if they do give in. Thus why he supports Circles (He also is a hypocrite because I'm fairly certain if anyone tried to put Hawke in a circle he'd be one of the first to start fighting.)

And if he had such a deep seated hatred of magic why oh why does he turn down Sebastian's suggestion that they turn over Hawke and the other mages to the templars? Surely that wouldn't even be a question if he hated all mages.

Uh...try his last questioning beliefs. There's your answer.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 09 juin 2012 - 04:57 .

[wsandista]

Ryzaki wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...


I'd say their actions should have as much if not greater impact than their gender at creation. But it doesn't. Somehow a female can be extremely repulsive to Alistair's core personality yet he'll still romance her if she says the right things because she has ovaries. She can have him change himself to be a sterner man with just ONE SENTENCE. Morrigan? Same. Leliana? SAME.

I agree, if you look at an older thread(something about a roaring comeback) I stated something similar.

In ME1 Shepard can cause a fully grown man at least 3 years older than her to turn from a paragon to a renegade! (Same with Ashley) just because he/she's in a relationship with her/him!

If that's not conforming to Player desires I don't know what is.

Those are PC actions not player desires. 

So the desire to make Kaidan a renegade and Ashley a paragon to conform with Shepard's alignment aren't player desires?  Everything OPTIONAL is fueled by the player's desires. Shep romancing a character? Player's desires of their PC to romance that character. I'm not sure how your're trying to seperate OPTIONAL PC actions from player desires. The second any action becomes optional is when player preference steps in. And since changing K/A entails being in a romance with them and persuading them to change alignement when there's choices to leave them alone means...yeah they're being forcibly altered by Shepard to cater to the player's whims. And this is romance exclusive.

Player is not the PC, that is how I seperate them.

Personality changes in companions should not be clear-cut one sentence options, if they happen they should be tied to major decisions the PC makes.

[Iakus]

LolaLei wrote...

Or you could have all the bisexual companions turn you down if they don't like your personality or agree with the way you do things. That way everyone is potentially romanceable but may not be interested in your character if they don't like the way you behave.

Having that implemented with all romances would be an ideal way to make romances "exclusive content"

Unfortunately "alignment" has never been such an important factor in romances.  

[AkiKishi]

iakus wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

Or you could have all the bisexual companions turn you down if they don't like your personality or agree with the way you do things. That way everyone is potentially romanceable but may not be interested in your character if they don't like the way you behave.

Having that implemented with all romances would be an ideal way to make romances "exclusive content"

Unfortunately "alignment" has never been such an important factor in romances.  

Trying to date Viconia as a Paladin and stay true to your principles is rather challenging. We have gone from that, to what is essentially fanservice.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 09 juin 2012 - 05:01 .

[Ryzaki]

wsandista wrote...
Player is not the PC, that is how I seperate them.

Personality changes in companions should not be clear-cut one sentence options, if they happen they should be tied to major decisions the PC makes.

Player is controlling the PC. Everything the PC does especially optional actions are fueled by the player's choices. The only time this isn't true is Autodialogue. You wanna know what game has a lot of auto dialogue? ME3. And frankly I hate it for it.

Anyway trying to completely seperate them (what Shepard does from PC desires in matters that are optional to the player) is folly. Shepard romances someone because the player has him do so. (Or Shepard is unfortunate enough to get ninja'd and not be able to end the relationship. ) The player has complete control over the PC romancing someone. This isn't something that just happens. The player conscioniously has the PC romance someone.

If it does just happen it's a ninjamance and an abomination. (Hi there Ashley and Kaidan).

Regardless even if you can be ninja'd by them you can't change their alignment by mistake. You have to conciously pick a persuade option to change them (well at least Kaidan. Not sure how Ashley works since I romanced her once and never did so again).

They aren't. They're tied to sentence choice options and the character's alignment even if this completely goes against the character's attitude from the beginning. *especially jarring and WTF with Kaidan who is OLDER than Shepard and should be pretty immune to the renegade "humans are on their own! Aliens suck!" line of thought (and before anyone says this yes that was renegade in ME1. Go ahead and play renegade in ME1 and that's EXACTLY what you get. They changed it for the latter games but Kaidan's back to being paragon in the latter games so it doesn't make a difference).

Modifié par Ryzaki, 09 juin 2012 - 05:07 .

[LolaLei]

iakus wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

Or you could have all the bisexual companions turn you down if they don't like your personality or agree with the way you do things. That way everyone is potentially romanceable but may not be interested in your character if they don't like the way you behave.

Having that implemented with all romances would be an ideal way to make romances "exclusive content"

Unfortunately "alignment" has never been such an important factor in romances.  

Agreed.

I guess they kinda implimented it in DA:O, but in DA2 it went out of the window with the whole rivalmance thing.

[Emzamination]

wsandista wrote...

Emzamination wrote...
If they are her kids or close to her in some compacity, yes it is completely realistic for romantic feelings to form from his heroic deed. and with that said, stop beating around the bush answer my question, are you saying a romance should be pre written and pre programmed to reject the protagonist based on gender?

I have already stated that I do beleive that. Did you not even read the previous posts?

You advocate for characters to be who you are, you just throw in gay LI so you won't look bias, my bs blinders are on.

Have I ever said there should only be heterosexual LIs? I honestly don't know where you keep pulling this BS from.

Thanks for admitting you believe in sexual bias.That character being written has no thought pattern until the writer gives them one and that pattern should not be hardcoded with your personal ideals, it must be able to take in and reject or accept one based on actions like a 'realistic' mind.

The human mind is not pre written or hard coded to feel certain emotions,ideals,religion and sexualities.These things are subject to change based on enviorment,situation and feelings so a pre programed LI rejecting all advances based on sexuality would be 'unrealistic', no?

[syllogi]

Why don't *I* want homosexual LIs?

I want as much choice as possible, and it is far more likely that homosexual only romance would be restricted to one companion at most, or even a non squadmate "light" romance. They could do one romance per straight/bi/same sex, but it's restricting choice in the name of arbitrary fairness. I want to choose to partake in video game romance based on the personality of the LI, not simply because they are there.

If your male PC prefers the demure, kind human who happens to be f/f only, and my female PC prefers the feisty, selfish elf who is only a m/f LI, then to me, the romances are far less enjoyable, and I am far less likely to romance that npc that has been chosen for me, based only on the gender of my character. So the "fair" solution doesn't make many people happy, and it could in fact, make some people choose to not play out romances at all.

I'll keep advocating for all bi LIs.

[Iakus]

PsychoBlonde wrote...


"Hey, do you think I'm cute?"
"Heck yeah!"
"Wanna get hitched!"
"Sure!"
*Go to the temple and get hitched*
"Great, now come live in my house!"
"Okay!  Imma start a store!"

Fin

Dragon Age romances in five years.  Calling it now 

[Ryzaki]

iakus wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...


"Hey, do you think I'm cute?"
"Heck yeah!"
"Wanna get hitched!"
"Sure!"
*Go to the temple and get hitched*
"Great, now come live in my house!"
"Okay!  Imma start a store!"

Fin

Dragon Age romances in five years.  Calling it now 

If that means I can actually get some diverguing choices and not heaps of auto dialogue I'd take it. The romances aren't *that* important.

I'd take more dialogue choices and impact on the game world than romances anyday.