930 réponses à ce sujet

[LolaLei]

Ryzaki wrote...

Abispa wrote...

iakus wrote...

But keep in mind, if Bioware had a blank check, I'd love to see romances restricted by all sorts of ways, not just orientation

LI's who'd only be interested in humans, or elves.  Or followers of the Chantry.  "Evil only" relationships,  Mage only.  Or anything but mage.  Dalish only.  Dalish mage only.  As well as those with a broader range.  

I'd love to fire up a game, create a brand new character and go "Who's intereested in this one?"

But unless Bioware decides to go that route, having the ONLY limitation being gender is nonsensical and arbitrary. It does prove the hypocricy of many s/s critics, not saying you, who say DA:O was more realistic simply because of the gender selection, even though morality had NOTHING to do with selection, especially with the gift system.

Alistair may be upset with an mass-murdering evil woman's actions, but he won't break up with her unless she makes fun of his inexperienced penis. What a hero.

I have to admit that was pretty weird. Someone so used to cracking jokes and *that's* what he throws a hissyfit about? It's not like she said he couldn't learn.

Does he actually dump you for that? I thought he just laughed it off or you got a bit of disapproval for it LOL!

Modifié par LolaLei, 09 juin 2012 - 07:38 .

[Ryzaki]

LolaLei wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Abispa wrote...

iakus wrote...

But keep in mind, if Bioware had a blank check, I'd love to see romances restricted by all sorts of ways, not just orientation

LI's who'd only be interested in humans, or elves.  Or followers of the Chantry.  "Evil only" relationships,  Mage only.  Or anything but mage.  Dalish only.  Dalish mage only.  As well as those with a broader range.  

I'd love to fire up a game, create a brand new character and go "Who's intereested in this one?"

But unless Bioware decides to go that route, having the ONLY limitation being gender is nonsensical and arbitrary. It does prove the hypocricy of many s/s critics, not saying you, who say DA:O was more realistic simply because of the gender selection, even though morality had NOTHING to do with selection, especially with the gift system.

Alistair may be upset with an mass-murdering evil woman's actions, but he won't break up with her unless she makes fun of his inexperienced penis. What a hero.

I have to admit that was pretty weird. Someone so used to cracking jokes and *that's* what he throws a hissyfit about? It's not like she said he couldn't learn.

Does he actually dump you for that? I thought he just laughed it off or you got a bit of disapproval for it LOL!

Nope. I actually think one of those lines ends the relationship. Not sure which one.

I remember thinking it was a innocent tease and going when my PC got dumped.

[LolaLei]

Ryzaki wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Abispa wrote...

iakus wrote...

But keep in mind, if Bioware had a blank check, I'd love to see romances restricted by all sorts of ways, not just orientation

LI's who'd only be interested in humans, or elves.  Or followers of the Chantry.  "Evil only" relationships,  Mage only.  Or anything but mage.  Dalish only.  Dalish mage only.  As well as those with a broader range.  

I'd love to fire up a game, create a brand new character and go "Who's intereested in this one?"

But unless Bioware decides to go that route, having the ONLY limitation being gender is nonsensical and arbitrary. It does prove the hypocricy of many s/s critics, not saying you, who say DA:O was more realistic simply because of the gender selection, even though morality had NOTHING to do with selection, especially with the gift system.

Alistair may be upset with an mass-murdering evil woman's actions, but he won't break up with her unless she makes fun of his inexperienced penis. What a hero.

I have to admit that was pretty weird. Someone so used to cracking jokes and *that's* what he throws a hissyfit about? It's not like she said he couldn't learn.

Does he actually dump you for that? I thought he just laughed it off or you got a bit of disapproval for it LOL!

Nope. I actually think one of those lines ends the relationship. Not sure which one.

I remember thinking it was a innocent tease and going when my PC got dumped.

I remember testing things out to see what the outcome was for each reply and I made a joke after sex with him after he mentions being smited or struck by lightening for having sex and I replied with something like "not with that bad performance" and he said "ha, you're kidding right? Riiight." (or something similar) and left it at that, no dumping or disapproval points or anything.

[Ryzaki]

That's not the line then. I recall getting a heavy amount of dissapproval points (so much that I cringed).

[AkiKishi]

Ryzaki wrote...

That's not the line then. I recall getting a heavy amount of dissapproval points (so much that I cringed).

Poor Alistair.

[Ryzaki]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

That's not the line then. I recall getting a heavy amount of dissapproval points (so much that I cringed).

Poor Alistair.

Not my PCs fault he can't take a joke!

[Abispa]

Maybe it was a bug, then, but after that scene the possessive Leliana love juggernaut was back in full force. Funny how one line in DA2 from Anders gets the lion's share of complaints compared to having to beat Leliana off with a damn stick, broadsword, thermonuclear device in DA:O.

[AkiKishi]

Abispa wrote...

Maybe it was a bug, then, but after that scene the possessive Leliana love juggernaut was back in full force. Funny how one line in DA2 from Anders gets the lion's share of complaints compared to having to beat Leliana off with a damn stick, broadsword, thermonuclear device in DA:O.

I imported my city elf and was wondering how she stuck her head back on.

[Ryzaki]

Abispa wrote...

Maybe it was a bug, then, but after that scene the possessive Leliana love juggernaut was back in full force. Funny how one line in DA2 from Anders gets the lion's share of complaints compared to having to beat Leliana off with a damn stick, broadsword, thermonuclear device in DA:O.

I hope it was a bug. It made Alistair seem like a stick in the mud.

She's a cute redhead with a french accent. Of course Anders got more complaints.

@Bob: Don't get me started on people coming back from the dead. Don't. <_< She should've been like Isabela. If you poisoned the ashes she should've ditched before the Warden could attack her. That's all.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 09 juin 2012 - 08:04 .

[Abispa]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Abispa wrote...

Maybe it was a bug, then, but after that scene the possessive Leliana love juggernaut was back in full force. Funny how one line in DA2 from Anders gets the lion's share of complaints compared to having to beat Leliana off with a damn stick, broadsword, thermonuclear device in DA:O.

I imported my city elf and was wondering how she stuck her head back on.

Wouldn't have been surprised if she inexplicably came out of the tent that Hawke, Isabela, and Zevran were just in.

[jlb524]

iakus wrote...
But the player is denied nothing.  the characters, depending on how they're played, might be.  But that's why RPGs are often touted for "replayability" Start a new game and see how differently things can play out.

Not true.

Lots of people only play once or twice.

There are some people who only like playing one gender/sexuality/species/morality and cannot relate to playing the game otherwise.

RPGs are also touted as being able to roleplay the type of PC you wish and customize them.

[Ihatebadgames]

jlb524 wrote...

iakus wrote...
But the player is denied nothing.  the characters, depending on how they're played, might be.  But that's why RPGs are often touted for "replayability" Start a new game and see how differently things can play out.

Not true.

Lots of people only play once or twice.

There are some people who only like playing one gender/sexuality/species/morality and cannot relate to playing the game otherwise.

RPGs are also touted as being able to roleplay the type of PC you wish and customize them.

I can play differently for awhile,opposite sex no problem as I can hear female voices better.But if the game is really good and I'm playing the umpteenth time I realize I'm doing the same missions the same way,and I've latched onto my favorite LI without thinking.

[Iakus]

jlb524 wrote...

iakus wrote...
But the player is denied nothing.  the characters, depending on how they're played, might be.  But that's why RPGs are often touted for "replayability" Start a new game and see how differently things can play out.

Not true.

Lots of people only play once or twice.

Still doesn't deny the player anything.  The players are only denying themselves.

There are some people who only like playing one gender/sexuality/species/morality and cannot relate to playing the game otherwise.

RPGs are also touted as being able to roleplay the type of PC you wish and customize them.

True.  I can't play evil, for example.  But that still means you roleplay and customize the PCs you wish.  Not the NPCs.

[AkiKishi]

jlb524 wrote...

iakus wrote...
But the player is denied nothing.  the characters, depending on how they're played, might be.  But that's why RPGs are often touted for "replayability" Start a new game and see how differently things can play out.

Not true.

Lots of people only play once or twice.

There are some people who only like playing one gender/sexuality/species/morality and cannot relate to playing the game otherwise.

RPGs are also touted as being able to roleplay the type of PC you wish and customize them.

Their choice. The game does not need to be redesigned to accomodate them. Most people get over it anyway. A lot of the people on here who complain about various things still played the Witcher 2.

[mesmerizedish]

iakus wrote...

Still doesn't deny the player anything.  The players are only denying themselves.

In Origins, I am denied the ability to romance Alistair with a male character. You're fallaciously equating every PC with every other PC.

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 09 juin 2012 - 08:27 .

[Abispa]

BobSmith101 wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

iakus wrote...
But the player is denied nothing.  the characters, depending on how they're played, might be.  But that's why RPGs are often touted for "replayability" Start a new game and see how differently things can play out.

Not true.

Lots of people only play once or twice.

There are some people who only like playing one gender/sexuality/species/morality and cannot relate to playing the game otherwise.

RPGs are also touted as being able to roleplay the type of PC you wish and customize them.

Their choice. The game does not need to be redesigned to accomodate them. Most people get over it anyway. A lot of the people on here who complain about various things still played the Witcher 2.

But BIOWARE and the DA TEAM have chosen to go the hero-sexual route. It is not an argument about convincing the DA team to have hero-sexual LIs, it is now up to the s/s critics to give a good reason why Bioware should no longer implement a feature that they themselves implemented. As much as I'd supported diverse LIs in the past, I had never thought Bioware would go the hero-sexual route. They did, I liked it. Not realistic, sure, but neither is a quota system of exclusice LIs.

Modifié par Abispa, 09 juin 2012 - 08:50 .

[jlb524]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Their choice. The game does not need to be redesigned to accomodate them. Most people get over it anyway. A lot of the people on here who complain about various things still played the Witcher 2.

They should make the next PC have set gender (female), race (elf), sexuality (lesbian).

We'll see how that goes.

iakus wrote...
Still doesn't deny the player anything.  The players are only denying themselves.

It is denying the player from roleplaying a particular route (let's call it, 'X').

Sure they can do 'Y' instead, but they are still denied 'X'.

Modifié par jlb524, 09 juin 2012 - 08:41 .

[Iakus]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

iakus wrote...

Still doesn't deny the player anything.  The players are only denying themselves.

In Origins, I am denied the ability to romance Alistair with a male character. You're fallaciously equating every PC with every other PC.

No, I'm equating every player with every other player.

Every player can romance Alistair, but not every character can.

[mesmerizedish]

iakus wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

iakus wrote...

Still doesn't deny the player anything.  The players are only denying themselves.

In Origins, I am denied the ability to romance Alistair with a male character. You're fallaciously equating every PC with every other PC.

No, I'm equating every player with every other player.

Every player can romance Alistair, but not every character can.

You're saying that a PC is a PC is a PC. If I can romance a character with one PC, that's as good as being able to romance a character with any PC.

When you're saying "the player is denied nothing," this is objectively false. The player is denied the ability to romance Alistair with a male PC. Your argument is that since a player can romance Alistair as a female PC, the "can have this romance" flag is set to "true." Except that's not the case, because being able to romance him as a female is NOT the same thing as being able to romance him period.

[wsandista]

iakus wrote...

I think the problem is that while characters may be designed to be LIs, they become designed to be LIs for anyone.  They are no longer characters, but simply extentions of the PC.  As has been pointed out, they'll already get into a relationship with a PC who's antagonistic towards anything they hold dear, provided the PC takes the appropriate dialogue prompts. What I, at least, would like to see is the characters having some degree of independance from the PC.  Including potential LIs which are "simply not meant to be" because they have no interest in this particular PC, but might have been interested if your PC was somehow different .  

Up until now, orientation was pretty much the only way in which this had been possible.  Now even that restriction seems to be gone.

I suspect what this comes down to in some people's minds, at least, is that this gives the PC an inappropriate degree of power over NPCs.  While it's not uncommon for characters to change based on the example set by PCs, in this case it becomes a matter of the LIs being defined based on who the PC is, not on what the PC does.  

Think of it this way, did anyone else find it odd that which sibling survived the flight from Lothering is entirely dependant on your choice in character class?  Not what Hawke does, or says, but simply who Hawke is.  The orientation of the LI's based on the PC's orientation is much the same.  To those who desire a consistent narrative, this can be very jarring.

But keep in mind, if Bioware had a blank check, I'd love to see romances restricted by all sorts of ways, not just orientation

LI's who'd only be interested in humans, or elves.  Or followers of the Chantry.  "Evil only" relationships,  Mage only.  Or anything but mage.  Dalish only.  Dalish mage only.  As well as those with a broader range.  

I'd love to fire up a game, create a brand new character and go "Who's intereested in this one?"

QFT

[Iakus]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

You're saying that a PC is a PC is a PC. If I can romance a character with one PC, that's as good as being able to romance a character with any PC.

When you're saying "the player is denied nothing," this is objectively false. The player is denied the ability to romance Alistair with a male PC. Your argument is that since a player can romance Alistair as a female PC, the "can have this romance" flag is set to "true." Except that's not the case, because being able to romance him as a female is NOT the same thing as being able to romance him period.

I was originally responding to the statement:

I don't think love interests being unavailable for a vast portion of players (those of the wrong race, political preferences, morality, class, and/or clan) is a good design decision. It strikes me more as a waste of resources

My response was:  As long as you are wiling to create a character that the LI would respond favorably to, nobody is denied anything.

What others seem to want is a LI that will respond positively to their characters, regardless of who that character is, what they do, or what they say.

Thus, you the player can romance Alistair.  But to do so you need a female character, as that is what Alistair responds to.

[HanErlik]

wsandista wrote...

iakus wrote...

I think the problem is that while characters may be designed to be LIs, they become designed to be LIs for anyone.  They are no longer characters, but simply extentions of the PC.  As has been pointed out, they'll already get into a relationship with a PC who's antagonistic towards anything they hold dear, provided the PC takes the appropriate dialogue prompts. What I, at least, would like to see is the characters having some degree of independance from the PC.  Including potential LIs which are "simply not meant to be" because they have no interest in this particular PC, but might have been interested if your PC was somehow different .  

Up until now, orientation was pretty much the only way in which this had been possible.  Now even that restriction seems to be gone.

I suspect what this comes down to in some people's minds, at least, is that this gives the PC an inappropriate degree of power over NPCs.  While it's not uncommon for characters to change based on the example set by PCs, in this case it becomes a matter of the LIs being defined based on who the PC is, not on what the PC does.  

Think of it this way, did anyone else find it odd that which sibling survived the flight from Lothering is entirely dependant on your choice in character class?  Not what Hawke does, or says, but simply who Hawke is.  The orientation of the LI's based on the PC's orientation is much the same.  To those who desire a consistent narrative, this can be very jarring.

But keep in mind, if Bioware had a blank check, I'd love to see romances restricted by all sorts of ways, not just orientation

LI's who'd only be interested in humans, or elves.  Or followers of the Chantry.  "Evil only" relationships,  Mage only.  Or anything but mage.  Dalish only.  Dalish mage only.  As well as those with a broader range.  

I'd love to fire up a game, create a brand new character and go "Who's intereested in this one?"

QFT

QFT.

I want LIs like Viconia, not some  "the-sole-reason-for-my-existence-is-to-bed-with-you" dolls.

[AkiKishi]

jlb524 wrote...

They should make the next PC have set gender (female), race (elf), sexuality (lesbian).

We'll see how that goes.

Works for me.

[jlb524]

iakus wrote...

My response was:  As long as you are wiling to create a character that the LI would respond favorably to, nobody is denied anything.

I like this.

Boss:  No paycheck for you today!

Employee:  You can't deny me mah money.

Boss:   As long as you are willing to put aside material wants, you are not denied anything.

[AkiKishi]

HanErlik wrote...
QFT.

I want LIs like Viconia, not some  "the-sole-reason-for-my-existence-is-to-bed-with-you" dolls.

I posted a couple of pages back that we have gone from Viconia who was a challenge. To LI's that are little more than fanservice.