930 réponses à ce sujet

[Abispa]

iakus wrote...

You may also want to watch who you're caling a liar, btw.

I was criticizing a specific behavior on this thread. There have been quite a few posts in this thread and other related ones about how DA2 has all the LIs chasing after Hawke. or that everyone in the party or Thedas is "bi." That is a LIE. I never said YOU said such things.

None of the LIs start a romance with the PC unless the player chooses a heart option. Isabela hits on you, but doesn't romance Hawke unless Hawke initiates a romance. Anders expresses hopefulness in one realistic moment when Hawke is unbelievably nice to him despite the incident in the Chantry, but unless the player initiates a romance, it goes no further. Fenris compliments Hawke as "capable" and Hawke is (for some reason) given the option to go into homophobe mode. Even if you accept the compliment, no romance is started without choosing the heart option.

[Ryzaki]

Yup. The only character you're ever forced to heartbreak is Anders and that's *only* if you diplo him after his recruitment mission.

I don't get where everyone's getting this "everyone's after Hawke!" thing from. I got more of that from DAO and the ME series than DA2.

[Lord Gremlin]

I personally dislike bisexual or gay characters in my games. However, in DA2 it's never been an issue because there I had way more severe issues, such as enemies spawning from thin air and main story being stupid beyond measure at some points, so I haven''t given issue raised by OP much thought.
Ultimately it will be down to 2 things when DA3 comes out:
1. How good the overall game is. If it's crappy overall, who cares about small stuff.
2. The mastery of writers. When you treat such subject you may want to remember that it may raise disgust in the audience and therefore it should come to play only once player indicated in any form that he/she's ok with such thing in this playthrough.
Then again, it's fantasy. Suppose you're getting a threesome with a mabari hound and a pride demon possessing a small harvester. Does that make you bisexual if you're a trans-gender gnome?
The answer is: cheese.

[Abispa]

iakus wrote...

TJX2045 wrote...


It is the former, not the latter.  The All-bi lets them give equal options to everyone while at the same time not having to spend more money on resources just to give more options, because let's be realistic.  If they don't go the al bi route, the only thing they could really do that would make it fair is the 2/2/2.  And then people are going to complain about the gay/lesbian characters they can't romance.

And even in DA2 there's demands fro Aveline, Cullen, Varric, heck maybe even Charade and Bethany/Carver as Lis.

People always want more.  I'd rather have more options with restrictions on them than fewer options with no restrictions.

True, but the limitation isn't based on a sexual quota system. If the writers say, "Hey, I want this guy to be straight/gay, or not a LI at all," those people have no leg to stand on. If, however, the writers say, "We want all the LIs to be 'bi,'" it is silly to say, "NO! I demand exclusivity for MY immersion!"

[Ryzaki]

Abispa wrote...
True, but the limitation isn't based on a sexual quota system. If the writers say, "Hey, I want this guy to be straight/gay, or not a LI at all," those people have no leg to stand on. If, however, the writers say, "We want all the LIs to be 'bi,'" it is silly to say, "NO! I demand exclusivity for MY immersion!"

Varric should've been an LI. The only one in the party without (to me at least "oh come on!" ) issues and he's unavailable.

[robertthebard]

iakus 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.

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.

Wow, after the "all bi" party complaint, lack of ability to customize the NPC's the way people wished was the next largest complaint I read.  Are you saying that all those complaints were invalid too?  I mean, if you really wanted to, and some people did, you could put Morrigan in Heavy Armor.  Isn't that customization?  If yes, then that's far less drastic a change than a fwarden being able to romance her.  Neither choice has a direct impact on the game.  What it means is you role play.  In doing so, you can change your game environment with each playthrough, mostly, since I too catch myself doing the same quests, in the same order, with the same LI sometimes.

So what you're saying is:  Gay Joe, totally made up person, don't lynch me, who can't play a female character to save his life, for whatever reason, should be denied a romance with Anders because you think it's wrong?

[TJX2045]

Lord Gremlin wrote...
Then again, it's fantasy. Suppose you're getting a threesome with a mabari hound and a pride demon possessing a small harvester. Does that make you bisexual if you're a trans-gender gnome?
The answer is: cheese.

And here comes the association of sexuality, between two consenting adults, with bestiality, a consenting human with an animal who is not intelligent enough to say "I want you sexually."  <_<

Abispa wrote...

True, but the limitation isn't based on a sexual quota system. If the writers say, "Hey, I want this guy to be straight/gay, or not a LI at all," those people have no leg to stand on. If, however, the writers say, "We want all the LIs to be 'bi,'" it is silly to say, "NO! I demand exclusivity for MY immersion!"

 
This is why I have a problem with many of the arguments I've seen people make in regards to this.  Because it's the mentality that "It's not affecting me so deal with it.  There shouldn't be equality or *I* suffer."

Modifié par TJX2045, 09 juin 2012 - 11:56 .

[robertthebard]

TJX2045 wrote...

Lord Gremlin wrote...
Then again, it's fantasy. Suppose you're getting a threesome with a mabari hound and a pride demon possessing a small harvester. Does that make you bisexual if you're a trans-gender gnome?
The answer is: cheese.

And here comes the association of sexuality, between two consenting adults, with bestiality, a consenting human with an animal who is not intelligent enough to say "I want you sexually."  <_<

You know what they say, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with ..., well, you know.

[Iakus]

Ryzaki wrote...

Alright then how about it being resource friendly and giving most bang for buck and less wasting of resources.

See, that's a much better arguement. 

Though I question the "wasting resources" part, since if the romances do progress very differently fro male and female PCs, how much can you possibly be saving?

And it being the only way was laughable because to me it was extremely transparent.

Thus I'm open to further suggestions.  But I feel the need for some sort of limit.

As for me choice is great. I want choice, I want consequences, I don't want artifical silly consequences like being stuck with one option when someone else gets 2 just because I picked a certain gender PC. I want to be ble to have actual choice and consequences in the game with the plot and quests rather than if some misnamed "realism" with LIs. That's where I'd rather the resources go into. The plot. Actual decisions that'll impact the rest of the game, endgame not being ridculous. I'd take those over "LI realism" with an arbitary gender restriction anyday.

I don't want anyone stuck with one choice.  I don't even want anyone stuck with two choices.  What I don't want is everyone stuck with the same choices  I want character creation to mean something besides who the VA is and whether I get a sword, a dagger, or a staff as a starting weapon.

Otherwise at least let me attempt to flirt with the so called "o/s only" LIs and get shot down. At least then my PC tried.

I have no issue with this 

[Iakus]

Abispa wrote...

True, but the limitation isn't based on a sexual quota system. If the writers say, "Hey, I want this guy to be straight/gay, or not a LI at all," those people have no leg to stand on. If, however, the writers say, "We want all the LIs to be 'bi,'" it is silly to say, "NO! I demand exclusivity for MY immersion!"

The first at least sounds like a narrative choice.  The second, well doesn't 

[Ryzaki]

iakus wrote..
See, that's a much better arguement. 

Though I question the "wasting resources" part, since if the romances do progress very differently fro male and female PCs, how much can you possibly be saving?

Most likely a lot seeing as what happened with some of FemShep's romances and other romances that didn't have enough numbers to support them in ME3. That's what happens when you don't have enough resources for all romances. And that's in addition to all the autodialogue and stripped down two choices system that tended to boil down to reject or accept. They simply get tossed to the side with scraps. I don't want that. For anyone. I'd rather share LIs than have one group get that. At least then we all have the chance to get good solid content.

Thus I'm open to further suggestions.  But I feel the need for some sort of limit.

Simple: The PC can make certain decisions in game that would repulse them. Like Anders in the Fade. Not simply being restricted because the PC is the wrong gender. I have no problems with heterosexual and homosexual companions. I just would prefer they not be the LIs. Because when they are someone gets the short side of the stick. And that tends to blow. Especially when that LI is the more plot relevant character while the one option you get is completely and easily removable. Fenris is actually the only plot irrevelant LI I actually enjoyed.

I don't want anyone stuck with one choice.  I don't even want anyone stuck with two choices.  What I don't want is everyone stuck with the same choices  I want character creation to mean something besides who the VA is and whether I get a sword, a dagger, or a staff as a starting weapon.

Everyone can't have an equal amount of choices though. So yes in essence you are sticking people with two choices. If we don't all have the same choices some one's going to get less. That's just how it is. It's like saying "well I believe everyone should get 500 bucks." when there's only enough for some people to get 500 and others to get 200.

And I want character reaction to mean something other than arbitary limits on LIs because of my characters bits and a different voice. As for weapons I fully support any PC using any weapon. I like choices. Even if the PC couldn't specialize in that weapon I'd still be able to like to use it.

I have no issue with this 

Fair enough.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 juin 2012 - 12:14 .

[Iakus]

TJX2045 wrote...
This is why I have a problem with many of the arguments I've seen people make in regards to this.  Because it's the mentality that "It's not affecting me so deal with it.  There shouldn't be equality or *I* suffer."

For the record, I'm all for equality.  I just think that the DA2 way is the wrong way to go.

I've said before in my pie-in-the-sky vision of romances, there'd be a bunch of them.  Which ones depending on a variety of factors.  This is obviously way too resource-intensive and cumbersome, thus unrealistic.


Another option I've heard and like is the 2/2/2 system.  Yes it does limit based on gender, but unless something like an alignment system or some other method is put in place, it'll do for a current example.

It would compose of 2 o/s, two bi, and 2 s/s romance options (one of each gender) six total, and everyone gets a choice of four.  There is no 100% overlap.  It's cerainly more resource intensive than 4 all/all choice, but this is where I think we'd get the most "bang for your buck" so to speak.

A third option I could think of would be ME3's "friendship/romance" switch where at some pont the PC makes the first, obvious, move and without that, there is no romance, or even hint of romance.  That way people can effectively ignore whatever romances they don't like.  No hearts, no heartbreaks.

[Ryzaki]

@Iakus: The only thing I agree with you on is the PC must make the first move trigger .That would solve a lot of irritation on my end.

2/2/2 is too resource consuming unless someone ends up with romance lites. And most likely that'll be the s/s exclusive LIs. No thank you. I'd rather they give 4 Bi LIs more content then stretching it to 6 and having some get the short end of the stick. We all end up with less content when that happens. Some more so than others.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 juin 2012 - 12:18 .

[wsandista]

Ryzaki wrote...

The only thing I agree with you on is the PC must make the first move trigger .That would solve a lot of irritation on my end.

2/2/2 is too resource consuming unless someone ends up with romance lites. And most likely that'll be the s/s exclusive LIs. No thank you.

We don't know how much more zots it takes to go from companion to romance-able companion though. Look at ME3, almost every scene with an LI was available to everyone, regardless if they were involved with the LI. Do you think it took an astronomical amount of zots to slightly modify those scenes?

[Iakus]

Ryzaki wrote...

Most likely a lot seeing as what happened with some of FemShep's romances and other romances that didn't have enough numbers to support them in ME3. That's what happens when you don't have enough resources for all romances. And that's in addition to all the autodialogue and stripped down two choices system that tended to boil down to reject or accept. They simply get tossed to the side with scraps. I don't want that. For anyone. I'd rather share LIs than have one group get that. At least then we all have the chance to get good solid content.

This is quite true.  But keep in mind that going into ME3 we had nine romances active, plus Kelly.  And ME3 added two more (three if you include s/s Kaidan). That's a lot by anyone's measurement.  DA3 will probably have fewer, no matter what happens 

Simple: The PC can make certain decisions in game that would repulse them. Like Anders in the Fade. Not simply being restricted because the PC is the wrong gender. I have no problems with heterosexual and homosexual companions. I just would prefer they not be the LIs. Because when they are someone gets the short side of the stick. And that tends to blow. Especially when that LI is the more plot relevant character while the one option you get is completely and easily removable. Fenris is actually the only plot irrevelant LI I actually enjoyed.

I'd rather have a simple "do not want" switch than going out of my way to repulse a character.  Something unobtrusive and not involving hearts.   I may like a character without wanting to romance them.

Everyone can't have an equal amount of choices though. So yes in essence you are sticking people with two choices. If we don't all have the same choices some one's going to get less. That's just how it is. It's like saying "well I believe everyone should get 500 bucks." when there's only enough for some people to get 500 and others to get 200.

I do not see that as inevitable.  But then, I was never very good at math.

[Ryzaki]

wsandista wrote...
We don't know how much more zots it takes to go from companion to romance-able companion though. Look at ME3, almost every scene with an LI was available to everyone, regardless if they were involved with the LI. Do you think it took an astronomical amount of zots to slightly modify those scenes?

...since the romance versions of some of those scenes were pretty crappy (known as the Liara treating you as a friend until romance time syndrome) by being nearly identical to the friendship versions [leading to some weird undertones like Liara's goodbye scene] (in which case I fail to see how this is so much worse than them treating male and female PC similar in a romance since they treat a lover and friend Shep (regardless of gender) nearly identically) unless you were lucky enough to romance the VS, Garrus or Liara then...yeah it probably was. At least to a significant amount. And even they had flaws (like the VS having a whooping 7 (or 8 if you romanced them) conversations and most of those were filled with 2 dialogue choices and droves of autodialogue).

Miranda's scene was decent, not good but decent. Jacob and Thane were downright HORRENDOUS if you even count them! Steve's was okay outside the atrocious lighting problems and speedy execution not sure about Traynor's since I haven't seen it. I heard from Jackmancers that her scene was pretty bleh as well. Only difference was a few lines even when it was downright OOC for it to be such.

So what do you guys actually want? Because it's looking more and more like it's just restriction for the sake of restriction. It certainly isn't being true to the characters.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 juin 2012 - 12:36 .

[Ryzaki]

iakus wrote...
This is quite true.  But keep in mind that going into ME3 we had nine romances active, plus Kelly.  And ME3 added two more (three if you include s/s Kaidan). That's a lot by anyone's measurement.  DA3 will probably have fewer, no matter what happens 

Now if only we had a comparison of ME3's vs DA3's budgets.

Regardless if you want to use ME2 for compairson instead. (It had 6 romances which is the number you're supporting) it still had less dialogue and depth than ME1. (And even DAO). Heck it had less dialogue and depth than DA2.

I'd rather have a simple "do not want" switch than going out of my way to repulse a character.  Something unobtrusive and not involving hearts.   I may like a character without wanting to romance them.

Then a "let's be friends." choice then. I mean...you already got that in DA2. It's called not picking the heart. Only person who it didn't work on was Anders.

I do not see that as inevitable.  But then, I was never very good at math.

Resources are limited. If there's gay only LIs and straight only LIs let's be realistic. The straight only LIs are going to get more of the resources. That's just how it is.

[meanieweenie]

brushyourteeth wrote...

 Templar Joe has always been into women, but upon meeting Mr. Awesome in DAIII he finds, to his surprise, that he's actually attracted to a man for the first time. Awkward/cute dialogue ensues. If the protagonist is actually a Miss awesome instead of a Mr., Templar Joe goes on being attracted to women as always and falls in love.

I find this totally acceptable. In fact, it's more realistic, IMO. If the PC isn't into it, shoot it down and move on.

[wsandista]

Ryzaki wrote...

wsandista wrote...
We don't know how much more zots it takes to go from companion to romance-able companion though. Look at ME3, almost every scene with an LI was available to everyone, regardless if they were involved with the LI. Do you think it took an astronomical amount of zots to slightly modify those scenes?

...since the romance versions of some of those scenes were pretty crappy (known as the Liara treating you as a friend until romance time syndrome) unless you were lucky enough to romance the VS, Garrus or Liara then...yeah it probably was. At least to a significant amount.

Miranda's scene was decent, not good but decent. Jacob and Thane were downright HORRENDOUS.

ME had many more romances than in 2/2/2, not to mention many of those were with non-companions as well, which are guaranteed to be more shallow(although I would argue EVERY romance besides Liara was pretty shallow).

Look at 2/2/2, if they are all party members, then I don't see why it can't be implemented efficiently, especially if they remove F/R system and go back to approval.

So what do you guys actually want? Because it's looking more and more like it's just restriction for the sake of restriction. It certainly isn't being true to the characters.

I can't speak for everyone, but I want NPCs with static and varied sexuality.

Modifié par wsandista, 10 juin 2012 - 12:37 .

[Ryzaki]

wsandista wrote...
ME had many more romances than in 2/2/2, not to mention many of those were with non-companions as well, which are guaranteed to be more shallow(although I would argue EVERY romance besides Liara was pretty shallow).

Look at 2/2/2, if they are all party members, then I don't see why it can't be implemented efficiently, especially if they remove F/R system and go back to approval.

So what do you guys actually want? Because it's looking more and more like it's just restriction for the sake of restriction. It certainly isn't being true to the characters.

I can't speak for everyone, but I want NPCs with static and varied sexuality.

You do realize there's the chance that maybe just maybe ME3 had more resources? And yes the more romances you get the more shallow they become. This would be true of the 2/2/2 system as well. And sadly the Liara bit is true felt like BW was beating me over the head with her most of the time. Bleh. Also autodialogue and two dialogue choices. And it's not influenced by paragon or renegade. (So my renegade kept sounding like a butt kissing boyscout everytime I lost control of him.) I'd rather lose the romances then have to endure that again.

I already pointed out why it would be more cost prohibitive. The romance scenes are exclusive. You don't get a friendship equal variation to the romance scene. (The scene where they sleep with each other mostly with dialogue about their relationship). That is resource consuming. Along with jealousy banter and such.

And you can easily get that. They don't have to be LIs. The LIs can be bi and you can have other companions of varied sexuality. Without having anyone get the short side of the stick.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 juin 2012 - 12:48 .

[Iakus]

Nyoka wrote...

iakus wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

So, in your opinion, when I modded Ashley's romance over here, she
suddenly stopped being a character in your game. Did you notice that
when playing?

Sibling dying depending on your class is a
choice/consequence taken away from you. The game decided what would
happen, not you. With subjective sexuality, it's exactly the opposite.
The game doesn't decide which one you should romance. You make that
decision.

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.

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.

But like I wrote before that was a "blank check, limitless resources" dream.

I've quoted my whole post if you don't mind, just to highlight the points you ignored in your response, as you only quoted one part. First, if you had learned today that Ashley was indeed romanceable by Femshep, would she stop being a character all of a sudden?

Are we talking ME1 or ME3?

If ME3, then yeah, I'd have to say she dropped a few notches from character " to "fan service" (of course, the uniform did that anyway, but that's another issue)

If, otoh, it turned out I was suffering from a highly selective amnesia and it turned out she had always been openly bisexual in ME1, then no, that's how the character was designed to begin with.  Just like Liara or Leliana.

Second, with subjective sexuality the choice is left to you, as opposed to the sibling thing. So it's in fact the opposite thing, not similar, and therefore not similarly "jarring". Agreed on that?

I choose to be a warrior.  Carver dies.  I choose to be a mage, Bethany dies.  I choose a male character, Andersis s/s.  I choose a female character, Anders is o/s.  The state of their existence is dependant on Hawke's state of existence.

maybe it's just how I perceive it, though.  But it seems like Hawke is bending reality just by existing

Third, yes, the player is denied the choice subjective sexuality gives them: the ability to choose who you want to romance with the character you want. Your approach deprives players from that, forces players to make a certain character. Sometimes it makes sense: warriors don't get to throw fireballs or summon familiars. However, I look at the Ashley romance and I still haven't seen a reason why this restriction should be there.

The player has the choice to romance who the writers decide you can romance.  The writers can go wild and make eight romances, four o/s and four s/s.  Does anyone have any more or less choice than if they had the same four LIs to choose from?  Or go 2/2/2 and everyone still has four, does that still deny choice?

I say, no more than the four all/all option.  Everyone still has four choices, the only question that would remain is the quality of the romances.

Finally, it's nice of you to admit that your approach of multiple restrictions is not realistic and shouldn't be taken very seriously when discussing actual games.

Thanks.  I think. 

[Iakus]

Ryzaki wrote...

Now if only we had a comparison of ME3's vs DA3's budgets.

Regardless if you want to use ME2 for compairson instead. (It had 6 romances which is the number you're supporting) it still had less dialogue and depth than ME1. (And even DAO). Heck it had less dialogue and depth than DA2.

No argument there.  But then, I don't think dialogue was a very high priority in ME2.  It also had more followers than either Dragon Age game.

Then a "let's be friends." choice then. I mean...you already got that in DA2. It's called not picking the heart. Only person who it didn't work on was Anders.

Well, you know my thoughts on that.  ME3 did it better.  But a "let's be friends" option before any romance can start would be an acceptable compromise.

If we have to accept that all/all is the way of the future, than others will have to accept that not everyonee wants all the romances in their game.

Resources are limited. If there's gay only LIs and straight only LIs let's be realistic. The straight only LIs are going to get more of the resources. That's just how it is.

We won't know until it's tried.  Maybe ME3 was a step in that direction.

Modifié par iakus, 10 juin 2012 - 12:50 .

[wsandista]

Ryzaki wrote...

You do realize there's the chance that maybe just maybe ME3 had more resources?

ME3 also had multiplayer, well known VAs, and was heavy on cinematics.

And yes the more romances you get the more shallow they become. This would be true of the 2/2/2 system as well. And sadly the Liara bit is true felt like BW was beating me over the head with her most of the time. Bleh.

No one is arguing that isn't the case. What I'm arguing for is to use the NPCs with the most character development(companions) as LIs because they already have zots being pured into them.

I already pointed out why it would be more cost prohibitive. The romance scenes are exclusive. You don't get a friendship equal variation to the romance scene. (The scene where they sleep with each other mostly with dialogue about their relationship). That is resource consuming. Along with jealousy banter and such.

But you do get Friendship/Rivalry variations on many scenes, as well as dialogue. Replacing those scenes with LI content isn't unfeasible.

And you can easily get that. They don't have to be LIs. The LIs can be bi and you can have other companions of varied sexuality. Without having anyone get the short side of the stick.

LIs almost ALWAYS get more attention than other companions, not to mention every other NPC. Also I want the option to get shot down by someone who isn't interested in my PC because of gender, as well as for actions. LIs should be hard to romance, and if the PC does something they don't like, they should react accordingly.

[Ryzaki]

wsandista wrote...

ME3 also had multiplayer, well known VAs, and was heavy on cinematics.

Exactly. They had a great deal more resources to work with than DA2 did and they still ended up with ridculous cutting corners to meet ends. DA2 barely could use the resources they DID have given the repetitive maps!

No one is arguing that isn't the case. What I'm arguing for is to use the NPCs with the most character development(companions) as LIs because they already have zots being pured into them.

Zots that end up wasted whenever someone doesn't romance them. So why restrict their available audience? Why not fulfill the need to have "varied sexuality" and not cut down on someone's options? What's wrong with that? 

But you do get Friendship/Rivalry variations on many scenes, as well as dialogue. Replacing those scenes with LI content isn't unfeasible.

Huh? We talking about ME3? Because there's nothing like that in ME3. Actually Shep's relationships with all the characters is pretty strictly defined if he/she's not romancing them.

As for DA2 we already have the LI variations of friendship/rivalry as for not being unfeasible you do realize we'd have to LOSE something to put it in right? I'm not sure about you but I don't want to lose content to cater someone's whims on varied sexuality. No offense.

LIs almost ALWAYS get more attention than other companions, not to mention every other NPC. Also I want the option to get shot down by someone who isn't interested in my PC because of gender, as well as for actions. LIs should be hard to romance, and if the PC does something they don't like, they should react accordingly.

Really? Fenris got more attention than Varric and Aveline? Really? I'm not seeing it.

And you can still get all that without having the LIs be restricted. Like that elf chick in DAO. And I disagree abou the LIs being hard to romance. They aren't hard to romance in DAO. Heck I have yet to find any game where the LIs are hard to romance outside a dating sim.