930 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

Firky wrote...
Like, Merrill is gay, if you're a girl and you romance her.

Not really.  At least, she thinks the Qunari were "easy on the eyes".

[joshko]

David Gaider wrote...

MKDAWUSS wrote...
Personally, for DA3, I'd rather have no LIs period. In fact, they should shoot you down should you try to advance on them.

That certainly does get tempting after reading a thread like this, where one would almost come to the conclusion that the entire point of the game is to romance someone. Anyone. Everyone.

Inevitably this means that, no matter what we do, someone will be unhappy and come to the forums to declare that's not realistic/not why they play the game/not done as well as it should be/was done better in some other game... well, such is life on the Internet, I suppose.

Honestly I think it's because the whole relationships thing is a staple of the DA  series, as well as sort of becomming a... how to put it... Bioware RPG "thing" if you will (not really sure how it phrase it). Thus people feel the need to discuss it in great detail.

But this leads me to wonder... Are threads like these helpful to the devs, with the exchange of ideas and proposed ways of implementing something?

Or are they annoying? A bit of both?
Or does it amke you realize just how futile your sitation really is?

And what is really, the best way to communicate to the devs different ideas, impleminations, and inspirations, of the fans?

[Allan Schumacher]

MKDAWUSS wrote...

Personally, for DA3, I'd rather have no LIs period. In fact, they should shoot you down should you try to advance on them.

I'm actually not against this idea either, but I think I don't think it'd be very well received by our core.

[Vormaerin]

David Gaider wrote...

MKDAWUSS wrote...
Personally, for DA3, I'd rather have no LIs period. In fact, they should shoot you down should you try to advance on them.

That certainly does get tempting after reading a thread like this, where one would almost come to the conclusion that the entire point of the game is to romance someone. Anyone. Everyone.

Inevitably this means that, no matter what we do, someone will be unhappy and come to the forums to declare that's not realistic/not why they play the game/not done as well as it should be/was done better in some other game... well, such is life on the Internet, I suppose.

*laughs*  You know that would be the case no matter what you did.  I'm sure there are websites complaining about how checkers is designed wrong.

I don't really care if there are romances, but I do buy bioware games because I am looking for strong character development and interaction.   If I just wanted to kill things in a fantasy world, I could play something soulless like Skyrim.

[Firky]

Wulfram wrote...

Firky wrote...
Like, Merrill is gay, if you're a girl and you romance her.

Not really.  At least, she thinks the Qunari were "easy on the eyes".

She does? (I'm a straight woman and Isabela was pretty, damn easy on the eyes, though. But I take your point. )

Also, in retrospect, although I didn't cotton on that "everyone was bi," the heart dialogue with everyone was a bit confusing and I might have been being slightly dense. I thought the heart dialogue was more like - I like you, rather than starting a romance. Then I "accidentally" got Merrill in the sack because I picked the heart, in a hurry, because it was where the olive branch was when she comes to visit at your house. (Probably I'd picked it previously, not sure.) Never mind.

[Wulfram]

I like the romances because they're an opportunity for my character to make a personal choice. Not one based on morality or practicality, but one based on their own preferences.

Which helps with replayability, since for questions of morality there's only a relatively limited breadth of characters I'm interested in playing, so a lot of the game will tend to end up being very similar. But the different romance gives me a nice solid difference to keep me hooked, and helps give a quick basis of difference to start me on the way to seeing the characters as different people too.

[Wulfram]

Firky wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Not really.  At least, she thinks the Qunari were "easy on the eyes".

She does? (I'm a straight woman and Isabela was pretty, damn easy on the eyes, though. But I take your point. )

It's kind of obscure.  It's her non-interactive dialogue if you talk to her in Lowtown during Act 3.

[Firky]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

MKDAWUSS wrote...

Personally, for DA3, I'd rather have no LIs period. In fact, they should shoot you down should you try to advance on them.

I'm actually not against this idea either, but I think I don't think it'd be very well received by our core.

At its heart, gaming's fun. Hassling BioWare about romances is as fun as the romance itsself, IMO. Now, if those BG EE people don't make a Haer'Dalis romance there's going to be hell to pay.

[Wintersbreath]

i love me alistair and garrus. had to settle for zevran and kaiden, both were still great btw.

[Vormaerin]

joshko wrote...

Plus you really don't need an example. Nothing wrong with trying something that hasen't been done before, and I wouldn't say making LIs to be a little more important in stories is the most risky thing some devs could do.

Well, sure.  But I thought you were claiming that the teammate LIs were better done than the shipboard ones because they had some kind of greater involvement in the decision making.

I'd be all for more development of the relationship, but that's true of the non LIs also.   Its one of the reasons I liked DA2/ME3's handling of the NPCs better than earlier versions.  They felt more alive and independent.  They were doing stuff other than standing around waiting for me to talk to them.

Bioware is never going to be able to provide as much interaction as the fans want.   The Japanese do make RPGs that are about the relationships, I think.  I'm not looking for that.

But more stories like Hawke's, where we have the opportunity to seem human and part of the world rather than its centerpiece would be awesome.  I expect to be involved in a cool story  and kicking bad guy hinnie up one side and down the other.   But all those elements that indicate my character is not just a killbot are what make the games excell.

[HiroVoid]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

MKDAWUSS wrote...

Personally, for DA3, I'd rather have no LIs period. In fact, they should shoot you down should you try to advance on them.

I'm actually not against this idea either, but I think I don't think it'd be very well received by our core.

You'll could always go 'Obsidian style', and throw in an NPC who makes fun of the convention.

Personally, it reminds me of the convo with Mara in KOTOR 2 if you try to romance her, and her basic reaction is 'Uh...Yeah.  Between you and the two other girls, I'm getting nowhere near that.  Not only that, but considering you were in the Mandalorian wars, aren't you like...10 years older than me at least?'

As for me, the romances really aren't that big of a deal to me personally, but I know at least one(and seen many more) fangirls whos hearts would be broken(Not that there aren't fanboys either.  I think Tali disproves that.)

Modifié par HiroVoid, 06 juin 2012 - 12:16 .

[Taliarus01]

Wulfram wrote...

I like the romances because they're an opportunity for my character to make a personal choice. Not one based on morality or practicality, but one based on their own preferences.

Which helps with replayability, since for questions of morality there's only a relatively limited breadth of characters I'm interested in playing, so a lot of the game will tend to end up being very similar. But the different romance gives me a nice solid difference to keep me hooked, and helps give a quick basis of difference to start me on the way to seeing the characters as different people too.

Indeed...I agree with this opinion. More choices in romance help with replayability.

[Direwolf0294]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

MKDAWUSS wrote...

Personally, for DA3, I'd rather have no LIs period. In fact, they should shoot you down should you try to advance on them.

I'm actually not against this idea either, but I think I don't think it'd be very well received by our core.

As someone who quit TOR because of it's lack of SGRA all I can say is, don't you even dare think about doing this.

At first I was a little unsure about the whole playersexual thing in DA2 but then I decided it was actually really good. My main reason for supporting it is that otherwise there's just a lack of gay romanceable characters. In DA:O for example there was only one gay romance and one lesbian romance versus two straight romances for guys and two straight romances for females. In Mass Effect it's even worse with only one gay romance that's only available in the last game versus the half dozen straight male romances available.

Unless BioWare was willing to make a minimum two straight female companions, two straight male companions, two gay companions and two lesbian companions for players to romance then I say they stick with playersexual characters for all their future games.

Also, I hate how people keep using playsersexual and bisexual interchangeably. They are not the same thing. Characters like Leliana and Isabella are bi. Characters like Anders are playersexual. There is a difference.

[GodWood]

Direwolf0294 wrote...
Unless BioWare was willing to make a minimum two straight female companions, two straight male companions, two gay companions and two lesbian companions for players to romance then I say they stick with playersexual characters for all their future games.

Personally I don't see this as necessary.

Non-heterosexuality is far less common then heterosexuality so it's only natural a non-heterosexual PC is going to bump into far fewer people with the same sexual orientation as he or she.

Also, I hate how people keep using playsersexual and bisexual interchangeably. They are not the same thing. Characters like Leliana and Isabella are bi. Characters like Anders are playersexual. There is a difference.

Anders is bisexual. In DA:O:A there's evidence to suggest he was sleeping with female characters and in DA2 he explicitly states that he slept with Karl and Isabela.

[Allan Schumacher]

As someone who quit TOR because of it's lack of SGRA all I can say is, don't you even dare think about doing this.

Do you think it would have made as big of a difference had TOR not had any romances at all?

[Firky]

GodWood wrote...

Direwolf0294 wrote...
Unless BioWare was willing to make a minimum two straight female companions, two straight male companions, two gay companions and two lesbian companions for players to romance then I say they stick with playersexual characters for all their future games.

Personally I don't see this as necessary.

Non-heterosexuality is far less common then heterosexuality so it's only natural a non-heterosexual PC is going to bump into far fewer people with the same sexual orientation as he or she.

But, just like the male Warden having a slightly bromancey vibe with Alistair in Origins, IMO, it could possibly be argued that greater representation for non-superstraight romances is worth a little crossover dialogue etc? As a woman who is used to playing these kinds of games as a man because "they get more interesting content," Alistair was a relevation. Representation doesn't stop at straight female.

But. I'm sure it could be done so that you wouldn't lose anything in the characterisation. It would certainly be more time consuming, thinking about Alistair's files in the toolset for example, to check for female every single time and then make him more of a "male friend" with male protags (or write dialogue alternative to what I thought was him cracking onto me as male), but it could definitely be done.

I'm picturing it being fairly straightforward, once the player has started, or not, romancing Merrill, to remove references to her lusting after the Arishok, for example. She could say soemthing completely different about the Arishok, unrelated to sexuality at all. If it's like Origins (which it may not be), dialogue would just check for flags as to whether or not she's "gay," based on player preference. No, I'm totally sure this could be done.

[Direwolf0294]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

As someone who quit TOR because of it's lack of SGRA all I can say is, don't you even dare think about doing this.

Do you think it would have made as big of a difference had TOR not had any romances at all?

If TOR didn't have any romances at all I'd probably still be playing. I'd be disappointed because it's something I've come to expect from BioWare games and something I really enjoy pursuing in RPGs (I'm secretly a huge romantic, just don't tell anyone), but I'd be willing to overlook it and keep playing the game.

That the game did include romances though but not same-gender romances really, really got to me. It made me feel like I was missing out on a huge part of the game (I'm not against straight romances, it's just TOR didn't have any that were particularly appealing to me) and felt like I wasn't able to play the sort of character I wanted. Even if characters hadn't reciprocated to my characters advances just being able to flirt with them probably would have been enough to keep me around.

[joshko]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

As someone who quit TOR because of it's lack of SGRA all I can say is, don't you even dare think about doing this.

Do you think it would have made as big of a difference had TOR not had any romances at all?

I don't think romance would make a difference in any game, in retrospect. But now that that players have it, its absense is noted.

I'm not opposed to the exclusion of LIs, but I must admit I've gotten used to them and it's something I wonder about once I'm past considering the more important aspects of the game.

[JustifiablyDefenestrated]

 The only thing that bugged me about the all-bi romances was that it felt like everyone had a secret crush on Hawke. Except Aveline. Aveline was awesome.

However, that said, I have nothing against the idea.

Modifié par JustifiablyDefenestrated, 06 juin 2012 - 01:20 .

[Nerdage]

Wulfram wrote...

I like the romances because they're an opportunity for my character to make a personal choice. Not one based on morality or practicality, but one based on their own preferences.

Which helps with replayability, since for questions of morality there's only a relatively limited breadth of characters I'm interested in playing, so a lot of the game will tend to end up being very similar. But the different romance gives me a nice solid difference to keep me hooked, and helps give a quick basis of difference to start me on the way to seeing the characters as different people too.

Likewise, which is why I think the more choices open to the player, the better. So arbitrarily locking some options out as soon as you start the game for no obvious gain as far as I can see seems counter-productive to me, it's losing the ability to define the PC a certain way almost like deciding mages can't be pro-chantry or only rogues can make jokes; the safest option seems to be leave all the options open to everyone and let the player decide what's appropriate.

[Dave of Canada]

Direwolf0294 wrote...

As someone who quit TOR because of it's lack of SGRA all I can say is, don't you even dare think about doing this.

You quit a game... because it lacked a romance option which they said they'd add in later?

[Vormaerin]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Direwolf0294 wrote...

As someone who quit TOR because of it's lack of SGRA all I can say is, don't you even dare think about doing this.

You quit a game... because it lacked a romance option which they said they'd add in later?

And when is later?  Next week?  Next year?  After the apocalypse, when he can access the Divine ReMastered Version of Perfect Intentions?

If the game doesn't have something he wants, I don't see why its unreasonable for him to stop playing a SUBSCRIPTION game.  How much money is it reasonable for him to have to pay while waiting for it?

[Sith Grey Warden]

Blacklash93 wrote...

My point is not to label every character. I know there are plenty of characters better off not blatantly stating things about themselves. The person I responded to someone who worded his question in a way that sounded to me like "You might have these LGBT characters and not know it.".

My point is that you cannot call, for instance, a married man who does not specifically mention his sexuality a relatable LGBT character in any way. Just because there is that, however small, element of ambiguity does not make one a relatable character to an LGBT audience. Sexuality must be expressed somehow. Gay people are not going to go "Oh! Bann Teagan didn't specifically state his orientation! He might be bi!" and call that a character they can identify with.

Someone doesn't have to share the player's sexual orientation to be relatable. I'm bi, yet found Alistair far more relatable than Zevran.

Modifié par Sith Grey Warden, 06 juin 2012 - 01:56 .

[GodWood]

nerdage wrote...
Likewise, which is why I think the more choices open to the player, the better. So arbitrarily locking some options out as soon as you start the game for no obvious gain as far as I can see seems counter-productive to me, it's losing the ability to define the PC a certain way almost like deciding mages can't be pro-chantry or only rogues can make jokes; the safest option seems to be leave all the options open to everyone and let the player decide what's appropriate.

I don't have to point out how this is flat out wrong do I?

[Vormaerin]

GodWood wrote...

I don't have to point out how this is flat out wrong do I?

Yes,I think you do.