930 réponses à ce sujet

[nightscrawl]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Geez you make it sound like people want a harem or something.

Some people just want to know that the option is there should they ever decide to pursue it, even if they never do. Fenris is my preferred romance in DA2, but it's nice to know that if I prefer to try something different for whatever reason (change of pace, looking at the BSN and reading about a must see game aspect, boredom, etc) I can do that without feeling displeased by having to make a PC of a gender I don't want to play. That's all there is to it for me.

In a way, I would have liked a combination of both games. I really enjoy playing as male Hawke even though my canon is female. So when I wouldn't have minded a more restricted style of romance like DAO has it didn't actually matter. I have no desire to make a male character in DAO (although I've lately been thinking of making a male Cousland and going full revenge RP mode, a totally new experience for me).

[AkiKishi]

David Gaider wrote...
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.

You did play right into that with DA2. Now people take it for granted.

[Wrathion]

No thanks, I'm and RP oriented player.
I've romanced Zevran 3 times (1 female 2 male). Only because I was able to romance him either way. All of them have different personalities and have their own reasons and motivations for being with him. Gender does not hinder my ability to romance him and as such I feel free to RP the crap out of my their romance, without worrying about it. I've romanced Alistair once, I have no interest in doing it again. I believe percieved gender is irrelevant to physical/sexual attraction. It feels wrong that I have to include gender/sex as one of the reasons why the romance is happening at all. While I love Alistair to death, the fact that my PC has to have breasts in order to be a romantic relationship is...ugh.

Modifié par Alexandrine Delassixe, 06 juin 2012 - 10:10 .

[whykikyouwhy]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Having an all hero-sexual cast of NPC’s literally means we cannot have characters like Lelianna, Isabella or Zev in a future Dragon Age game. You know, NPC’s whose sexuality is actually part of their identity? Literally cannot happen! Pity, but that’s the price we all must pay for the sake of those who absolutely insist on being able to romance whoever they want with a single PC.

Neither game thus far had an "all hero-sexual cast." Nor do I think that most players are asking to romance whoever they want with a single PC. The games will have a small number of characters set aside as potential LIs. All of Thedas isn't available to the player for romance.

If you do regard DA2 as having an "all hero-sexual cast," then you successfully included characters like Isabela. However, I don't see her sexual identity as defined, nor do I feel the same about Leliana or Zevran. They are characters who talk about their past lovers, whereas the other companions are less inclined to share and divulge that information. That's more of a bit of backstory than it is a declaration of identity. One's past may or may not be be indicative of the present. 

[AkiKishi]

Alexandrine Delassixe wrote...

No thanks, I'm and RP oriented player I've romance Zevran 3 times (1 female 2 male). Only because I was able to romance him either way. All of them have different personalities and have their own reasons and motivations for being with him. Gender does not hinder my ability to romance him and as such I feel free to RP the crap out of my their romance, without worrying about it. I've romanced Alistair once, I have no interest in doing it again. It feels wrong that I have to include gender as one of the reasons why the romance is happening at all and that kills my motivation to cook up anything else.

What about Alistair does he not get a say in the matter?

[Wrathion]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Alexandrine Delassixe wrote...

No thanks, I'm and RP oriented player I've romance Zevran 3 times (1 female 2 male). Only because I was able to romance him either way. All of them have different personalities and have their own reasons and motivations for being with him. Gender does not hinder my ability to romance him and as such I feel free to RP the crap out of my their romance, without worrying about it. I've romanced Alistair once, I have no interest in doing it again. It feels wrong that I have to include gender as one of the reasons why the romance is happening at all and that kills my motivation to cook up anything else.

What about Alistair does he not get a say in the matter?

Nope.
Gah, why'd you have to quote that before I edited it?!

Modifié par Alexandrine Delassixe, 06 juin 2012 - 10:17 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

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.

It's called criticism.

More and more i'm expecting multiple spiteful references of the community in future DA games.

Modifié par Gibb_Shepard, 06 juin 2012 - 11:13 .

[Wrathion]

That's called reality. Not everyone in real life will hook up with you just because you want to. The game *somewhat* reflects that.

That's one of the problems I have with Bisexuallity for all. It's one less area of definition for the characters, one less place where the characters are actually characters and one more place where the characters are blank slates for the PC to write on. That's a problem. The world should not change itself to fit the players whims. The world should change itself in response to PC actions, and outside forces, but never simply because the PC wants it to. That's what's happening here.

Another problem I have with all-bisexuals is the same problem I have with Skyrim, and why I don't consider it an RPG: there aren't choices. Everything is possible at one time, as opposed to exculsions. Exclusions make up an RPG.

Think about Mass Effect. One of the huge selling points for that series was the whole idea of choice-and-consequence. Now, how it handled that really isn't important here. But let's look closer at that phrase.

Choice and consequence. What is that phrase saying? It's saying, that when you make a decision, the game reflects that. It will sometimes reflect it in good ways, or it will sometimes reflect it in bad ways. However, either way it's an interaction between the game and the player.

Compare this to the RPG staple of skill progression. Skill progression is all about exclusion: Locking oneself into a certain path that will give you certain strengths (that you desire) and some drawbacks (that you are willing to accept). Choice and consequence.

Now, an all-bi cast is the antithesis of that. The game does not respond to your choice by giving you a consequence, it instead gives you all good consequences without any bad. It's like if at the level cap for a character, you maxed out every...growth bar, I suppose. There's no sense of choice there, no sense of direction, no sense of realism, just a sense of being placated.

I can't believe you're crying realism in a game about Elves, dragons, and magic. Jesus. If a gender preference is required in order to define a character, I feel rather badly for you.

You are comparing core game mechanics to the completely optional romance system. Romancing any character does not effect your quests or how NPC's treat you. When "choices and consequences" are mentioned they aren't talking about romance they're talking about your game decisions. Would making out with Alistair as a man cause the Blight to spread faster? Unless it does, there should be no rescrictions on something like that. It's a completely optional portion of the game. The system is only there to help flesh out YOUR character. You should be able to do anything you want with it.

Modifié par Alexandrine Delassixe, 06 juin 2012 - 11:46 .

[robertthebard]

It does seem this discussion always comes back to the same thing: Metagaming before role play. This is a CRPG, computer role playing game. It is not a MGPG, metagaming playing game. Since it's not written specifically for metagaming, but for role playing, metagaming factors should not be a consideration when it's written. Metagaming concerns include, but are by no means limited to, who an NPC will or will not romance. Romances are not required to finish the game, and as such, are more like side quests that you have the option of doing, or not doing. I chose, for example, to romance Zev on a female Warden, for reasons I laid out earlier in this thread. However, the fact that he is openly bi has no bearing whatsoever on how well he fills his role in my parties, when he lives long enough to be in them. It has no bearing on whether or not he'll turn on me at the side quest critical point.

My interactions with him, however, do. Do I leave him sitting in camp the whole time, ignoring him? Do I withhold, or just sell his gifts, instead of giving them to him, do I get snarky when I do give them to him? These are the things that affect that, not whether I romance him or not on a male Warden. He's going to take the action he takes based on that alone, not on his stated sexuality.

I do find it amusing that people think they know better how others should play their game, though. This is what it comes down to, despite BioWare feeling differently. This is a SP game, decisions made in my game have no bearing whatsoever on what you do in your game. If I find a way to make myself rp as gay, and romance Anders, it's no concern of anyone but me. It's not like doing so will adversely affect his plot points, he will do the things he does anyway. The same holds true for all the companions. No matter what you do, Isabela is going to initially betray you, how you handle the plot situations before that moment affect whether or not she comes back. It has nothing to do with her sexual preferences, and while I haven't gotten this far in the game where we're just BFF's, I'm not sure you even have to be in a romance with her for it to work.

However, nothing that happens in any of my save games adversely, nor positively affects anyone else's game, and should therefore not be a consideration for the writers.

Fandango9641 wrote...

Having an all hero-sexual cast of NPC’s literally means we cannot have characters like Lelianna, Isabella or Zev in a future Dragon Age game. You know, NPC’s whose sexuality is actually part of their identity? Literally cannot happen! Pity, but that’s the price we all must pay for the sake of those who absolutely insist on being able to romance whoever they want with a single PC.

Again, sexuality doesn't matter, but it breaks the game? You were going to draw me a picture of this inherent contradiction, care to try again?

[robertthebard]

Nyoka wrote...
This is also factually wrong. If you romance Liara, you can't romance Ashley. If you try, she will be pissed off and you will even have a scene involving the three of you and you have to make a choice, the same way you have to make a choice in skill progression. You can have a game with subjective sexuality where an "all good consequences" scenario is impossible, because the same idea of other potential love interest reacting to your romance works regardless of who is available.

Sorry for the snip job, but I'd like to exand this example to DA.  If you romance Morrigan and Leliana at the same time, you get the same kind of consequence, and you can expand this to all the LI's in Origins.  Even with clearly defined sexuality, there can be negative consequence to having your cake and eating it too.  I haven't pushed this particular button in DA2 yet, but I can't see it having any different consequence.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Alexandrine Delassixe wrote...

That's called reality. Not everyone in real life will hook up with you just because you want to. The game *somewhat* reflects that.

That's one of the problems I have with Bisexuallity for all. It's one less area of definition for the characters, one less place where the characters are actually characters and one more place where the characters are blank slates for the PC to write on. That's a problem. The world should not change itself to fit the players whims. The world should change itself in response to PC actions, and outside forces, but never simply because the PC wants it to. That's what's happening here.

Another problem I have with all-bisexuals is the same problem I have with Skyrim, and why I don't consider it an RPG: there aren't choices. Everything is possible at one time, as opposed to exculsions. Exclusions make up an RPG.

Think about Mass Effect. One of the huge selling points for that series was the whole idea of choice-and-consequence. Now, how it handled that really isn't important here. But let's look closer at that phrase.

Choice and consequence. What is that phrase saying? It's saying, that when you make a decision, the game reflects that. It will sometimes reflect it in good ways, or it will sometimes reflect it in bad ways. However, either way it's an interaction between the game and the player.

Compare this to the RPG staple of skill progression. Skill progression is all about exclusion: Locking oneself into a certain path that will give you certain strengths (that you desire) and some drawbacks (that you are willing to accept). Choice and consequence.

Now, an all-bi cast is the antithesis of that. The game does not respond to your choice by giving you a consequence, it instead gives you all good consequences without any bad. It's like if at the level cap for a character, you maxed out every...growth bar, I suppose. There's no sense of choice there, no sense of direction, no sense of realism, just a sense of being placated.

I can't believe you're crying realism in a game about Elves, dragons, and magic.

Stopped reading there. Get a better argument.

[robertthebard]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Alexandrine Delassixe wrote...

That's called reality. Not everyone in real life will hook up with you just because you want to. The game *somewhat* reflects that.

That's one of the problems I have with Bisexuallity for all. It's one less area of definition for the characters, one less place where the characters are actually characters and one more place where the characters are blank slates for the PC to write on. That's a problem. The world should not change itself to fit the players whims. The world should change itself in response to PC actions, and outside forces, but never simply because the PC wants it to. That's what's happening here.

Another problem I have with all-bisexuals is the same problem I have with Skyrim, and why I don't consider it an RPG: there aren't choices. Everything is possible at one time, as opposed to exculsions. Exclusions make up an RPG.

Think about Mass Effect. One of the huge selling points for that series was the whole idea of choice-and-consequence. Now, how it handled that really isn't important here. But let's look closer at that phrase.

Choice and consequence. What is that phrase saying? It's saying, that when you make a decision, the game reflects that. It will sometimes reflect it in good ways, or it will sometimes reflect it in bad ways. However, either way it's an interaction between the game and the player.

Compare this to the RPG staple of skill progression. Skill progression is all about exclusion: Locking oneself into a certain path that will give you certain strengths (that you desire) and some drawbacks (that you are willing to accept). Choice and consequence.

Now, an all-bi cast is the antithesis of that. The game does not respond to your choice by giving you a consequence, it instead gives you all good consequences without any bad. It's like if at the level cap for a character, you maxed out every...growth bar, I suppose. There's no sense of choice there, no sense of direction, no sense of realism, just a sense of being placated.

I can't believe you're crying realism in a game about Elves, dragons, and magic.

Stopped reading there. Get a better argument.

Despite some of the comments here, this isn't reality, or any thing even close, it's fantasy.  If somebody's fantasy is to have a homosexual relationship with Anders, who's right is it to tell them they can't?  Especially since it's written into the game where they can.  If it's because it affects the way you might play your next game, that is, as I pointed out earlier, not the developer's issue, but your own.  Metagaming is a valid gaming choice, but it has it's own consequences, some of which include carrying knowledge of past playthroughs into the next one.  This is not something the writers can avoid, as it is created specifically by player agency.  The player makes a choice to carry that knowledge over, or, more accurately, to allow that knowledge to affect how they play.  Nobody can write a way to prevent that.

[robertthebard]

Fandango9641 wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Neither game thus far had an "all hero-sexual cast." Nor do I think that most players are asking to romance whoever they want with a single PC. The games will have a small number of characters set aside as potential LIs. All of Thedas isn't available to the player for romance.

If you do regard DA2 as having an "all hero-sexual cast," then you successfully included characters like Isabela. However, I don't see her sexual identity as defined, nor do I feel the same about Leliana or Zevran. They are characters who talk about their past lovers, whereas the other companions are less inclined to share and divulge that information. That's more of a bit of backstory than it is a declaration of identity. One's past may or may not be be indicative of the present.

Come on whykikyouwhy, I know neither DA game had an all hero-sexual cast of characters, but I’m not saying that am I? What I am saying is that it’s a simple matter of fact that an all hero-sexual cast of characters for the next Dragon Age game would mean David’s team could not write characters like Leliana, Zevran and (yes) Isabella. There’s just no talking around it I’m afraid and it’s great shame for those of us who value strong characterisation over and above the ability to woo whomever we choose. It’s really that simple.

robertthebard wrote...

Again, sexuality doesn't matter, but it breaks the game? You were going to draw me a picture of this inherent contradiction, care to try again?

As for you, I’m at a complete loss. Short of flying myself to wherever it is you live and tattooing that picture to your forehead, there appears to be no way for me to make clear to you the very simplest of points!

That sexuality doesn't matter to you, but you feel that not having defined sexuality breaks the game?  I get that picture loud and clear.  You've been stating it in every topic that even brushes this subject.  I have laid out the exact reasons I feel you're incorrect in your assumption, but other than the same type of response here, where you intend to what, beat me into submission, you have yet to spell it out.  The fact that you can't see the contradiction inherent in your position doesn't make me quake in my boots at the thought of you showing up at my front door.  I just hope you don't expect me to pick up your dry cleaning bill.

[AkiKishi]

robertthebard wrote...
Despite some of the comments here, this isn't reality, or any thing even close, it's fantasy.  If somebody's fantasy is to have a homosexual relationship with Anders, who's right is it to tell them they can't?  Especially since it's written into the game where they can.  If it's because it affects the way you might play your next game, that is, as I pointed out earlier, not the developer's issue, but your own.  Metagaming is a valid gaming choice, but it has it's own consequences, some of which include carrying knowledge of past playthroughs into the next one.  This is not something the writers can avoid, as it is created specifically by player agency.  The player makes a choice to carry that knowledge over, or, more accurately, to allow that knowledge to affect how they play.  Nobody can write a way to prevent that.

It's kind of amusing that people keep bringing up meta gaming in something that is aimed squarely at the player and not the character. If the character can't romance someone , then the character can't romance someone end of. It's the players who want to romance anyone.

[hoorayforicecream]

BobSmith101 wrote...

It's kind of amusing that people keep bringing up meta gaming in something that is aimed squarely at the player and not the character. If the character can't romance someone , then the character can't romance someone end of. It's the players who want to romance anyone.

Doesn't this work both ways? If the character can romance someone, then the character can romance someone, and it's the player who gets bent out of shape thinking that this somehow creates a "watered down" character because that character was into someone else on the last playthrough.

[The Elder King]

robertthebard wrote...



Despite some of the comments here, this isn't reality, or any thing even close, it's fantasy.  If somebody's fantasy is to have a homosexual relationship with Anders, who's right is it to tell them they can't?  Especially since it's written into the game where they can.  If it's because it affects the way you might play your next game, that is, as I pointed out earlier, not the developer's issue, but your own.  Metagaming is a valid gaming choice, but it has it's own consequences, some of which include carrying knowledge of past playthroughs into the next one.  This is not something the writers can avoid, as it is created specifically by player agency.  The player makes a choice to carry that knowledge over, or, more accurately, to allow that knowledge to affect how they play.  Nobody can write a way to prevent that.

Being a fantasy setting doesn't mean that everything could be possible. The only thing we know so far is that in Thedas homosexuality isn't generally adversed (though I think that the dalish and the dwarves might be against it, since the dwarves's population is decreasing and the dalish are against human-elf relationship since the children will be humans). We don't know if the majority of the population is bisexual or not.
I don't really care if all the LI will be bisexuals, though I think that making some limits could be a good compromise, like the one proposed in the previous pages with a 2/2/2 LI as straight, homosexual and bisexual.
I don't see the problem with this solution. I don't think it's necessary to romance anyone, as long as every person will have the same number of LI available.

Modifié par hhh89, 06 juin 2012 - 02:17 .

[AkiKishi]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

It's kind of amusing that people keep bringing up meta gaming in something that is aimed squarely at the player and not the character. If the character can't romance someone , then the character can't romance someone end of. It's the players who want to romance anyone.

Doesn't this work both ways? If the character can romance someone, then the character can romance someone, and it's the player who gets bent out of shape thinking that this somehow creates a "watered down" character because that character was into someone else on the last playthrough.

Not the reasons I would give for creating a watered down character.

[hoorayforicecream]

BobSmith101 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

It's kind of amusing that people keep bringing up meta gaming in something that is aimed squarely at the player and not the character. If the character can't romance someone , then the character can't romance someone end of. It's the players who want to romance anyone.

Doesn't this work both ways? If the character can romance someone, then the character can romance someone, and it's the player who gets bent out of shape thinking that this somehow creates a "watered down" character because that character was into someone else on the last playthrough.

Not the reasons I would give for creating a watered down character.

I wasn't attacking your reasons for your opinion. I was pointing out that your presented argument can also be used to defend a hero-sexual cast.

[AkiKishi]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
I wasn't attacking your reasons for your opinion. I was pointing out that your presented argument can also be used to defend a hero-sexual cast.

Well it was intended to remove any idea of the "roleplaying" high-ground.