930 réponses à ce sujet

[Kail Ashton]

It only annoys me when established straight characters suddenly become bi curious for absolutely no reason, no hint or suggestion perhaps beforehand in previous games, nope! suddenly in the next game they have a complete psychological overhaul of the entire being and want to play both sides of the field~! cause yah gotta pander to those fans~!

Merril gets a free pass since she was a throw away npc in origins, Kaiden is hit & miss since he was originally supposed to be bi & he's pretty mysterious-ish on sexuality, Anders though is the worst offender you take an established skirt chaser with a thing for elf girls by all accounts from awakening (and only female characters being able to flirt with him) and then maaaagiclly in the worm hole of time that DA2 shoe horns anders into he's magically Bi-sexual and actively hits on male hawkes

[hoorayforicecream]

BobSmith101 wrote...

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.

Your argument didn't do its job at all. I thought you were attacking the metagaming argument, but then didn't acknowledge the reverse. The only way for any character to be thought of as hero-sexual would be through metagaming.

[AkiKishi]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Your argument didn't do its job at all. I thought you were attacking the metagaming argument, but then didn't acknowledge the reverse. The only way for any character to be thought of as hero-sexual would be through metagaming.

As I said my objections and many other peoples have nothing to do with that. It's only a factor if it does. It's enough to point out that once you are in the game it makes no difference .Hence having everyone Bi is a fantasy mechanism.

[jwalker]

EternalAmbiguity 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.

Yup, not everyone in real life will hook up with you regardless of your looks, regardless of your personality, regardless of your morality. That's not how it works in these games though and you don't seem to have a problem with it. The call for "reality is a must have" just for gender is way too arbitrary and makes me wonder if "reality" is actually your problem with it.

[David Gaider]

joshko wrote...
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?

It depends. This particular romance topic has been discussed to death-- and the only idea which ends up being arrived at is that the only acceptable solution is to include twice the number of romanceable characters with options for everyone, and that the individual romances should have twice the content so they can react to everything.

Which is not very helpful, I'm afraid, and from a dev perspective it's where proposed solutions from the community tend to break down. They don't take into account the realistic limitations that we must contend with-- and I'm not sure how they could, as they've no idea what those limitations are (or reject the idea that such limitations should exist in the first place).

Then, when we say "we can't do that", the discussion changes to how we should thus do it this way or that way-- all based on a poster's individual preferences. The part where it gets annoying is when a poster starts condescendingly speaking to other posters (as well as us) about how their preference is the only one that should be considered, how it's objectively better, how other games did it to their satisfaction, how the majority clearly falls on their side and everyone who disagrees with them is irrelevant/stupid/unworthy/etc. Which is pretty much par for the course in any forum, but not particularly persuasive... and it doesn't make a dev want to spend time out of their day to come read it, that's for sure.

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

Be polite. Talk about the things you know-- what you personally liked, how it made you feel, what you'd like to see and why (with respect to those who might not agree). Report your feelings and observations without trying to draw your own conclusions (meaning "I felt x and y, therefore z is the cause and must change!" -- x and y are helpful observations, z is subjective and possibly completely incorrect and even if neither of those are true it might not be something we can or want to change anyhow). Be friendly-- because, surprise! Human beings tend to stop listening to aggressive, hostile people.

If a dev engages with you, listen to what they're saying. They might be playing Devil's Advocate, but if they are it's because they deal with opinions clear across the board and are thus trying to distill something useful out of your stance-- not argue. We don't come here to argue, and there's really nothing more tiresome than arguing with someone who a) feels entitled to your time and feels the things that are important to them should be just as important to you.

Not everyone comes here to communicate with us-- it's rare they come here to communicate with each other. The forums tend to be a place where people with opinions come to declare those opinions at each other. Repeatedly. Usually in the same thread, and when disagreement is encountered it means more repetition is required. If an opinion has been repeated enough on the forums, even if it's by a relatively small array of people, this should constitute the majority having spoken and Consensus Achieved.

What? You won't listen to the consensus? What kind of democracy IS THIS?

And that's the part where it's back to annoying. Thankfully there's a lot of people who come here who earnestly try to communicate and who are enthusiastically engaged. Else no dev would come here at all-- our presence is not required, after all, and we have a lot of work to do. But on a good day, y'all can be fun and sometimes have interesting things to say.

Modifié par David Gaider, 06 juin 2012 - 03:10 .

[joshko]

David Gaider wrote...

joshko wrote...
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?

It depends. This particular romance topic has been discussed to death-- and the only idea which ends up being arrived at is that the only acceptable solution is to include twice the number of romanceable characters with options for everyone, and that the individual romances should have twice the content so they can react to everything.

Which is not very helpful, I'm afraid, and from a dev perspective it's where proposed solutions from the community tend to break down. They don't take into account the realistic limitations that we must contend with-- and I'm not sure how they could, as they've no idea what those limitations are (or reject the idea that such limitations should exist in the first place).

Then, when we say "we can't do that", the discussion changes to how we should thus do it this way or that way-- all based on a poster's individual preferences. The part where it gets annoying is when a poster starts condescendingly speaking to other posters (as well as us) about how their preference is the only one that should be considered, how it's objectively better, how other games did it to their satisfaction, how the majority clearly falls on their side and everyone who disagrees with them is irrelevant/stupid/unworthy/etc. Which is pretty much par for the course in any forum, but not particularly persuasive... and it doesn't make a dev want to spend time out of their day to come read it, that's for sure.

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

Be polite. Talk about the things you know-- what you personally liked, how it made you feel, what you'd like to see and why (with respect to those who might not agree). Report your feelings and observations without trying to draw your own conclusions (meaning "I felt x and y, therefore z is the cause and must change!" -- x and y are helpful observations, z is subjective and possibly completely incorrect and even if neither of those are true it might not be something we can or want to change anyhow). Be friendly-- because, surprise! Human beings tend to stop listening to aggressive, hostile people.

If a dev engages with you, listen to what they're saying. They might be playing Devil's Advocate, but if they are it's because they deal with opinions clear across the board and are thus trying to distill something useful out of your stance-- not argue. We don't come here to argue, and there's really nothing more tiresome than arguing with someone who a) feels entitled to your time and feels the things that are important to them should be just as important to you.

Not everyone comes here to communicate with us-- it's rare they come here to communicate with each other. The forums tend to be a place where people with opinions come to declare those opinions at each other. Repeatedly. Usually in the same thread, and when disagreement is encountered it means more repetition is required. If an opinion has been repeated enough on the forums, even if it's by a relatively small array of people, this should constitute the majority having spoken and Consensus Achieved.

What? You won't listen to the consensus? What kind of democracy IS THIS?

And that's the part where it's back to annoying. Thankfully there's a lot of people who come here who earnestly try to communicate and who are enthusiastically engaged. Else no dev would come here at all-- our presence is not required, after all, and we have a lot of work to do. But on a good day, y'all can be fun and sometimes have interesting things to say.

Duly noted.  It does seem that you guys are listening to us in regards to a fantasy game that may or may not have the word dragon in the title, so I think we should speak up to an extent. But like I asked, I think we need to be aware of how we as the community could help with ideas with out leading to headaches.

Also,
I have found a sloution for the love intrest that will make many people happy!
Let the player assign the sexual orientation of all LIs before a play through!

In all seriousness,good luck!

Modifié par joshko, 06 juin 2012 - 03:44 .

[Ibn_Shisha]

I don't object to the inclusion of non-hetero LI's, however (as is said about many things related to DA2), I don't see what was wrong with the DAO formula; 1 M straight, 1 F straight, 1 M bi, 1 F bi.

[Blacklash93]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...
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.

...

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.

Considering Skyrim's entire approach was breadth-over-depth I think having all marrigable characters be bisexual was appropriate. Everything exists to help define your PC and for little else. It's shallow, sure, but it covers a lot of ground.

I consider Skyrim an RPG in most respects myself, but one that puts a lot of agency in the player over how they play at all times. Really anyone can be a master-of-all-trades in real life with the effort, time, and ambition and Skyrim reflects that I think. You can choose to specialize. You can choose what to level up and what not to. You can choose to change professions. You can exlude yourself from things by choice or neglect without the game forcing you to and that's pretty much like real life. Much more realistic than "You picked Mage at the beginning, no swords or proper armor for you. It's impossible for mages to get good at those things".

Maybe I consider Skyrim even more of an RPG than most games, come to think of it. You have complete choice how to play and what to say at all times. I think RPG's are characterized by how you can define your character. I also think what defines someone (real, fictional, projected, ect.) is their choices and opportunities and not their exclusions.

... I think I just OT'd my own thread.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 06 juin 2012 - 04:23 .

[AkiKishi]

Ibn_Shisha wrote...

I don't object to the inclusion of non-hetero LI's, however (as is said about many things related to DA2), I don't see what was wrong with the DAO formula; 1 M straight, 1 F straight, 1 M bi, 1 F bi.

Works fine until you can't romance LI X because he's not on your list. For some people that's not acceptable. DA2 made a big error making everyone bi, whether they can correct that, we shall see.

[JustifiablyDefenestrated]

Just out of curiosity, are there ways to increase the content without significantly increasing the budget/time needed to implement?

[Blacklash93]

JustifiablyDefenestrated wrote...

Just out of curiosity, are there ways to increase the content without significantly increasing the budget/time needed to implement?

The only thing I can think of would be better and more streamlined tools to create and implement content. Better development management, too.

[jlb524]

JustifiablyDefenestrated wrote...
Just out of curiosity, are there ways to increase the content without significantly increasing the budget/time needed to implement?

No.

More stuff = more money/time.

Unless they cut out other stuff.

I don't think they'd do that...I'm pretty sure their metrics tell them that most players don't even complete a romance sub-plot. 

At this point, they can cut out all romance and I'd be fine with that.

[David Gaider]

JustifiablyDefenestrated wrote...
Just out of curiosity, are there ways to increase the content without significantly increasing the budget/time needed to implement?

There are ways, yes, though whether those are acceptable (either to the players or to us) are really the question-- and there's no way to make content cost nothing. All content comes with some kind of cost attached, particularly written content... anything we write must be recorded, translated, scripted, animated and tested. There's a lot of "trickle-down" cost.

The most obvious way would be to eliminate the need for animation (or cinematics) to touch all writing-- so a way for some conversations to be done ambiently. No zoom-in, no animations or facial expressions (so the same way party banter is currently done) but yet still allowing for the conversation wheel to be used (though how this would be done with the player still possessing movement capability is difficult to say). This requires changes to the engine, and it's hard to say whether players would be okay having some conversations be done like this.

It's difficult to eliminate more costs than that, however. In that respect we're a victim of our own quality bar-- any attempts to cut corners (even if they're things that other games regularly do) are much more evident in comparison to the rest of the game. In some places these are things that can be mollified by improvements to the engine as well. A lot of it comes back to the engine-- as always.

[Reznore57]

In DA0 , gay pc had one romance .Straight had 2 (and straight romances were tight to the main plot).It's a problem of equality ^^.
I don't play many games , but is there a lot of games that propose good gay romances with content equal to straight ones?
There's always the lesbian ones , but again i think it's here to please male gamers.
And everytime i see this particular debate , I'm thinking , "This again?I'm not going to post" and here I am
When the all "bi" for DA2 was announced , I had a difficult time to wrap my head around it.I had my doubts.Then I read a debate in the French BSN.A lesbian Player was happy to have equal access to romance.I thought , well , I can understand that .Then i think some more about it, and remember a lot of things i've read about some people who don't want to define their sexuality , simply because they felt stuck under an "etiquette " that wasn't right for them.And i liked the idea.Not because it was "hey I'm rebel" because it lets sexuality and feeling be what they are .Simply things that can be a little too complicated to be put in a box with a name on it.

Now some complains about characterisation , It's fair.Some characters are defined by their sexual preferences.But that's not a rule.Sometimes you don't know everything about a friend or a lover.And sometimes you don't need to because there are other thing that defines them that are more important.

For me the main thing is , it's the better system to not let anyone feel "left out".I'm glad i can play a female pc for example.It helps me get more involved in the story.

[Blacklash93]

Honestly I didn't want this to be just another "all bi" debate. I should be blaming myself for my approach to the subject. I should have put it as "If the DA Devs were to go back to the old romance formula, how do you think they could improve that?" then listed the suggestions and tropes I fear in the OP. Instead I blatantly put the issue in the headline.

[JustifiablyDefenestrated]

David Gaider wrote...

There are ways, yes, though whether those are acceptable (either to the players or to us) are really the question-- and there's no way to make content cost nothing. All content comes with some kind of cost attached, particularly written content... anything we write must be recorded, translated, scripted, animated and tested. There's a lot of "trickle-down" cost.

The most obvious way would be to eliminate the need for animation (or cinematics) to touch all writing-- so a way for some conversations to be done ambiently. No zoom-in, no animations or facial expressions (so the same way party banter is currently done) but yet still allowing for the conversation wheel to be used (though how this would be done with the player still possessing movement capability is difficult to say). This requires changes to the engine, and it's hard to say whether players would be okay having some conversations be done like this.

It's difficult to eliminate more costs than that, however. In that respect we're a victim of our own quality bar-- any attempts to cut corners (even if they're things that other games regularly do) are much more evident in comparison to the rest of the game. In some places these are things that can be mollified by improvements to the engine as well. A lot of it comes back to the engine-- as always.

So, things like codex entries are pretty cheap, I assume? (Btw, I loved the hidden stories in Kirkwall.) I guess it would be strange to include LI info in codex entries, though.

Modifié par JustifiablyDefenestrated, 06 juin 2012 - 05:10 .

[AkiKishi]

Blacklash93 wrote...

Honestly I didn't want this to be just another "all bi" debate. I should be blaming myself for my approach to the subject. I should have put it as "If the DA Devs were to go back to the old romance formula, how do you think they could improve that?" then listed the suggestions and tropes I fear in the OP. Instead I blatantly put the issue in the headline.

It's now very difficult to go back because people will say how unfair it is. I really think that Bioware needs to break this habbit though across all LI's. There are some stories that benifit from having less choice and more devoted to a specific LI. Whether you see this as fair or not, you can really see this in action in ME3 where Liara and Garrus steal the show because they get most of the attention.

I felt creeped out by Liara because she was pushy, did not seem to respect boundries and may well have mind raped me in London. That's coming from Engineer Shepard who would have destroyed the Galaxy is Tali said "pretty please".
Although he never finished things Infiltrator Shepard enjoyed every minute of Liara.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 06 juin 2012 - 04:57 .

[robertthebard]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Exactly (and be very careful here) what do mean when you say that 'sexuality doesn't matter to me' Robert?

As for making myself clear, since it appears everything I've written across both threads has gone straight in one ear and out the other, please find yourself a quiet spot, away from all distractions and take a few moments to reeeeaaaaally relax. Do whatever it takes: yoga, auto-erotic asphyxiation, whatever gets you centred. Then put to one side everything you think you know about what I'm saying in objection to an all hero-sexual cast of LI's for Dragon Age and read this again:

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.

Ok, deep breath and respond.

You keep saying it doesn't matter, and yet you keep saying that having it clearly defined does?  I take not mattering to mean that it doesn't make any difference if they are straight, gay or herosexual, they are who they are, and you keep saying that knowing they are straight, bi, or gay makes them who they are, or defines who they are.  By your logic, since these characters are so shallow and poorly written, being herosexual and all, there should be no posts in the spoiler sections regarding them.  Let's look, shall we?
http://social.biowar...6/index/5682342
http://social.biowar...6/index/4474634
http://social.biowar...6/index/6402250
http://social.biowar...6/index/5481839
Well, really that's about enough.  Evidently people love/hate these companions every bit as much as the DA:O companions.  I obviously didn't read the 200+pages of dialog in the ones that have them, but it seems to me that hollow characters wouldn't get this much attention.  Alistair was so well written, in my book, that hating him seemed natural after he spurned my CE Warden for being surprised to find out he'd been lying to her all along.

Anders gets attention in more ways than one, for his character in general and for his actions in game.  Plenty of love/hate there too, so no, I don't think having defined sexuality made any difference.  Again, it's your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it, but that doesn't mean I'm going to share it.

[HiroVoid]

David Gaider wrote...

JustifiablyDefenestrated wrote...
Just out of curiosity, are there ways to increase the content without significantly increasing the budget/time needed to implement?

There are ways, yes, though whether those are acceptable (either to the players or to us) are really the question-- and there's no way to make content cost nothing. All content comes with some kind of cost attached, particularly written content... anything we write must be recorded, translated, scripted, animated and tested. There's a lot of "trickle-down" cost.

The most obvious way would be to eliminate the need for animation (or cinematics) to touch all writing-- so a way for some conversations to be done ambiently. No zoom-in, no animations or facial expressions (so the same way party banter is currently done) but yet still allowing for the conversation wheel to be used (though how this would be done with the player still possessing movement capability is difficult to say). This requires changes to the engine, and it's hard to say whether players would be okay having some conversations be done like this.

It's difficult to eliminate more costs than that, however. In that respect we're a victim of our own quality bar-- any attempts to cut corners (even if they're things that other games regularly do) are much more evident in comparison to the rest of the game. In some places these are things that can be mollified by improvements to the engine as well. A lot of it comes back to the engine-- as always.

So any chance we could expect item descriptions in DA3? 

[Iosev]

While I do think that there are ways to improve upon the romance system in DA2 (in particular, separating diplomatic responses from romantic responses), I liked the ability to choose which companion that I wanted my character to romance.