510 réponses à ce sujet

[Wereparrot]

Chaos Lord Malek wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

Chaos Lord Malek wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

Chaos Lord Malek wrote...

It doesn't need to have romance. It just needs to have sex.

That is precisely what it doesn't need.

I would rather the game didn't have romance, or at least how they currently are anyway. A romance that doesn't end up in bed would be nice. Aragorn and Arwen don't end up in bed; why then is it necessary in games?  It seems somewhat juvenile.

I think you missed the part where he had son and two daughters with her. He banged her probably already before leaving Rivendel for the first time, and then when he made her queen as well.

Sex is a must have.

But it's neither mentioned in the book nor shown in the films, and that's the point.

And no, he probably didn't 'bang' her at Rivendell. Tolkien was conservative and a Catholic, and his characters reflect this. Also, Tolkienesque elven lore dictates that sex before marriage was unthinkable.

That as amongst the elves, but Arwen could knew that Elrond would opose her marriage with Aragorn, and could just skip right to it. 

And also, Tolkien lore is full of sex - the very first orks were created from rapes of elven women, inside the first underground fortress of Melkor (befor Angband), Turin banged his own sister and made her pregnent.

Also, Dragon Age is very far away from Tolkien lore, and turn a lot of it around (elves being outcasts, no orcs, no presence of gods, prelevant magic, humans are more numberous and more domminant, not to mention xenophobic - especially twoards elves.).

The game must have a lot of sex. It belongs to any serious dark fantasy. 

I know about the creation of orcs and so forth, but such matters are hardly relevant when we are discussing Aragorn and Arwen. Two conservative characters created by a conservative author who deliberately made his main characters such in order to promote his own views are unlikely to act contrary to the lore. Stop roleplaying two characters who aren't yours to roleplay. Furthermore, Elrond did not oppose the union; he merely stipulated that Aragorn would have to become king before he would allow it.

I realise that DA is not Tolkien, but that doesn't mean the devs should not take inspiration from it. They already have afterall, high fantasy being such as it is.

And why does dark fantasy have to include sex? That is not what makes it dark. In fact I reject the term 'dark'; it's either high or low fantasy for me. And if, in any case, it 'has to', take your character to the brothel. I see no reason why it has to be present in actual romance situations.

[Chaos Lord Malek]

Wereparrot wrote...

Chaos Lord Malek wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

Chaos Lord Malek wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

Chaos Lord Malek wrote...

It doesn't need to have romance. It just needs to have sex.

That is precisely what it doesn't need.

I would rather the game didn't have romance, or at least how they currently are anyway. A romance that doesn't end up in bed would be nice. Aragorn and Arwen don't end up in bed; why then is it necessary in games?  It seems somewhat juvenile.

I think you missed the part where he had son and two daughters with her. He banged her probably already before leaving Rivendel for the first time, and then when he made her queen as well.

Sex is a must have.

But it's neither mentioned in the book nor shown in the films, and that's the point.

And no, he probably didn't 'bang' her at Rivendell. Tolkien was conservative and a Catholic, and his characters reflect this. Also, Tolkienesque elven lore dictates that sex before marriage was unthinkable.

That as amongst the elves, but Arwen could knew that Elrond would opose her marriage with Aragorn, and could just skip right to it. 

And also, Tolkien lore is full of sex - the very first orks were created from rapes of elven women, inside the first underground fortress of Melkor (befor Angband), Turin banged his own sister and made her pregnent.

Also, Dragon Age is very far away from Tolkien lore, and turn a lot of it around (elves being outcasts, no orcs, no presence of gods, prelevant magic, humans are more numberous and more domminant, not to mention xenophobic - especially twoards elves.).

The game must have a lot of sex. It belongs to any serious dark fantasy. 

I know about the creation of orcs and so forth, but such matters are hardly relevant when we are discussing Aragorn and Arwen. Two conservative characters created by a conservative author who deliberately made his main characters such in order to promote his own views are unlikely to act contrary to the lore. Stop roleplaying two characters who aren't yours to roleplay. Furthermore, Elrond did not oppose the union; he merely stipulated that Aragorn would have to become king before he would allow it.

I realise that DA is not Tolkien, but that doesn't mean the devs should not take inspiration from it. They already have afterall, high fantasy being such as it is.

And why does dark fantasy have to include sex? That is not what makes it dark. In fact I reject the term 'dark'; it's either high or low fantasy for me. And if, in any case, it 'has to', take your character to the brothel. I see no reason why it has to be present in actual romance situations.

It doesn't have to be romance! When you rent a prostitute you don't have a romance with her. When you rape a wife of conquered king, you don't have a romance with her. When you get raped by bandids, you don't have a romance with them.

Modifié par Chaos Lord Malek, 05 octobre 2012 - 01:40 .

[davepissedatending]

No I wouldn't buy it

[LadyWench]

Yes, though I would be a little sad. Not just romances, but the opportunity to develop any sort of friendship or rivalry with your companions is one of the things about BioWare RPGs that make them so great. BW has always been great at making unique characters.

Edit: For the "you can't have BioWare without sex!" subdiscussion that has popped up on this thread...some people must have short memories. It's only with Jade Empire that they introduced the implication of sex (and even then, it wasn't for every character or romance) and ME1 where they straight up included sex scenes. There have been other VERY successful BioWare games that DID have romances, but did NOT show or even imply that sex with the PC had taken place. I assumed it was the romance aspect that OP was talking about, for which my original post above still stands.

If you are referring only to sex, then, no, I don't think it's neccessary. There are dating sims for that (though at the same time, I should also say that I'm not offended by the idea, in fact the brothels in DA and the conversations you can have there are pretty funny)...

As TamiBx wrote...
Plus it wouldn't be a Bioware game if it didn't have some kind of romance subplot. If I wanted to mindlessly kill things, I would play Skyrim. If I wanted to just "romance" a character, I would play the Sims. But since I want both, I play Bioware games. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/angel.png[/smilie]

^Exactly! One of the reasons I got bored with Skyrim is because even though you can travel all over do this cool stuff, ultimately, your "spouse" is little more than a food bank/ATM and there's no PC development.

Modifié par LadyWench, 05 octobre 2012 - 02:16 .

[Mummy22kids]

As long as there was still a friendship/rivalry component then I would still play but I would probably miss it.

[Darth Death]

Chaos Lord Malek wrote...

It doesn't need to have romance. It just needs to have sex.

Interesting comment is interesting. Would people be ok with romance but no sex? Take Sebastian Vael for an example. Or do people want only sex without any relationship involved, similar to the witcher? When people say they want romance, are they really saying they want sex instead?

[Yara C.]

Robhuzz wrote...

Of course. Romance adds an extra layer of immersion and depth to the npcs and companions it involves. If they manage that in some other way than romance then I don't mind not being able to romance anyone.

If they just remove it and give nothing in return I will not be pleased, however, since that's just laziness. We've seen enough of that with DA2.

This.

On a second thought ...
 If I would have to choose between shallow romances and immersion in a similiar micro-level with a non-romanceable companion I would even prefer the latter. It is the depth of immersion in a role which counts for me.
The DA2 romances have not been convincing. Better to be forced to decide if you betray a loyal old companion and best friend for higher values or not than to have to cope with annoying shallow romances. (The reverse option, the old companion / friend as a traitor, is for me more burned since Yoshimo)

I have no doubt that there will be romances in DA3. The essential question is for me more if they will provide a real additional value.  Regarding character development, sub-plot, opportunities to interact with companions (romanceable or not)...

[Mr_Steph]

Yes. I rarely do romances anyway.

[Kail Ashton]

Aside from being abit jarring to play a bioware game without one, it wouldn't hamper my enjoyment so long as i had a fully fleshed out companion team, i can't play a 40+ hour RPG solo, i grew up on team based rpgs, even if they say nothing, i hate being solo, my main major complaint with KoA: reckoning there's nothing to hook me into the world's people, at least bethsada tosses me a dog bone with 1 companion, no matter how bland they might be

I've been playing rpgs long enough not to fret over who my character is mashing polygons with, i do however enjoy a good, well written romance in miost forms of entertainment but it's not a requirement for my enjoyment, but again, at this point i expect multiple romance options from a bioware game, so again it would be bizare right in the midst of a series for that option to be taken away, it would definetly be a complaint at worst , but not enough to make me refund the game lol

[Sidney]

Romance is something that if it works in the story...it works. It isn't a needed element and in a lot of ways the way people discuss it it isn't even character development as much as it is a "quest" they are trying to end. In DAO with all the bonuses for being liked it really almost was a quest.

[Zeleen]

No romance in DragonAge = BIG DISAPPOINTMENT

[Shades_Of_Pale]

Personally, I enjoy the romances, they aren't the main thought of the game but they do impact some decisions(for me).

[Dasher1010]

Yes

[SnakeEyes]

I think romance and sex is perfectly acceptable to have in an RPG, and hopefully it gets treated as well as it did with, say, Morrigan in Dragon Age: Origins. I loved the fact that it was involved in the overarching story!

[JellyBean28]

As much as I do love the romance option that BioWare gives us, I would still buy DA3 if it didn't have the option.
I find immense enjoyment in BioWare's games even when I do not romance anyone. I would be sad that they didn't give us the option, but I'd quickly get over it and happily play the game.

[Vicious]

 Yes. It's interesting to note the most vocal and verbally abusive fans are huge fans of romances. Something i've noticed, though i'm not implying anything about ALL of them. 

Baldur's Gate 2 started the rule just because they wrote them so well... after that, no bioware game could not have a romance. ever.

even their MMO has a romance.

bleh! Baldur's Gate didn't have a romance and it was an awesome game.


I remember my first playthrough of Mass Effect i didn't romance anyone just because it seemed so forced with everything going on and the importance of the mission and the fact that it was a military operation so things should be kept professional.

Modifié par Vicious, 05 octobre 2012 - 10:11 .

[Wulfram]

NWN didn't really have romances. Not until HotU, anyway.

[Vicious]

NWN didn't really have romances. Not until HotU, anyway.

You could romance the Elf chick who turned into a villain, whatever her name was, in the vanilla game. Of course it was written very terribly and they killed her anyway in HotU, but it's there.

[Sylvanpyxie]

Would people be ok with romance but no sex?

I have no idea if this is an actual question to be answered, or just rhetorical rambling...

my first playthrough of Mass Effect i didn't romance anyone just because it seemed so forced

I usually avoid romances in Bioware games. I only pursue romances on replays so I can experience additional dialogue(and that's only because I'm replaying anyway). The main reason I avoid them is because they're practically thrown in my face. It's..... Off putting.

Baldur's Gate 2 started the rule just because they wrote them so well

The reason romances were so "exquisite" in Shadows of Amn was because the relationship between NPCs was already built upon in the previous titles, you already knew the NPCs you were fighting along side (most of them anyway).

It also helped that when you encountered your companions they weren't instantly trying to hump you(Aerie not included). The Shadows of Amn companions started with a professional working relationship, built up to friendship and respect and then built into romance (Aerie not included).

It's a formula that worked exceptionally well. It allowed players to progress naturally through relationships with their fellow adventurers and build a deeper emotional connection without being instantly thrown into romantic content.

However, given the limitations on actual Game-Time these days (Origins finished in 10 hours) it's almost impossible to build the same kind of natural progression between Player and NPC. Romances seem to start up straight off the bat, and it's.... Jarring.

Modifié par Sylvanpyxie, 05 octobre 2012 - 10:26 .

[fighterchick]

I would still buy it. I like the characters and the banter. So long as there are still good characters and interactions, then I wouldn't care.