510 réponses à ce sujet

[sarakirrer]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Well as you've rightly identified, Isabela is one of the first characters that springs to my mind when we raise such a concept.

On the one hand I think she is a good example of why a "never flirt with me" would be a disaster for free writing und the wrong circumstances, or why a "never romance me unless I ask" option would have to stop short of messing up the dialog eg: flirtatiousness.

That said, if you don't want to be romanced unless you ask, her not flirting with you is kinda what you want, isn't it? That particular sliver of the pie seems like it would might be a non-issue, doesn't it?

I'd just find it really odd, story- and character-wise, if it was never explained WHY that character wasn't flirting with you beyond "I [the player] ticked this box in the options." Though it may be that a person who doesn't enjoy the romances and who would enjoy that sort of option wouldn't mind if it was never explained in-game why a character who would otherwise have flirted with you wasn't.

Roleplaying-wise, I'd argue that it would make  more sense to include more in-character rejection options so that a person can still "turn off" that romance, but there is a reason why that companion has stopped making advances.

Or do some people really find the romances so abrasive that they'd rather tick an option to turn them ALL off rather than having to deal with anyone flirting with them? (This is a genuine question, not a dig at those people who would prefer that.)

[Gotholhorakh]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

I still think 'toggling' that is unneccessarily 'whitewashing'
characterization. If you can turn off a character's sexuality with a
button without removing any of their personality, then that sexuality
must be very superficial and unimportant.

Well yes toggles are as you say the answer to everything. One day BioWare will release a game that is just one massive massive multi-screen panel of toggles and all of BSN will rejoice.

On the subject of sexuality - why must it be particularly superficial because romance involving it is easily ignored? Not everyone's idea of romance occupies a significant part of their time or is a massively focal part of their character, and I mean people with active and healthy sexual lives and outlooks. There is clearly plenty of room for stories and characters and video games without the need for romance because plenty exist.

Anyway, I wouldn't argue against romance as such, for the reasons given. The ability to have it easy to ignore is more interesting to me - which is functionally pretty close to what BioWare achieves.

The ability to reject it like a sensitive and decent person who is really handling their friend's feelings, and have that friend respond like a sensitive and decent friend when rejected, would probably be good enough.

Either they include it, or they don't. Being hit on happens and I really
don't think it's all that psychologically draining (Though I do agree
they should give you an option as to HOW you should turn them down based
on your personality - and hey, maybe even options as to how you can
accept their advances based on your personality without sounding like a
sex-depraved homebody!) so 'turning off' flirting seems silly to me.

OK, would your objections be rooted only in thinking it's silly/not for you, or would you worry about how it affected the game if it did exist?

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 14 février 2013 - 01:14 .

[sarakirrer]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

I still think 'toggling' that is unneccessarily 'whitewashing' characterization. If you can turn off a character's sexuality with a button without removing any of their personality, then that sexuality must be very superficial and unimportant. Either they include it, or they don't. Being hit on happens and I really don't think it's all that psychologically draining (Though I do agree they should give you an option as to HOW you should turn them down based on your personality - and hey, maybe even options as to how you can accept their advances based on your personality without sounding like a sex-depraved homebody!) so 'turning off' flirting seems silly to me.

I really think the suggested tonal options would fix most people's objections. Being able to choose whether to let someone down gently or tell them to **** off should make their choice in the character acting bitter about it make more sense.

I totally agree with this--I would have loved to ACCEPT advances in different ways, too... And also to have had the option to be like, "Slow down, buddy, I just told you that you had a bangin' bod, I didn't ask to get married and have your children" (I'm looking at you, Anders, who tells Hawke he'll break his/her heart and can't get seriously involved after ONE flirt where all Hawke does is tell him he's hot).

Also, FWIW, I also completely agree that it would be really questionable if turning off a character's sexuality had no bearing on his/her personality.

Modifié par sarakirrer, 14 février 2013 - 01:17 .

[DaringMoosejaw]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

The ability to reject it like a sensitive and decent person who is really handling their friend's feelings, and have that friend respond like a sensitive and decent friend when rejected, would probably be good enough.

That makes sense to me, less burdensome than turning off parts of the game.

OK, would your objections be rooted only in thinking it's silly/not for you, or would you worry about how it affected the game if it did exist?

I think once you start giving options for people to turn off scenes or dialogue because some people might not like it, I don't see where it ends. Toggle scenes where a character's rape is implied? Toggle scenes where someone is being a bigot? Toggle scenes where someone says something hurtful to you? I just think it should be left alone, and to handle this kind of thing in-universe with gentle letdowns instead of ticking a box. In-universe solutions always make far more sense to me than toggling.

[Paul E Dangerously]

Sexuality (and personality) are a little sketchy as it is, given that out of DA2's five LI choices, only one is not playersexual. I get attempting to cater to everyone, but..really?

[Gotholhorakh]

sarakirrer wrote...

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Well as you've rightly identified, Isabela is one of the first characters that springs to my mind when we raise such a concept.

On the one hand I think she is a good example of why a "never flirt with me" would be a disaster for free writing und the wrong circumstances, or why a "never romance me unless I ask" option would have to stop short of messing up the dialog eg: flirtatiousness.

That said, if you don't want to be romanced unless you ask, her not flirting with you is kinda what you want, isn't it? That particular sliver of the pie seems like it would might be a non-issue, doesn't it?

I'd just find it really odd, story- and character-wise, if it was never explained WHY that character wasn't flirting with you beyond "I [the player] ticked this box in the options." Though it may be that a person who doesn't enjoy the romances and who would enjoy that sort of option wouldn't mind if it was never explained in-game why a character who would otherwise have flirted with you wasn't.

Roleplaying-wise, I'd argue that it would make  more sense to include more in-character rejection options so that a person can still "turn off" that romance, but there is a reason why that companion has stopped making advances.

Or do some people really find the romances so abrasive that they'd rather tick an option to turn them ALL off rather than having to deal with anyone flirting with them? (This is a genuine question, not a dig at those people who would prefer that.)

I don't know if I really qualify to answer that since I'm not really anti romance as much as... would much prefer to be able to ignore it if possible.

My POV would be: that romance a) seems just too important to a lot of players to seriously nerf but can create a slight immersion problem for me.

Occasionally, once in a blue moon (two NPCs in all of the BioWare games I have played), a romantic possibility something I might vaguely look for as part of the experience - I think that in an RPG the choice is great - BUT in an escapist fantasy situation it can seem inappropriate so on the whole it would be better discoverable than overt for me.

That isn't to do anyone down who loves it, it just seems like a way we could all be pleased. In the hypothetical situation where I wanted a toggle, I would not be wanting to turn romance itself off, just any kind of solicitation of it by the NPCs in the future if the core experience were to lean in that direction, so I can choose to have my bro/sis wink at me, slap my ass and suggest a roll in the hay after we slay a dragon, or stand down unless I come sniffing around.

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

I
think once you start giving options for people to turn off scenes or
dialogue because some people might not like it, I don't see where it
ends. Toggle scenes where a character's rape is implied? Toggle scenes
where someone is being a bigot? Toggle scenes where someone says
something hurtful to you? I just think it should be left alone, and to
handle this kind of thing in-universe with gentle letdowns instead of
ticking a box. In-universe solutions always make far more sense to me
than toggling.

I would have to agree on the integrity of the artists creation, without interfering in the reality that has been created to suit people's sensibilities, on principle really.

I think my ideal situation without any kind of switch or toggle would be the ability for you and the NPC to be sensitive and decent to each other when a romance is suggested, and the ability to breeze on through the game with nobody soliciting romance from you, or possibly a single very well-written NPC developing an attachment to you in a way that is believable and a bit more idealised and lovely than shag-centric. (because that would be a lot more valuable to the story to me, as someone who does not come for the romantic relationships)

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 14 février 2013 - 01:41 .

[RedArmyShogun]

You are...all of you LI Fanboys are...vermin. Cowering in the dark thinking... what, I wonder? That you might escape the coming sh!tstorm and sunlight? No. Your dreams will burn until its but a wasteland of Dorito's, commericals, rants, and Mountain Dew!

[Gotholhorakh]

RedArmyShogun wrote...

You are...all of you LI Fanboys are...vermin. Cowering in the dark thinking... what, I wonder? That you might escape the coming sh!tstorm and sunlight? No. Your dreams will burn until its but a wasteland of Dorito's, commericals, rants, and Mountain Dew!

Words to live by, in my opinion - except the mountain dew bit.

[Face of Evil]

RedArmyShogun wrote...

You are...all of you LI Fanboys are...vermin. Cowering in the dark thinking... what, I wonder? That you might escape the coming sh!tstorm and sunlight? No. Your dreams will burn until its but a wasteland of Dorito's, commericals, rants, and Mountain Dew!

Rorshach's Journal, Feb. 14, 2013.

Modifié par Face of Evil, 14 février 2013 - 01:41 .

[RedArmyShogun]

*Shrugs* they always seem to be in ads together.

[Sutekh]

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Sexuality (and personality) are a little sketchy as it is, given that out of DA2's five LI choices, only one is not playersexual. I get attempting to cater to everyone, but..really?

Just how many times must this thread be derailed, exactly?

On bloody topic:

@Gotholhorakh,

I can understand wanting to toggle off all romances (although a simple "no" can go a long way, and if you gain rivalry points in the process then suck it up. That's generally how life goes), just like I can understand wanting to turn off combat (see narrative difficulty thread).

But I don't like the idea of tempering with the writing, both on general principle and for quality / enjoyment reasons. It also means writers would have to build (some of) the game around that concept, because I can imagine some kind of domino effect which in the end would render some dialogs or situations absurd or at least weird without the flirting characterization.

In the obvious cases of Zevran or Isabela, for instance, what would be the consistent reasoning behind "those persons speak of their adventures in the wild side all the time, and yet they don't make a single step toward the PC". So to keep consistency, you'd have to remove those parts as well, with a risk of ending up with much less than what was actually envisioned by the writers. Sexuality and personality can be easily separated (in the narrative). Sexual behavior? Not so much.

[Xilizhra]

Almost universally, DA2 already has you being the one to initiate everything. Anders is the one and only exception, and is honestly an incredibly minor thing. If I as a lesbian can stand it, you as a straight male surely can.

[Darth Death]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Now, can we all get back to the OP's original point, which is no doubt, 'lolz, i bet all u furries would be mad n **** if they didnt let u have pixel sex lololollol nerdz.'

If that's your interpretation of my original post, then you're severely wrong. However I do appreciate your willingness to steer the discussion in the right direction. As for the others here, please, can we all get back on track? I know people can get passionate about what they believe in, but I beg you all to save it for another battle, and trust me there will be plenty of those in time to come. I want this thread to last a little longer. Just a little. :innocent:  

Modifié par Darth Death, 14 février 2013 - 01:45 .

[Urazz]

Yeah I'd still play it. I personally prefer there to be romances though as they are a nice little subplot in the game.

[Xiltas]

Yes. While I like all games that give you romance options, I'm just curious about how the story of DA will continue.
Who's the Inquisitor? What's the truth about Flemeth? What about the OGB? Was Andraste really a mage? Is Morgan Freeman really the Maker?

[Gotholhorakh]

Sutekh wrote...


@Gotholhorakh,

I can understand wanting to toggle off all romances (although a simple "no" can go a long way, and if you gain rivalry points in the process then suck it up. That's generally how life goes), just like I can understand wanting to turn off combat (see narrative difficulty thread).

But I don't like the idea of tempering with the writing, both on general principle and for quality / enjoyment reasons. It also means writers would have to build (some of) the game around that concept, because I can imagine some kind of domino effect which in the end would render some dialogs or situations absurd or at least weird without the flirting characterization.

In the obvious cases of Zevran or Isabela, for instance, what would be the consistent reasoning behind "those persons speak of their adventures in the wild side all the time, and yet they don't make a single step toward the PC". So to keep consistency, you'd have to remove those parts as well, with a risk of ending up with much less than what was actually envisioned by the writers. Sexuality and personality can be easily separated (in the narrative). Sexual behavior? Not so much.

This is the thing, isn't it? If we were to go as far as actual flirtation - start filtering out what the characters say and do to avoid actual sexuality... well that resolves to wanting whole characters ripped out of the story, doesn't it.

Much as I loathe both Zevran and Isabela for exactly the reasons you might glean from my posts on this (I find them counter to the atmosphere of the rest of the games and they snap me out of it) the reality is that they are a part of the creation and sacrificing them because of that would be an undesirable thing to do.

This isn't to say that the games aren't already written around gameplay concepts mind you - this is a piece of commercial art in a big business, after all - so it isn't wholly unthinkable that they change for appeal.

I think that rather than a toggle of all romance or sexuality, the simple idea of having to seek out a romance, and of having proper options for dialogue, while leaving the characters as they are (eg: Isabela is rude but doesn't try it on with you unless you give her some signal you're interested) would not present massive problems.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 14 février 2013 - 01:56 .

[Budgier]

I think romances done right can be a great thing, it can lead to more emotional investment into the game from the player. That being said I would definitely still play DA3 w/o romances. But I'd prefer there to be romances, as long as they aren't sloppy as DA2.

[Sutekh]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

I think that rather than a toggle of all romance or sexuality, the simple idea of having to seek out a romance, and of having proper options for dialogue, while leaving the characters as they are (eg: Isabela is rude but doesn't try it on with you unless you give her some signal you're interested) would not present massive problems.

It still would, a little, because she doesn't strike me as someone who would patiently wait for anyone to make the first move, but it's a reasonable compromise.

((Plus it would give me some ammunition against y'all vile romance haters, so I could yell at you "what are you talking about? All you have to do is not flirt with him / her" and be absolutely right about it ))

[BouncyFrag]

RedArmyShogun wrote...

You are...all of you LI Fanboys are...vermin. Cowering in the dark thinking... what, I wonder? That you might escape the coming sh!tstorm and sunlight? No. Your dreams will burn until its but a wasteland of Dorito's, commericals, rants, and Mountain Dew!

For in you, the Maker shall grant wisdom, insight, and freedom from low carb/fat snacky snack items. Spread our vision to the dark corners of the world and, in time, you will join me in our sacred temple to live out our lives in eternal bliss atop the Mountain of Dew.

[Uccio]

Could be a deal breaker to me. I´ve allways enjoyed Bio´s romance since those have been a good part of the game.

Modifié par Ukki, 14 février 2013 - 05:49 .

[Soundsystem]

I would probably still play. However, I find the romances are one of the more enjoyable aspects of the roleplaying for me.

However, if another game company was putting out a well written game with romances I would choose that game over the romance-less game easily.

[Renmiri1]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

*** snip ***

You're fine with stabbing people in the gut but you can't play the game if your character gets oggled by a dude? Why bother.

QFT


Seriusly people. DA2 has a beheading, a "frankenwoman" built of women's parts by a serial killer, a church bombing...

Yet all we see here is "brodudes" whinning that there are romance cooties on their game. Get a grip!

When are we getting the "If DAI had no violence would you still play it" thread ?

Hello ? Is this thing on ? Why the sudden silence.

[sirus1988]

Yup. Just went through a whole trilogy playthrough of ME without a single romance plot. Enjoyed it immensly.