328 réponses à ce sujet

[fchopin]

I am getting to the point that i would rather have no romance in the game than get laid to anything whatever your gender.

[Battlebloodmage]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
It's almost always going to be lopsided in favor of companions though, isn't it? Unless you specifically compensate by writing significantly *more* content for the non-follower romance, it's just going to favor the follower.

Correct. Having it be a non-party character who you already have lots of dialogue with evens it up a bit... but chances are very slim that there are any characters with a volume of dialogue that approaches your party members. Thus, yes, it will either be lopsided or you would have to write far more dialogue for those non-party characters to compensate. Since that isn't likely to ever happen, non-party romances will always be inherently lopsided... it's simply a question of how lopsided they would be.

In this regard, I actually think having non-follower romances favors the thinner romances (like ME3) than the thicker ones of Dragon Age. There was a reason they all felt thin in ME3... they were. And I can see why - they had to spend time addressing the three from ME1 (Ashley, Kaidan, Liara), the seven from ME2 (Miranda, Tali, Jack, Jacob, Garrus, Thane, Kelly), and the new two ones in ME3 (plus the bisexual Kaidan romance and the fling with Diana Allers). When you have to include romance-specific content for twelve characters instead of, say, four, you've got to spread yourself a lot thinner. So, since the follower romances weren't all that thick to begin with, the relative difference between them and the non-follower romances was smaller.

I agree, romances in ME3 for the most parts are very shallow. David Gaider was also correctly pointed out that squadmates have a sense of a "deeper" romance. There are scenes that took place with the squadmates you can't have with a non-squadmates member. The two goodbye scenes were some of the most romantic part in the game, IMO , and you can only have it with your squadmates. There is a scene in certain part of the game in which they express their concern for Shepard's safety. When dividing the romance, some will surely have more than others. I think all of ME1 LIs have more romantic scenes and lines in comparison to the others. DA series is usually more focused on companions, so I think they would require a bit more time and resource to spend on romance than ME. They can't have as many LIs as the ME because the resources would be spread thinner. I personally like quality over quantity. If non-companion romances are just gonna be shallow, then I would like for the romance to be with companions only.

[Maclimes]

fchopin wrote...

I am getting to the point that i would rather have no romance in the game than get laid to anything whatever your gender.

Honestly, I've always felt that way. More often than not, if I complete a romance, it's only out of a sense of "completeness", like getting achievements. The only character I can actually recall enjoying a romance with was Morrigan, and that's because her motivations and concerns were so much more complex, making every conversation about "love" into a virtual minefield. Most of my Wardens, Hawkes, Shepards, Dovakins, and other various protagonists remain firmly single.

It's not that I'm opposed to romance in the general sense. I just don't need it in my games. I'm not opposed to it, and if people like it, cool. But I rarely see the need.

[nightscrawl]

David Gaider wrote...

Now take a character outside of the party. There's no time spent adventuring with them. Unless there are many other dialogues which would have occurred with that character anyhow, this means that any and all romance interactions would have to written specifically for that character... making them more expensive. Since you're not "spending time" in that character's company, the entirety of your relationship thus consists of you talking to them... and, from the player's perspective, those will always seem to be precious few. We can't possibly give such a romance the same depth. So, unless people are okay with such romances being comparitively paper-thin to follower romances, it cannot work the same way. Not, like I said, unless this is a character you are already otherwise interacting with a great deal.

Unless, by romances, we are referring to the kind of paper-thin romances one finds in the Witcher or Skyrim. If so, then sure. But I assume what's being requested are romances that are comparable to the ones you'd have with party members.

None of that sounds appealing to me at all, to be honest.

To give an example, you were able to romance Aarin Gend (a non-follower NPC) in Neverwinter Nights if you followed a very specific dialogue pattern with him. In comparison with Bioware's current romances, this was very minor, but did involve a fair amount of dialogue. I liked him quite a bit as a character, but because I never actually did anything (adventuring) with him -- all interaction was initiated by me going to his location and talking to him -- it did seem a little flat. In contrast, although I've only read about it and not played, I can see how an Aribeth romance might feel more significant, because that can have a dramatic impact on the ending of the game.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 01 novembre 2012 - 05:01 .

[TheJediSaint]

Maclimes wrote...

Perhaps Sigrun only likes dwarf warrior males named Maclimes because she's mine and you can't have her.

Though I'm sure this was meant as a joke, I couldn't help but bring it up after reading your last post, Maclimes.

Modifié par TheJediSaint, 01 novembre 2012 - 04:52 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

fchopin wrote...

I am getting to the point that i would rather have no romance in the game than get laid to anything whatever your gender.

If only I could convince everyone.

[Maclimes]

TheJediSaint wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

Perhaps Sigrun only likes dwarf warrior males named Maclimes because she's mine and you can't have her.

Though I'm sure this was meant as a joke, I couldn't help but bring it up after reading your last post, Maclimes.

It was a joke. 

HOWEVER, I do enjoy a well-written, interesting story. And often times, that involves romance. As I said, I'm not OPPOSED to romance. I guess I should clarify that I don't care for the "tacked-on" feel of most romances. If it's well-written and feels integral to the character and the story, I'm down.

[Battlebloodmage]

Maclimes wrote...

TheJediSaint wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

Perhaps Sigrun only likes dwarf warrior males named Maclimes because she's mine and you can't have her.

Though I'm sure this was meant as a joke, I couldn't help but bring it up after reading your last post, Maclimes.

It was a joke. 

HOWEVER, I do enjoy a well-written, interesting story. And often times, that involves romance. As I said, I'm not OPPOSED to romance. I guess I should clarify that I don't care for the "tacked-on" feel of most romances. If it's well-written and feels integral to the character and the story, I'm down.

Let's have a deeper romance with Flemeth.


... In her Dragon form.

Modifié par Battlebloodmage, 01 novembre 2012 - 04:58 .

[TheJediSaint]

Maclimes wrote...

TheJediSaint wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

Perhaps Sigrun only likes dwarf warrior males named Maclimes because she's mine and you can't have her.

Though I'm sure this was meant as a joke, I couldn't help but bring it up after reading your last post, Maclimes.

It was a joke. 

HOWEVER, I do enjoy a well-written, interesting story. And often times, that involves romance. As I said, I'm not OPPOSED to romance. I guess I should clarify that I don't care for the "tacked-on" feel of most romances. If it's well-written and feels integral to the character and the story, I'm down.

I pretty much agree with you on your points.  Though I would say that romance sidquests (which is what they are) are something that are nice to have in an RPG, instead of something that I'm "not opposed" to.  A difference of degrees, I suppose.

[nightscrawl]

Maclimes wrote...

Honestly, I've always felt that way. More often than not, if I complete a romance, it's only out of a sense of "completeness", like getting achievements. The only character I can actually recall enjoying a romance with was Morrigan, and that's because her motivations and concerns were so much more complex, making every conversation about "love" into a virtual minefield. Most of my Wardens, Hawkes, Shepards, Dovakins, and other various protagonists remain firmly single.

It's not that I'm opposed to romance in the general sense. I just don't need it in my games. I'm not opposed to it, and if people like it, cool. But I rarely see the need.

Did you actually play through any of the DA2 romances though? Part of what makes them so enjoyable to me is the character development that the LIs go through.

I've never romanced Merril, so I can't speak regarding her... Isabela and Fenris in particular have personal issues that are a detriment to not resolving both of their romances until Act 3, whereas Anders, while also completely deranged for various reasons, really never has personal conflict with his love for you; only if a rival, and even then it's a conflict with the whole mage thing combined with Justice.

[Maclimes]

nightscrawl wrote...

Did you actually play through any of the DA2 romances though? Part of what makes them so enjoyable to me is the character development that the LIs go through.

I've never romanced Merril, so I can't speak regarding her... Isabela and Fenris in particular have personal issues that are a detriment to not resolving both of their romances until Act 3, whereas Anders, while also completely deranged for various reasons, really never has personal conflict with his love for you; only if a rival, and even then it's a conflict with the whole mage thing combined with Justice.

I did. I'm an absurd completionist.

I have romanced and "rivalmanced" Merril and Fenris, while I only regular romanced Anders and Isabela.

And yes, there was some interesting character development. In particular, I though Merril's rival-mance was quite well done, and I enjoyed Fenris's regular romance. I'm not saying the writing was bad, I just think a lot of the character developement could have easily been done without needing actual romance. Why can't I just care about my friends, and talk to them, and help them deal with their issues? Why do I have to sex them for that?

[gosimmons]

Maclimes wrote...
I just think a lot of the character developement could have easily been done without needing actual romance. Why can't I just care about my friends, and talk to them, and help them deal with their issues? Why do I have to sex them for that?

I support more bromance.

[TheJediSaint]

Maclimes wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

Did you actually play through any of the DA2 romances though? Part of what makes them so enjoyable to me is the character development that the LIs go through.

I've never romanced Merril, so I can't speak regarding her... Isabela and Fenris in particular have personal issues that are a detriment to not resolving both of their romances until Act 3, whereas Anders, while also completely deranged for various reasons, really never has personal conflict with his love for you; only if a rival, and even then it's a conflict with the whole mage thing combined with Justice.

I did. I'm an absurd completionist.

I have romanced and "rivalmanced" Merril and Fenris, while I only regular romanced Anders and Isabela.

And yes, there was some interesting character development. In particular, I though Merril's rival-mance was quite well done, and I enjoyed Fenris's regular romance. I'm not saying the writing was bad, I just think a lot of the character developement could have easily been done without needing actual romance. Why can't I just care about my friends, and talk to them, and help them deal with their issues? Why do I have to sex them for that?

I actually found non-romantic rivalry to be quite interesting, even without the romantic element.   It just becomes something of a strained friendship, or at least in the case of Fenris, a relationship defined by mutal grudging respect.  Espeically if Hawke is a mage.

[Fiery Phoenix]

fchopin wrote...

I am getting to the point that i would rather have no romance in the game than get laid to anything whatever your gender.

Because romance totally isn't an optional aspect that is as good as non-existent unless you explicitly choose to pursue it?

[standardpack]

I always viewed the 'everyone is bi' as an option per say.  Party characters don't have to initially be bi but if the player chose to do so they 'could' be.  The only 2 who actively expressed their bisexuality (and who I viewed as such because of given fact) is Isabella and Anders.  Unless I went out of my way to flirt with any of the others, I never viewed them as bi except for the forementioned 2.   
Do I think they could've handled Anders differently?  Sure.  I think that if they showed that Anders was bi in awakenings rather than dropping the bomb on us in DA2 there would be less complaining about "THIS ISN'T THE ANDERS WE KNOW!!" (key word 'less').

[Nashimura]

David Gaider wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
The Mass Effect crew is a pretty decent example of this. Neither Traynor, Cortez, nor Chambers are ever squadmates in Mass Effect, but they can still have romance content because of how much time Shep spends on the Normandy interacting with them normally.

I would point out that there are indeed people who claim that Traynor and Cortez were not "equal" romances for the very reasons I described-- despite having the same number of conversations, the perception of the overall interaction was not equal. But, yes, aside from that those are good examples of the way a non-party romance could work.

Traynor and Cortez also have roles with in the game that means they get more screen time you have to walk past Traynor before starting any mission and Cortez normally brings you to the mission in the shuttle - you get some interactions get go a little way to resemble adventuring with him.

It would be hard to fit someone into a DA like that.

[Shadow Fox]

Battlebloodmage wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

TheJediSaint wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

Perhaps Sigrun only likes dwarf warrior males named Maclimes because she's mine and you can't have her.

Though I'm sure this was meant as a joke, I couldn't help but bring it up after reading your last post, Maclimes.

It was a joke. 

HOWEVER, I do enjoy a well-written, interesting story. And often times, that involves romance. As I said, I'm not OPPOSED to romance. I guess I should clarify that I don't care for the "tacked-on" feel of most romances. If it's well-written and feels integral to the character and the story, I'm down.

Let's have a deeper romance with Flemeth.


... In her Dragon form.

Furry?

[unbentbuzzkill]

can you still be called a furry eventhough it's a dragon i prefer the term lizard lover, anyway on topic what does it matter every game has at least one "easy" character just romance them it'll be just like real life but without the std's that way everybody wins!

[Shadow Fox]

unbentbuzzkill wrote...

can you still be called a furry eventhough it's a dragon i prefer the term lizard lover, anyway on topic what does it matter every game has at least one "easy" character just romance them it'll be just like real life but without the std's that way everybody wins!

The "correct" term for those craving rough serpentine flesh is scaly.

[Vesorias]

Maclimes wrote...

I know a lot of people were upset with the "Everyone is Bi" aspect of Dragon Age 2, because it seemed un-realistic. Real people have preferences, and depth to their personal decisions.

The problem is that simply making them straight/gay/bi doesn't actually address that issue. It just addresses one minor aspect of a person's preference. People actually have far more complex reasons for romance other than the set of genitalia they possess.

*****

Perhaps Fenris only like non-mages, regardless of other factors.

Perhaps Leliana only likes people who are loyal Andrastians, regardless of race or gender.

Perhaps Anders only likes light-skinned characters, regardless of gender or race.

Perhaps Alistair only likes human females who are loyal Andrastians.

Perhaps Cullen only likes blondes who are proficient warriors, no rogues or mages.

Perhaps Sigrun only likes dwarf warrior males named Maclimes because she's mine and you can't have her.

******

What I'm saying is, drawing the line at gender preference is arbitrary and self-serving. It's better to just go with the "Everyone is hero-sexual", and give people options. The alternative is just over-simplification.

This is a genius idea. I don't know how hard it would be to implement, having random criteria for LI's, but it would be fun. Personally I would really like to see my companions hook up, like Isabela and Fenris started to if you don't romance either.

[unbentbuzzkill]

umm how do you know that?

[Shadow Fox]

unbentbuzzkill wrote...

umm how do you know that?

Encyclopedia Dramatica*Do not go there if you value your sanity or are at work/on a family computer* hates furries and I browse it from time to time seeing creepy weirdos and ****s on the internet get so viciously mocked and trolled makes me feel better about myself and I find it amusing.

[unbentbuzzkill]

i haven't been sane in a long time why do think i'm always on bsn?

[Palipride47]

gosimmons wrote...

Maclimes wrote...
I just think a lot of the character developement could have easily been done without needing actual romance. Why can't I just care about my friends, and talk to them, and help them deal with their issues? Why do I have to sex them for that?

I support more bromance.

Second.

It really felt like you only got awesome non-romance based relationships with companions you couldn't sleep with

i.e. the Varric-Hawke bro?-mance (is a lady/dude friend duo still a bromance?), or your "sibling"-bond (or unrequited crush) with Aveline, or your sibling bond with Bethany or Carver.

Honestly, even in DAO, it felt shallow being friends as a lady with Alistair if I decided to either romance Leliana or Zevran.

unbentbuzzkill wrote...

i haven't been sane in a long time why do think i'm always on bsn?

No one on here is sane. Not even the devs.  Ask Sheryl Chee or Mary Kirby. 

Modifié par Palipride47, 02 novembre 2012 - 05:32 .