328 réponses à ce sujet

[David Gaider]

Vandicus wrote...
I haven't read the whole thread or all of what's being talked about at the moment, but assuming you had significantly more resources Mr. Gaider, would the kind of enhanced selectivity such as mentioned in the OP be a thing you'd consider?

Provided every character in the party could be a romance? Sure. The problem with that being that it's never going to happen... and, even then, I'd have an issue with having every character be available for romance even if it's only be certain types of characters. Making a character romanceable means they can't be inherently un-romanceable, and that's a bit limiting from a storytelling perspective if I don't have that option.

[AlexanderCousland]

David Gaider wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...
Will you have a selection of companion specific quests like in DA 2? I really liked them, though I think the shifting of dialogue from general conversations to quests might have thrown some people.

I don't think we'll have as many companion quests as we did in DA2, no. On the whole I thought the companion quests worked far better as character development than just talking to a follower back in their base, but it seems some people really missed that and I can see a certain loss in agency so we're likely to move a lot of that content back into their personal interactions.

I know some people will ask "why can't you do both?" ... to which my response would be "because this isn't Talking To Followers: The Game", despite how much some people seem to think that's what it should be.

Thank you!  This is a sign that Bioware has been listening. My perception of this statment's meaning is that they will treat companion quests more like Origins, the companion's approval rating determine's wether or not you get a quest. (Leliana and the Marijoline quest)  In DA2 most companion's had a Quest that was essintial to the player being able to complete the game. (Isabela & Tome of Koslun, Merril & the Keeper, Anders & Karl, Varic & the Deeproads) Im one  of the People who feel like the game should be centered around the player's stories , not getting to know my companion's and interfering in their personal problems, I should have the option to which companion i take a quest from, and that quest should not be important to the overall plot.  Agency.

Modifié par FreshIstay, 01 novembre 2012 - 04:53 .

[Xilizhra]

Im one of the People who feel like the game should be centered around the player's stories , not getting to know my companion's and interfering in their personal problems, I should have the option to which companion i take a quest from, and that quest should not be important to the overall plot. Agency.

I strongly disagree. I believe that all companions should be important and woven into the plot, and their own stories given more space. While it may not change anything, I would recommend that DA3 not move too far from DA2 in this regard.

[Iakus]

David Gaider wrote...

No, I think the issue is basically that people treat the companion quests as just "quests"... the same as any other quest you get, and not really having anything to do with getting to know the follower. Or, more significantly, they see the lack of the many questions you could ask in DAO and say "I didn't get to talk to my follower". Some even take it to "I didn't get to know my follower", even though you have three major quests you most certainly didn't get in DAO (and I thought those were far better ways to get to know a character than just asking them questions, and a way of providing them an arc throughout the plot).

Companion quests are great.  I love them.  But you have to admit it's kinda odd when the only way you can get to know your companons is by killing stuff on their behalf.  Dinner party at the Amell estate woould be so much more relaxing  

[AlexanderCousland]

Xilizhra wrote...

Im one of the People who feel like the game should be centered around the player's stories , not getting to know my companion's and interfering in their personal problems, I should have the option to which companion i take a quest from, and that quest should not be important to the overall plot. Agency.

I strongly disagree. I believe that all companions should be important and woven into the plot, and their own stories given more space. While it may not change anything, I would recommend that DA3 not move too far from DA2 in this regard.

But at what cost? Should their personal quests be essential to you completing the game?

My point is, Im not the type of player who want's to spend 10 year's learning about  companions and their personal views of social justice. I'd rather spend 10 year's learning why Orlais thinks it's a good idea to retake Fereldan, or why Tevinter hasnt stopped warring with the Qunari, or if the Darkspawn are truly  two Archdemon's away from having no purpose and what the Grey Warden's ifluence on thedas will be, or why Dragon's are showing up in alarming numbers. I dont want to spend 10 years making sure Aveline get's a new husband and title, or peacemaking for Isabela, or influencing wether or not poor Merrill fixes her mirror, or fighting for/against the honor of mages everywhere for Anders, Helping Fenris get rid of his masters, or helping Sebastian figure out wether he wants to be King or Priest.  I'd rather choose wether or not I want to help them make those decisions, I dont want to be a glorfied therapist.

[Iron_JG]

Mr. Gaider alluded to a point I wanted to expand upon as I read this forum. Where was the codex entry that detailed the statistical likelihood of certain sexual preferences and whether they're genetically encoded or a choice or a mix of the two? I missed that entry, even though I try so hard to be a completionist. );

More plainly, this is a fantasy setting. It's made up. Everyone could super-total-mega bisexuals (no, I'm not really sure what that means) if Bioware wanted. It's only audience expectations that make it otherwise. I say this as a straight guy who never engaged in S/S romances, not even as FemHawke for a teenage, lizard-brain indulgence. If Bioware made every character gay next game, I would be annoyed, but, as long as I could turn them down, I would get over it.

Also, it's still surreal as hell to me that people care so much about the *tiny* amount of rivalry points you get from turning down Anders. As other people have pointed out, some people react poorly to rejection, and the rivalry points are meaningless for anyone who wants to friend Anders.

I actually have a meta-game reason to be on-board for LGBT content in Bioware games, even if I personally steer clear of it. It's consistently pissed off social conservatives and loosens their grip on our society. It warms my sacrilegious heart. If only Bioware would force the Chantry to teach evolution...

I think the issue of gender is clouding what will make interesting LIs. Bi- and gay people are not inherently more interesting than straight people. Make the LIs deep, engaging and dynamic characters. Make some harder than others -- BG2 had great romances, but Jaheira's and especially Viconia's took time and considered responses. Viconia's difficulty came with a payoff-- potentially healing a wounded heart and changing outlooks. For LIs, it's really quality over quantity to me. My only criticism of DA2 romances is they felt insubstantial, despite having what was probably a good number of two male and two female romances, not counting the Aveline/Sebastian flirtations. Hopefully there are more resources to devote this go 'round, but, if not, scrapping flirtations and flings is fine with me.

As an addendum, while we're talking LIs, I would, of course, like them to be sexy (who doesn't?) but please not over-sexualized. Miranda from ME, for example, was trying so hard I couldn't even humor the idea (I also didn't really like her, but whatever). Isabela could get away with it, but still ... ass-perspective camera shots seem a tad silly and gratuitous. Thirteen-year-olds might like it. I just go, "I c wut u did therr."

Modifié par Iron_JG, 01 novembre 2012 - 07:12 .

[AlexanderCousland]

Iron_JG wrote...
 Isabela could get away with it, but still ... ass-perspective camera shots seem a tad silly and gratuitous. Thirteen-year-olds might like it. I just go, "I c wut u did therr."

  In all seriousness, a v-neck t-shirt and black panties with some gold jewlery scream's sex-pot, even though there is much more too her. It's like "gee's...maybe a nice pair of jeans, at least when u visit the mansion,  for my mom pls?" Love Isabela though, nobody ties her down for very long.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Palipride47 wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Palipride47 wrote...

Trista Faux Hawke wrote...

MrCousland99 wrote...

No, on the Talk To Anders quest I was  just being friendly then all of a sudden he started hitting on me and I say I am not into men BOOM 10 rivalry if it wasn't for the wiki I wouldn't have found out how to get approval in that quest...BY FLIRTING WITH HIM, so yeah you are punished for having a sexual preference <_<

Ah who cares? It's just a video game.

http://www.escapistm...-Homophobic-Fan

Some people really don't like the gayz in video games. <_<

What does that have to do with anything? People who choose not to pursue a gay relationship are not automatically homophobic. The person quoted in that article clearly is. Nothing like that is being discussed here. 

The out-of-proportion RAGE about a perception of being "forced" to be homosexual or "punished" for being hetero, where no "force" or "punishment" exists (where I bolded) is what I responded to. 

Honestly, as often as this topic comes up, and as often as someone dives in here getting mad about Anders being attracted to a man, I honestly feel like a lot more people on here express the view of the poster in the article and cloak it under the guise of "that's not how bisexuals work." as if they know how human sexuality works. 

EDIT: just *sigh* nevermind.....I'll drop this since I want to keep this open to hacve a nice debate. I was responding to the guy who pretty much barged in with his beef about Anders. 

Guilty until proven innocent, huh? I like the way you think.

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I do know what's going on in the game. Anders responds with +10 Rivalry points during that conversation if the player has historically taken diplomatic responses to Anders.

I also fully understand that, if the player's goal is to maximize Anders' friendship score, that this penalty is wholly insignificant in that it barely even measures as a blip.

I find it curious that people criticize us for having an NPC behave in a certain way in response to a player action and somehow taking offense to the idea that Anders didn't take it personally, all the while it ultimately has no significant bearing on whether or not you can become friends with Anders.

It isn't about the number, it's about the reaction Anders (and other NPC's have) towards the player after saying her or she isn't interested in a romantic relationship.

And when you say "diplomatic approach", what exactly do you mean? Are you saying that I can pick all the "nice" options before picking the "broken heart" option and that will change how he responds? If so, I think you're wrong. I think the game automatically assigns rivalry points anytime you choose the "broken heart" dialogue option.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 01 novembre 2012 - 09:58 .

[Harle Cerulean]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I do know what's going on in the game. Anders responds with +10 Rivalry points during that conversation if the player has historically taken diplomatic responses to Anders.

I also fully understand that, if the player's goal is to maximize Anders' friendship score, that this penalty is wholly insignificant in that it barely even measures as a blip.

I find it curious that people criticize us for having an NPC behave in a certain way in response to a player action and somehow taking offense to the idea that Anders didn't take it personally, all the while it ultimately has no significant bearing on whether or not you can become friends with Anders.

It isn't about the number, it's about the reaction Anders (and other NPC's have) towards the player after saying her or she isn't interested in a romantic relationship.

And when you say "diplomatic approach", what exactly do you mean? Are you saying that I can pick all the "nice" options before picking the "broken heart" option and that will change how he responds? If so, I think you're wrong. I think the game automatically assigns rivalry points anytime you choose the "broken heart" dialogue option.

I find it curious that you advocate characters having set sexualities because it's important to them having consistent characters, but have an issue with a character having a negative reaction to being turned down.  Some people do that!  Anders is one of them.  Rejections, being judged for who he is, these are hot-button issues for Anders, and if he's a consistent character, you can't control whether he feels like that or not.   He can take it as a judgement even if you didn't mean it as one.

So tell me, how is this a problem again?  If it completely broke a chance of ever having a Friendship with Anders, I could see it being an issue, but it doesn't.  It's a brief, tiny setback at worst.

Modifié par Harle Cerulean, 01 novembre 2012 - 01:27 .

[katiebour]

David Gaider wrote...
I know some people will ask "why can't you do both?" ... to which my response would be "because this isn't Talking To Followers: The Game", despite how much some people seem to think that's what it should be.

Honestly, ser, with the characters you and your writers create, if "Talking To Bioware Followers:  The Game" were available, I'd play the heck out of it. 



As an aside, the ME squadmates had some additional content accessible via smartphones.  Obviously Thedas doesn't quite have the technology (or maybe the dwarves do and aren't sharing XD) but it would be an incredible amount of fun to be able to sign up for random emails couched as "Notes to the PC from their friends in DA3" in a similar way.

[Poison_Berrie]

David Gaider wrote...
Provided every character in the party could be a romance? Sure. The problem with that being that it's never going to happen... and, even then, I'd have an issue with having every character be available for romance even if it's only be certain types of characters. Making a character romanceable means they can't be inherently un-romanceable, and that's a bit limiting from a storytelling perspective if I don't have that option.

Question: Why couldn't romances form outside of the party?

I'd actually like it if some possible romance options came from outside the people you're out adventuring with all the time. It allows you to not make every party member a romance option and it helps give the feeling that your character's world is larger than their fellowship, the antagonist and your primary quest givers.

Iron_JG wrote...

Make the LIs deep, engaging and dynamic characters. Make some harder than others -- BG2 had great romances, but Jaheira's and especially Viconia's took time and considered responses. Viconia's difficulty came with a payoff-- potentially healing a wounded heart and changing outlooks. For LIs, it's really quality over quantity to me.

I have to agree with this.
In DA2 it felt that the structure of each romance was basically the same:
Flirt -> start relationship -> admit love despite X
With each ones being progressed at similar points because of the quest structure.

It would be nice if one would have a longer courtship and another would start sooner but take longer to get serious. Something that would make them look less like copies of each other.

[Swagger7]

katiebour wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
I know some people will ask "why can't you do both?" ... to which my response would be "because this isn't Talking To Followers: The Game", despite how much some people seem to think that's what it should be.

Honestly, ser, with the characters you and your writers create, if "Talking To Bioware Followers:  The Game" were available, I'd play the heck out of it. 

I couldn't have put it better myself.

[nightscrawl]

David Gaider wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
assuming F/R remains for DA3, which seems likely

It won't, or not quite. Mechanically it'll work the same, but it won't exist as a gating mechanism for interactions and gaining/losing it will be done in the manner of DAO's approval rather than being tied (mostly) to a single character issue.

Does "mechanically it'll work the same" mean that we can have the same kind of dynamic relationships (not speaking of romances here) we had in DA2? Please say yes x_x.

Also, is it fair to assume that you are returning to the DAO-style of approval romances (instead of friendmance or rivalmance), meaning that the person basically has to like you for the romance? I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing, but is certainly added a different perspective to the romances in DA2, as well as increased replayability. In general, I feel that the rivalmance was more suited to a shorter term relationship buildup like DAO had, whereas the approval works better with a long term partner. I really don't see how any of them could wish to be with a person who is so opposite to their views and beliefs in every way, after the initial lust and passion was over.

[David Gaider]

Poison_Berrie wrote...
Question: Why couldn't romances form outside of the party?

Technically they can. The problem there is a tough one to tackle, however. The amount of dialogue which is distinct to the romance is actually fairly small... there's a lot of conversation which a player has with a follower outside of romance-specific stuff (just "building the relationship"), often with just some variant lines to give such dialogues some different flavor. This allows them to serve more than one purpose (which is important, lest not romancing a character means barely having interactions with them at all).

Thus the line between what is the romance and what isn't are blurred, from the player perspective... indeed, a great deal of the relationship that you build with a follower stems from the time you spend adventuring with them. Is it part of the romance? No, of course not... but in your head it's an accumulation of time and experience. You're building a head canon of the time you've spent with the character.

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.

Modifié par David Gaider, 01 novembre 2012 - 02:46 .

[Masha Potato]

How about Anora/DudeCousland thing, only with some feels in addition to political marriage arrangements? It obviously wouldn't have a lot of content, but it still would be interesting

[Maclimes]

David Gaider wrote...
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.

What about non-party characters that you DO spend time talking to? Not that I'm suggesting the following as romance-ables, but just mentioning them as examples of characters that fit that bill:

Bodhan in DA:O. Most of the "staff" of Vigil's Keep in DA:A (Wade, Herren, the seneschal, whats-her-name who gives you your mail). Bodhan again in DA2, as well as the elf you hire on as your housekeeper. 

Since you interact with them, presumably live with them with, and have plenty of conversation with them, it seems that they could fulfill the requirements for "spending head-canon time with" and "dialogue with them anyway".

[hoorayforicecream]

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.

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 suppose that it would be possible if the PC has some sort of "base" that he or she has to keep returning to regularly and the non-party romance is a part of that.

[David Gaider]

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.

[Iakus]

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.

Well, that complaint was voiced about almost all the LIs in ME3.  Traynor and Cortez were hardly unique in that. 

But I agree, they struck me as well-done, non-party romances.

[hoorayforicecream]

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.

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. You can't drag your non-squadmate crew into other conversations over the course of the game like you can with your followers, and those are often places where you'd see bits and pieces of romance-influenced content (there are often several choice romance-related dialogues spread out over the game that somebody who stayed at the base would never have an opportunity to engage in).

Basically, it would require a lot of extra work for no real appreciable gain aside from the novelty of an "equal" non-follower romance.

[Poison_Berrie]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Well you probably can't get past that perception for some people. But that was the kind of thing I had in mind when talking about outside the party romances. 
EDIT: On the other hand that people felt enough to complain about their perceived length, means that people probably did like them.

Masha Potato wrote...

How about Anora/DudeCousland thing, only with some feels in addition to political marriage arrangements? It obviously wouldn't have a lot of content, but it still would be interesting

I like that, something that's partially or starts out politically motivated. Though I recently started watching Game Of Thrones, so I have developed a sort of love for more politics in fantasy settings.

Modifié par Poison_Berrie, 01 novembre 2012 - 04:12 .

[David Gaider]

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.

[hoorayforicecream]

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.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Harle Cerulean wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I do know what's going on in the game. Anders responds with +10 Rivalry points during that conversation if the player has historically taken diplomatic responses to Anders.

I also fully understand that, if the player's goal is to maximize Anders' friendship score, that this penalty is wholly insignificant in that it barely even measures as a blip.

I find it curious that people criticize us for having an NPC behave in a certain way in response to a player action and somehow taking offense to the idea that Anders didn't take it personally, all the while it ultimately has no significant bearing on whether or not you can become friends with Anders.

It isn't about the number, it's about the reaction Anders (and other NPC's have) towards the player after saying her or she isn't interested in a romantic relationship.

And when you say "diplomatic approach", what exactly do you mean? Are you saying that I can pick all the "nice" options before picking the "broken heart" option and that will change how he responds? If so, I think you're wrong. I think the game automatically assigns rivalry points anytime you choose the "broken heart" dialogue option.

I find it curious that you advocate characters having set sexualities because it's important to them having consistent characters, but have an issue with a character having a negative reaction to being turned down.  Some people do that!  Anders is one of them.  Rejections, being judged for who he is, these are hot-button issues for Anders, and if he's a consistent character, you can't control whether he feels like that or not.   He can take it as a judgement even if you didn't mean it as one.

So tell me, how is this a problem again?  If it completely broke a chance of ever having a Friendship with Anders, I could see it being an issue, but it doesn't.  It's a brief, tiny setback at worst.

I feel that it shouldn't involve rivalry points. That is my position. If you think it's insignificant, that's fine.