154 réponses à ce sujet

[withneelandi]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I think you're wildly overestimating how much influence any given romance-related thread on the BSN actually has.

That and I'd disagree with your assertion that the romances are irrelevant and/or diminish the strength of the narrative.

I'm not saying they all diminish the strength of the narrative, some enhance it.

I do think that if including romances as a sort of presumption in every Bioware game could well be a weakness, not every story has a place for romance, after all but I fear that is where we have ended up.

[iOnlySignIn]

P stands for Parenting.

G stands for Gardening.

RPG is for those who can't afford a family IRL.

[upsettingshorts]

There's value in irrelevance though - crap, there goes half my issues with Fenris but so be it - because if everything that happens in a game has great narrative significance, it can wear on one's sense of relative importance.

That's a rather clever way of saying not all romances need be the same, and can fit into a story in more than one way.

[Harle Cerulean]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

There's value in irrelevance though - crap, there goes half my issues with Fenris but so be it - because if everything that happens in a game has great narrative significance, it can wear on one's sense of relative importance.

That's a rather clever way of saying not all romances need be the same, and can fit into a story in more than one way.

I am going to save this post.  And the link to it. 

[Morty Smith]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

P stands for Parenting.

G stands for Gardening.

RPG is for those who can't afford a family IRL.

Oh, where did you buy yours?

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

P stands for Parenting.

G stands for Gardening.

RPG is for those who can't afford a family IRL.

QFT!

I play Strategy Games like Generals and Caesars! 

[Direwolf0294]

If you don't want meaningful and branching character interaction and development why are you even playing an RPG in the first place?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Meh. I don't care about romances.
I don't need them at all to enjoy a RPG.
They are a nice adition, but often feel forced and tacked on. Unnecessary.

Yeah, I get they are probably there to attract more of the female audience. But I personalyl feel that more often than not they just don't seem to really fit in the "quick, lets go save the world" atmosphere.
Smooching and kids are for after the crysis is dealt with.

[brushyourteeth]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Meh. I don't care about romances.
I don't need them at all to enjoy a RPG.
They are a nice adition, but often feel forced and tacked on. Unnecessary.

Yeah, I get they are probably there to attract more of the female audience. But I personalyl feel that more often than not they just don't seem to really fit in the "quick, lets go save the world" atmosphere.
Smooching and kids are for after the crysis is dealt with.

As a card-carrying member of the female gender, I just wanted to say that I actually agree with everything I underlined.  

Though I'll say that the Alistair romance was the exception to my general take-it-or-leave-it attitude to Bioware romances. The bond you create with that guy, whether romance or just bromance, completely enhanced the entire story for me. I think it would have felt strange not to have that kind of bond forged with him after everything you experience together, because you saved the world as a team.

[kirvingtwo]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Meh. I don't care about romances.
I don't need them at all to enjoy a RPG.
They are a nice adition, but often feel forced and tacked on. Unnecessary.

Yeah, I get they are probably there to attract more of the female audience. But I personalyl feel that more often than not they just don't seem to really fit in the "quick, lets go save the world" atmosphere.
Smooching and kids are for after the crysis is dealt with.

Well, BioWare had 4 romanceable characters in BG2, three for a male player character and 1 for a female player character.  So your statement doesn't really make a lot of sense.  BioWare writing romanceable characters is not some new marketing device.

[Dave of Canada]

Romance should serve some narrative use other than satisfying the player's whims.

[Xilizhra]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Romance should serve some narrative use other than satisfying the player's whims.

But then people will complain even more about romance being necessary for content. Whim-satisfying (otherwise known as "fun") is really the only thing romance is equipped to safely do in an RPG when you have numerous choices.

[gonzalez.melissa53]

Xilizhra wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Romance should serve some narrative use other than satisfying the player's whims.

But then people will complain even more about romance being necessary for content. Whim-satisfying (otherwise known as "fun") is really the only thing romance is equipped to safely do in an RPG when you have numerous choices.

Isn't "Fun" what gaming of any sort is about? I mean, I wish it was my JOB but I'm not so lucky!

[Lotion Soronarr]

kirvingtwo wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Meh. I don't care about romances.
I don't need them at all to enjoy a RPG.
They are a nice adition, but often feel forced and tacked on. Unnecessary.

Yeah, I get they are probably there to attract more of the female audience. But I personalyl feel that more often than not they just don't seem to really fit in the "quick, lets go save the world" atmosphere.
Smooching and kids are for after the crysis is dealt with.

Well, BioWare had 4 romanceable characters in BG2, three for a male player character and 1 for a female player character.  So your statement doesn't really make a lot of sense.  BioWare writing romanceable characters is not some new marketing device.

BG1 had none.
And BG2 romances were easier on the resources - no cutscenes, less dev time required.

For lack of better word, they felt more... subtle.

[SpunkyMonkey]

What always makes me laugh when people bring this up is that the majority of stories told since the beginning of time include a romance, so to expect Bioware to not include one or concentrate less on one is silly - especially as they tailor their games to suit a more casual market.

[mickey111]

Direwolf0294 wrote...

If you don't want meaningful and branching character interaction and development why are you even playing an RPG in the first place?

Because the gameplay isnt like the other genres.

Why play a game if you don't care about the gameplay? Why is softcore porn the only meaningful interactivity? 

[Solmanian]

I'm not saying they should cut the romances out. But, I found that I have less interactrion with romancable charecters. If I'm not planing to romance them than I tend to avoid them so I won't accidently say something that might hurt my advance with the charecter I am trying to romance. More than once, trying to be friendly to a romacable charecter initiated a "romance" and ruined my relationship with my LI who thought I was cheating on it.

One of the things I liked most in ME3 is the "bromance" my male shep had with Garrus. If garrus was romancable that probably would've been ruined, since I wouldn't have been able to feel free to say what I want because than our convorsations would've had a sexual undertone. (to clarify: this has nothing to do with garrus becoming gay/bisexual by such an occurent) Not everything is better with sex.
Would Wrex been better if he was romancable? would legion? The most interesting charecters in Bioware games were the ones that weren't romancable, like mordin and shale, because they didn't need that "crutch". When writing a potential LI it is very different than a regular charecter. Kaiden didn't realy had anything to say in ME1 to a male shep, same with ashley and females. I'm sure if there was a poll about who you left on virmire the majority would say they left the one that wasn't romancable, even if they were romancing Liara.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Direwolf0294 wrote...

If you don't want meaningful and branching character interaction and development why are you even playing an RPG in the first place?

Sometimes I wonder how RPGs ever did without romance, or whether RPGs without romances are really RPGs at all.

I mean, how are you supposed to roleplay or interact deeply with characters if you can't have romantic and sexual relationships with them?

Modifié par CrustyBot, 30 novembre 2012 - 12:57 .

[Kidd]

Solmanian wrote...

One of the things I liked most in ME3 is the "bromance" my male shep had with Garrus. If garrus was romancable that probably would've been ruined, since I wouldn't have been able to feel free to say what I want because than our convorsations would've had a sexual undertone. (to clarify: this has nothing to do with garrus becoming gay/bisexual by such an occurent) Not everything is better with sex. 

But Garrus is an LI and talks exactly the same with FemShep. He just has a few talks that BroShep can never unlock. Thus, you apparently do enjoy talking to a romanceable character.

[Solmanian]

mickey111 wrote...

Direwolf0294 wrote...

If you don't want meaningful and branching character interaction and development why are you even playing an RPG in the first place?

Because the gameplay isnt like the other genres.

Why play a game if you don't care about the gameplay? Why is softcore porn the only meaningful interactivity? 

RPG's are not about the gameplay (not to say that it's not a vital part of any game). They are unique in that they have a simbyotic relationship with other genres: they use a certain genre as the platform to tell a story. Anyone will tell you that mass effect has very little in common with gears of war, and that fallout 3&NV has very little to do with Halo or COD. The gameplay is just a platform, the story is the most importent part of an rpg.

[mickey111]

:How well can you truly know someone... until you **** them in the ass?

[XCelfa]

Lol, not another one of these threads...

[brushyourteeth]

I'm fine with the games I play being purely for fun. If they're engaging and thought-provoking (as DA has been) all the better --- but I'm not interested in games moving to educate or enlighten me. As EntropicAngel pointed out, there are books for that.

Weird how some of the gaming community expects their games to be of a high intellectual caliber akin to Plato or Tolstoy, while another percentage of us is clamoring for it to become pure smut. Can't it just be an entertaining and engaging piece of well-done entertainment?