175 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

LiquidGrape wrote...

While not exactly a fresh observation, I think it's sorta worth mentioning how DAO more or less allowed you to hurl plentiful helpings of abuse at your prospective partner yet buy back their affection with presents. So in a sense, DAO lacked any real kind of "lose" scenario, unless you count the inability to engage in a polyamorous relationship.

"Hey Alistair, Duncan was a piece of **** who deserved to die.  Here's a half-eaten piece of moldy cake.  Let's bang in the tent."

Totally possible in DAO.

Instead, DA2 had "Hey Anders, I'm going to abuse, kill and belittle every mage we come across. Now we're rivals. Let's bang at my house."

Bioware romance mechanics have never really been the penultimate of logic.

[LolaLei]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

LiquidGrape wrote...

While not exactly a fresh observation, I think it's sorta worth mentioning how DAO more or less allowed you to hurl plentiful helpings of abuse at your prospective partner yet buy back their affection with presents. So in a sense, DAO lacked any real kind of "lose" scenario, unless you count the inability to engage in a polyamorous relationship.

"Hey Alistair, Duncan was a piece of **** who deserved to die.  Here's a half-eaten piece of moldy cake.  Let's bang in the tent."

Totally possible in DAO.

Instead, DA2 had "Hey Anders, I'm going to abuse, kill and belittle every mage we come across. Now we're rivals. Let's bang at my house."

Bioware romance mechanics have never really been the penultimate of logic.

... Anders likes it when you talk dirty. 

Modifié par LolaLei, 06 décembre 2012 - 07:28 .

[Fiacre]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

The only ways I can think of doing that in DA2 is either if you explicitly choose the broken heart icon (in which case it was intentional) or, in Anders' case, if you sold Feynriel's soul to Torpor.

This is false. In DA2, you could end a relationship:

1. By selecting a heartbreak icon (explicitly ending it)
2. By choosing someone else who takes priority (Anders and Merrill are romantic juggernauts and choosing either of them will auto-end any other relationship).
3. (Isabela only) by giving her to the Arishok at the end of act 2
4. (Fenris only) by not going to do his quest in act 2 after he asks you to.

I'm not sure about the Anders and the Torpor deal. It's possible, but I don't remember.

In any event, there are other outs besides explicitly choosing a heartbreak option. It's the exact same system as DAO, it just doesn't have the "Surprise! You're together and everyone knows it but you!" element that DAO had, or a "confrontation" scene where you're forced to choose one or the other.

Oh, I forgot about the Fenris one, thanks. And well... giving Isabela to the Arishok or romancing someone else seem like pretty intentional ways to end a romance. I was thinking about things like that one line after you visit goldanna that has Alistai'r approval reset and cuts off the romance. I'm pretty sure there's another one like that in the conversation where he reveals himself to be Maric's son. Morrigan had one or two of those as well, I think, but I'm not quite sure what they were any more, been a while since I went through her conversations. I don't think DA2 has those, apart from the Fenris instance you pointed out and the Torpor one (provided what I heard about that is right).

But yeah, rereading what I said my wording was off. Sorry about that.

Modifié par Fiacre, 06 décembre 2012 - 07:32 .

[upsettingshorts]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Instead, DA2 had "Hey Anders, I'm going to abuse, kill and belittle every mage we come across. Now we're rivals. Let's bang at my house."

Bioware romance mechanics have never really been the penultimate of logic.

That's not quite true.  On the Rival path, Anders begins to doubt his association with Justice and as such the legitimacy of his entire mage freedom agenda.  In the end, Justice takes over and makes Anders do his bidding.  It's different. 

On the Rival path you're basically in a romance with Anders in spite of Justice, and the latter does not like it.

On the Friend path you're romancing the union of Anders and Justice.

[RogueWriter3201]

Well, we've yet to see a really Strong Female Romance companion in the game. Not saying Leliana, Morrigan, Isabela, or Merrill weren't strong female characters, but the nearest to the type I'm refering to would be Aveline. Also, for once, it would be nice to have a companion romance without baggage.

Why can't we just fall for a woman who's strong, a warrior, competent, with a good head on her shoulders and no real issues? Perhaps she merely believes in her duty and that it's right; i.e. she's not doing it because Mages or Templars killed someone close to her, or she hates Mages/Templars, or she's out for revenge in anyway or running from tragedy. She's just a warrior and a smart woman. Period.  

[upsettingshorts]

glenboy24 wrote...

Why can't we just fall for a woman who's strong, a warrior, competent, with a good head on her shoulders and no real issues?  

So... fem!Jacob?

[Herr Uhl]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

glenboy24 wrote...

Why can't we just fall for a woman who's strong, a warrior, competent, with a good head on her shoulders and no real issues?  

So... fem!Jacob?

She'd just hook up with the first piece of manmeat she finds if you separate for more than 6 hours. No use bothering.

[That one guy with the face]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

glenboy24 wrote...

Why can't we just fall for a woman who's strong, a warrior, competent, with a good head on her shoulders and no real issues?  

So... fem!Jacob?

She'd just hook up with the first piece of manmeat she finds if you separate for more than 6 hours. No use bothering.

You know that manmeat would be me. I'd glomp her up, and show that she isn't nearly as strong as me. Intimidation is key. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Instead, DA2 had "Hey Anders, I'm going to abuse, kill and belittle every mage we come across. Now we're rivals. Let's bang at my house."

Bioware romance mechanics have never really been the penultimate of logic.

That's not quite true.  On the Rival path, Anders begins to doubt his association with Justice and as such the legitimacy of his entire mage freedom agenda.  In the end, Justice takes over and makes Anders do his bidding.  It's different. 

On the Rival path you're basically in a romance with Anders in spite of Justice, and the latter does not like it.

On the Friend path you're romancing the union of Anders and Justice.

I'm sorry... based on your Alistair moldy cake example, I thought we were speaking in broad brush strokes and over-done hyperbole. Was that not the case?

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 06 décembre 2012 - 08:43 .

[upsettingshorts]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I'm sorry... based on your Alistair moldy cake example, I thought we were speaking in broad brush strokes and over-done hyperbole. Was that not the case?

Not really.  I don't see the point in nuancing the fact you can completely overrule anything objectionable you might have said to a given character by gift spam in DA:O.  I mean, I didn't do this, and I imagine most people didn't (at least not to any extreme degree such as provided in the example) but since the context of the example was refuting the idea that DA2 was unique in that it provided an I-Win button for romantic relationships, all that I had to demonstrate was that it was possible to win automatically in Origins as well.

DA2's Friend/Rival paths don't change this either, it just provides 2 different things to win as opposed to 1.  

Gift spam just overrules.  It doesn't provide new content that acknowledges your animosity.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 décembre 2012 - 08:48 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I could see it being the opposite side of the coin, though. DA:O's gifts gave you a degree of freedom. If you spoke your mind and weren't bent on one agenda, you could still push that Approval level over with some well-appropriated gifts. Knowing that Sten likes art required paying pretty close attention to some of the things he said.

On the other hand, DA2 punished you for NOT being one type of extreme. Saying you think mages being abused is bad could give you +10 Friendship, but then saying that you don't want to slaughter every Templar could give you a +10 Rivalry, netting you zero Relationship gained, with no way to regain those points aside from the one gift opportunity, or going all pro-Mage (at least for Anders) or all anti-Mage-Rebelllion from that point on.

Another example is Fenris. You can say Mages aren't all that bad (+10 Rivalry) and then say you don't condone slavery (+10 Friendship). Those seem like totally logical positions to take, but DA2's system could penalize you for taking those stances, at least in terms of romance or friendship.

I do like the concept of what they were trying to go for with the Friendship/Rivalry mechanic (especially with the romances), just like in concept I liked the idea of a dominant tone. But the outcome of it means going outside a set goal and instead just walking a line of logic is punished.

My (general) impression of the net result is that instead of role-playing the characters I wanted, I often role-played characters my desired companions wanted. Which was a little stifling.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 06 décembre 2012 - 08:56 .

[esper]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I could see it being the opposite side of the coin, though. DA:O's gifts gave you a degree of freedom. If you spoke your mind and weren't bent on one agenda, you could still push that Approval level over with some well-appropriated gifts. Knowing that Sten likes art required paying pretty close attention to some of the things he said.

On the other hand, DA2 punished you for NOT being one type of extreme. Saying you think mages being abused is bad could give you +10 Friendship, but then saying that you don't want to slaughter every Templar could give you a +10 Rivalry, netting you zero Relationship gained, with no way to regain those points aside from the one gift opportunity, or going all pro-Mage (at least for Anders) or all anti-Mage-Rebelllion from that point on.

Another example is Fenris. You can say Mages aren't all that bad (+10 Rivalry) and then say you don't condone slavery (+10 Friendship). Those seem like totally logical positions to take, but DA2's system could penalize you for taking those stances, at least in terms of romance or friendship.

I do like the concept of what they were trying to go for with the Friendship/Rivalry mechanic (especially with the romances), just like in concept I liked the idea of a dominant tone. But the outcome of it means going outside a set goal and instead just walking a line of logic is punished.

My (general) impression of the net result is that instead of role-playing the characters I wanted, I often role-played characters my desired companions wanted. Which was a little stifling.

If you friends are extremist, then you should be punished for not being extreme since extremist by their definition are quite... fanatic and quite often see the world in black and white. If you are grey to their white they will default you to black.

[Wulfram]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

My (general) impression of the net result is that instead of role-playing the characters I wanted, I often role-played characters my desired companions wanted. Which was a little stifling.

What's weirder is when you're trying to be the opposite of what they want, and cursing them when they go an approve of you doing something.

+15 friendship for encouraging her to reconcile with her father.  Damn you, Fenris!

[esper]

Wulfram wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

My (general) impression of the net result is that instead of role-playing the characters I wanted, I often role-played characters my desired companions wanted. Which was a little stifling.

What's weirder is when you're trying to be the opposite of what they want, and cursing them when they go an approve of you doing something.

+15 friendship for encouraging her to reconcile with her father.  Damn you, Fenris!

Wait... I gain rivalry for this (The one time where I could still see my gain)... I wonder if it depends whatever you have done Alone or not.

But this is the problem with any meter not just friendship/rivalry. Leliana approves + 5 for letting a demon run off with a charmed templar. Me ,  you are taking this different approach to the Andrastian faith out in the weird there, Leliana.

[Chromie]

No romance.

[Wulfram]

glenboy24 wrote...

Why can't we just fall for a woman who's strong, a warrior, competent, with a good head on her shoulders and no real issues?

Problem is, aside from "woman" that could describe Jacob

Modifié par Wulfram, 06 décembre 2012 - 09:17 .

[Tootles FTW]

Auintus wrote...

One that you can screw up. The romances in DA2 were basically "pick heart, successful romance" even if you are nothing short of brutal to them and their beliefs. I want one where you have to be more careful.

O RLY?  (feel free to picture the owl-appropriate image to go along with this)  Then how did I manage to completely fcuk up my romance with Fenris on my very first (and very blind) playthrough? 

I brought Fenris with me on most every quest so between my hating slavers (+F) and liking of mages (+R) I never reached a significant amount of Friendship or Rivalry to instigate the romance.   So...yea, it's possible to "pick heart, unsuccessful romance".
[EDIT] Basically, what Fast Jimmy said above!

On the present topic: I don't know if any female will sway me from the gay/bisexual option when I'm playing a male PC, but I'd be very pleased if there actually was some competition.  If Aria were an option in ME3 I'd probably make a maleShepard all for her.

Modifié par Tootles FTW, 06 décembre 2012 - 09:22 .

[gosimmons]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I could see it being the opposite side of the coin, though. DA:O's gifts gave you a degree of freedom. If you spoke your mind and weren't bent on one agenda, you could still push that Approval level over with some well-appropriated gifts. Knowing that Sten likes art required paying pretty close attention to some of the things he said.

I think my problem with DA:O's system was you could have a completey murderous and conflicting personality, but still have the chance to win someone over if you buy them enough candies.
Gifts allowed for more freedom, but also could be abused a bit. Still liked the personal gifts though, they could add some interesting interaction.

Modifié par gosimmons, 06 décembre 2012 - 09:21 .

[frankf43]

brushyourteeth wrote...

I'm a little confused, actually.

We have a F/F romance thread, a M/M romance thread, and a M/F romance thread where both straight men and straight women are pitching their ideal guy or girl.

And now this thread (which, no harm done, OP)

.... wouldn't it be a whole lot more productive and integrative to just have one thread for players who romance women, and one thread for players who romance men?

I mean, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't see the problem with sharing the squee with gay guys. They're more likely to share my excitement than straight ones.

Why stick to one thread on a topic when we can have more? we've got at least twelve months until the release if we limit the threads and topics the forum will grind to a halt long before next Autum.


After all we have about fifteen different Mage/Templar debate threads so why not multipule romance threads.

As John Lennon said Make love not war:)

[mousestalker]

Since no one has asked it yet, what about a bad romance?

As for me, I'd love a doomed romance, as long there is a hanky warning. But that belongs in another thread as I don't qualify in this category.

Modifié par mousestalker, 06 décembre 2012 - 09:54 .

[brushyourteeth]

frankf43 wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

I'm a little confused, actually.

We have a F/F romance thread, a M/M romance thread, and a M/F romance thread where both straight men and straight women are pitching their ideal guy or girl.

And now this thread (which, no harm done, OP)

.... wouldn't it be a whole lot more productive and integrative to just have one thread for players who romance women, and one thread for players who romance men?

I mean, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't see the problem with sharing the squee with gay guys. They're more likely to share my excitement than straight ones.

Why stick to one thread on a topic when we can have more? we've got at least twelve months until the release if we limit the threads and topics the forum will grind to a halt long before next Autum.


After all we have about fifteen different Mage/Templar debate threads so why not multipule romance threads.

As John Lennon said Make love not war:)

Well, there's the fact that they're inadvertently not so much separated by interest as they are by sexual orientation. 

"Straight people go here. Gay people, you go here and here."
... I'm not distressed about it, but I did notice and wonder why the need, y'know?

[hoorayforicecream]

mousestalker wrote...

Since no one has asked it yet, what about a bad romance?

As for me, I'd love a doomed romance, as long there is a hanky warning.

I prefer hanky panky to just hanky. But I could be convinced to be satisfied with the panky.

[Fiacre]

I actually really liked the gifts in DA:O.

Firstly, there's the fact that some people just like getting their lover/friends gifts. I've paid for a friend's lunch recently -- simply because I wanted to. Her boyfriend regularly gets her gifts, because he wants to. So I really don't see anything wrong with doing that in the game -- when my character is the type to get Morrigan jewellery because he knows she likes it and wants to do that for her, I see that as a perfectly legitimate roleplay decision. The only thing to criticize there is gifts having too much impact, but considering that they can lose that impact rather quickly / only have it if they're a preferred gift, I don't see it as that big a problem, though certainly one that they should try to address if they were to bring the feature back.

On the other side there's the fact that you travel with these people for months. I think... Sylvius talked about that once -- you'll have quite a few conversations happening off screen in that time (you even have Leliana talking about off screen stuff happening in her romance conversations) and if you get along great with a character, chances are they'll approve of what you say in these off screen conversations. The gifts give you the chance to reflect that in actual gampleay, and I don't see anything wrong with that either.

That reasoing even gives the Feastday pack a good justification for existing -- not only can you do the above, if you have a bad relationship with a character, you can reflect the off screen conversations with them as well, if you have a conflicted relationship, you can do as well to certain extent.

And sure, the gifts can be abused, but really, what's it to me? If anyone wants to do that, they can, it's their game, I don't have to if I don't want to. I rarely give generic gifts anyway, but if I do, it's either purely for roleplay reasons and it was the IC thing to do, or to do the off screen thing if, for example, I thought it made sense to have Nathaniel give those last three approval points missing because my character would have talked with him a lot more than just the few conversations shown in game.

So I don't really see gifts as an I win button -- they can be, but they don't have to be, and they can be a lot more than that. And considering that Hawke is supposedly a rich noble, I'm a it sad that I can't have him get gifts for his lover. My current Hawke would totally get Merrill lots of stuff whenever he sees something thinks she'd like.

Modifié par Fiacre, 06 décembre 2012 - 10:18 .

[upsettingshorts]

The gifts weren't brought up to evaluate them, they were brought up in the context of DA2 being accused of having provided the player with I-Win romance buttons.

You don't have to take them because they're there, just like you don't have to spam gifts if your character wouldn't do so.