228 réponses à ce sujet

[snackrat]

I'm going to regret making yet another romantic thread, probably, but this is something I haven't seen much on the forums (and if it is out there, it is old enough if would be thread necromancy if I were to touch it).

Why do the romances treat sex as so integral? In fact, sex is usually treated as a form of 'validation' for the romance. Now for some characters that makes sense, I'm not debating that (Zevran and Isabel are the most obvious examples). However, in DA:O your Warden could have relationships with other party members purely on an emotional level (including Zevran, in fact!). That's not to say they weren't emotionally hurt or disapproving when the Warden turned them down, but it wouldn't be true interaction if you just chose whatever was worth the most points regardless.

In DA:E (DAII) EVERY SINGLE ONE had it integral. If you refused it, it prevented any progress whatsoever (or ended the relationship). Now, for Isabella, this makes sense. For characters like Anders though... his is more possessive obsession - the fact that he treats it as a break-up if Hawke refuses to let him move in with them is an indicator of wanting something more than the physical. And Merril is also more appreciative of Hawke as a support, guardian, as a person.

You could argue Sebastian as an example. And yeah, that seems as close to anything asexuals (be they heteromantic or otherwise) got. But (1) he is DLC, (2) he only applies to heteromantics, and (3) any relationship there is incredibly pointless and contrived. Not much dialogue out of the ordinary - and what there is, is VERY forward on Hawke's behalf with physical (rather than emotional) suggestion - and the only physical contact between them ever... a kiss? No. A hug? Not even. A handshake? 'Course not. No, when he proposes he momentarily rests his hand on Hawke's shoulder, for no more than a couple seconds. That's almost damning.


This is BSN, so I fully expect everyone to miss my point, deliberately read into the most offensive/inane possible interpretation, or make sarcastic remarks. In fact the mere fact I mentioned this will be read as a personal challenge for some people to fufill ALL those predictions in the SAME SENTENCE.

Yes, I am aware that romances are completely optional, added due to postitive feeback from previous players of previous games.
Yes, I am aware that romances are not a priority and thus, will not be made substationally more detailed than they have been in the past.
Yes, I am aware that Bioware does not believe themselves capable of providing options that cater to everybody.

...but this is hardly a difficult suggestion. It was already present in DAO, complete with relevant dialogue and reactions. The Warden may deny Alistair, but he will still die for her on the tower. He will still be cut by her 'betrayal' if she recruits Logan. He will still react as though romanced, because he still is.

I'm not saying that the character in question has to just go "sure okay, well would you like to play card instead then?" like it was no big deal (assuming, of course, that it is in character of them to care) - some rivalry points (or... whatever system one is using) would be appropriate, just as turning down Anders was. But do, please, make it an option.

Modifié par Karsciyin, 13 décembre 2012 - 06:58 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

Sex is an integral part of life - that's why. Even if you don't want to partake in it most people will and most people's partners want it at some point or other. The rest of your journey is the emotional experience in itself.

The only thing I could see them doing to accommodate your suggestion is adding a "No, let's just cuddle" option. It may work and would be interesting to see how it progressed things, but then if you add those options you'll get people asking for rape options next etc. so probably just best to enjoy the game, have a romance if you want and leave it if you don't?

[Medhia Nox]

There's a lot of things that are "integral parts of life" - and with snark, I could say that science has made sex totally irrelevant to "life" now - so why focus on underwear sex?

[Wulfram]

I did prefer the DA:O style, where the choice of when to have sex was more in the hands of the player. Had a Cousland who waited to get engaged.

And I kind of wish there was an option to romance Isabela that didn't require jumping into bed and then waiting for her to fall in love, but instead allowed Hawke to reject a casual fling and instead try to court her.

[Phate Phoenix]

I completely agree. One of my favorite parts of Zevran's romance was turning down his trip to the tent, and him not being too put out by it. It didn't end the romance, and I could instigate it later if I wanted to. In DA2, the closest I could get is with Sebastian, and that's... well, it's not very fullfilling. A little exciting that the option is kinda there for a chaste romance, but, yeah.

Also, this asexual would argue that sex is not integral to life. At least, not for everyone.

[snackrat]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Sex is an integral part of life - that's why. Even if you don't want to partake in it most people will and most people's partners want it at some point or other. The rest of your journey is the emotional experience in itself.

The only thing I could see them doing to accommodate your suggestion is adding a "No, let's just cuddle" option. It may work and would be interesting to see how it progressed things, but then if you add those options you'll get people asking for rape options next etc. so probably just best to enjoy the game, have a romance if you want and leave it if you don't?

The issue becomes when it is required to have the relationship. That if it is denied the first time the PC is asked, that the relationship is called off completely. That without it, there is no relationship.

Not a small portion of people in today's world intend to wait until marriage (or similar milestone). These people are also negated, and are thus going to apparently be Forever Alone because they will not put out when asked. If someone wants their PC to follow this rule also (not so unusual in the times DA is inspired by), the option would apply to them also.

Again, I am not saying there shouldn't be consequences for refusal. Hell, they don't even have to be minor! If one refuses Isabela, for example, that could call the whole thing off and get a hefty lump of rivalry, because that would be in-character.

In DAII it was actually even worse because at least in DAO it could be an... well, 'end goal' isn't the phrase I'm looking for, but it was for AFTER a relationship was established. In DAII's cases, it is a GATE for the relationship - it doesn't progress until someone gets some tail. If the PC refuses, well, looks like that NPC is getting their tail elsewhere. The very FACT that it is treated as an ultimatum automatically makes it feel less emotionally driven.

I'm not necessarily saying 'no sex ever' because such relationships are so incredibly rare they scarcely exist. I'd just like less priority to be given, and not to treat it like a prerequisite.

Modifié par Karsciyin, 13 décembre 2012 - 03:25 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

Karsciyin wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Sex is an integral part of life - that's why. Even if you don't want to partake in it most people will and most people's partners want it at some point or other. The rest of your journey is the emotional experience in itself.

The only thing I could see them doing to accommodate your suggestion is adding a "No, let's just cuddle" option. It may work and would be interesting to see how it progressed things, but then if you add those options you'll get people asking for rape options next etc. so probably just best to enjoy the game, have a romance if you want and leave it if you don't?

The issue becomes when it is required to have the relationship. That if it is denied the first time the PC is asked, that the relationship is called off completely. That without it, there is no relationship.

Not a small portion of people in today's world intend to wait until marriage (or similar milestone). These people are also negated, and are thus going to apparently be Forever Alone because they will not put out when asked. If someone wants their PC to follow this rule also (not so unusual in the times DA is inspired by), the option would apply to them also.

Again, I am not saying there shouldn't be consequences for refusal. Hell, they don't even have to be minor! If one refuses Isabela, for example, that could call the whole thing off and get a hefty lump of rivalry, because that would be in-character.

In DAII it was actually even worse because at least in DAO it could be an... well, 'end goal' isn't the phrase I'm looking for, but it was for AFTER a relationship was established. In many other cases, it is a GATE for the relationship - it doesn't progress until someone gets some tail. If the PC refuses, well, looks like that NPC is getting their tail elsewhere. The very FACT that it is treated as an ultimatum automatically makes it feel less emotionally driven.

I'm not necessarily saying 'no sex ever' because such relationships are so incredibly rare they scarcely exist. I'd just like less priority to be given, and not to treat it like a prerequisite.

I see your point, and I think it just boils down to the types of characters who you meet up with. Red blooded virile males aren't gunna hang around if soft, fleshy maidens are refusing them a bit of nookie. But characters such as Merrill, Alister etc. would obviously settle for less.

But like I say, on the flipside of that what if you refuse a big brute like Sten, or randy berzerker like Ogrim? Would you then object to Bioware having characters such as that in the game rape the protagonist? Sten killed a family including kids, what's rape to a man like that if he decides it's what he wants?

I think they have to be careful of straying from the happy medium too much.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 13 décembre 2012 - 03:32 .

[Marbazoid]

I think the formulaic structure of DA2 romances annoyed me more.

For example, the Morrigan romance in DA1 was great because it developed so much past the physical "reward" of the romance. It was its own unique thing with context and a connection to the overarching plot. DA2 felt like a date sim in comparison.

But yea, turning down a romances sexual advances should not end the romance that is just really silly. But sex is pretty darn important part of a romance, and it should be given greater context and bring added emotional weight to the story.

If Bioware can't do it right, they shouldn't do it at all. The sex scenes in both games are the most ridiculous cringe worthy things I have ever witnessed in my life, next to Leliana singing by the camp-fire (actually I think that was worse).

[randomcheeses]

Agreed so much. The PC should be allowed to say that they're not ready or not that comfortable with the LI yet without it completely killing the romance. Otherwise the LI comes off as a manipulative dick of the "if you really loved me you would ignore your own emotional and mental discomfort just I can get some" type.

Being pressured into sex is not attractive. A LI who's considerate and willing to wait for the PC to feel ready, on the other hand? Much more likeable and more likely to have the player like them.

[TheJediSaint]

Reading this thread, it has gotten me thinking, what about a romance were a physical relationship is impossible?

For example, how about a romantic subquest between the player and a ghost?

[SpunkyMonkey]

randomcheeses wrote...

Agreed so much. The PC should be allowed to say that they're not ready or not that comfortable with the LI yet without it completely killing the romance. Otherwise the LI comes off as a manipulative dick of the "if you really loved me you would ignore your own emotional and mental discomfort just I can get some" type.

Being pressured into sex is not attractive. A LI who's considerate and willing to wait for the PC to feel ready, on the other hand? Much more likeable and more likely to have the player like them.

I hardly think that walking away from someone refusing sex is "pressuring them into sex" - it's just losing interest.

[JCAP]

Hmm, I think I understand your suggestion and I agree.
One of my wardens romanced Leliana, when she invited me to bed, I said no, that I preferred to wait until the end of the blight, and she said that she understand and that gives her one more reason to defeat the darkspawn<3<3<3<3




Of course I like the sex scene, but romances is something that should be treated with more feelings than physical, but let's not forget that physical is important too.

Modifié par JCAP, 13 décembre 2012 - 03:44 .

[Chaos Lord Malek]

That's your subjective opinion. I prefer romances treated physically

[snackrat]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Karsciyin wrote...
*pyramid snip*

I see your point, and I think it just boils down to the types of characters who you meet up with. Red blooded virile males aren't gunna hang around if soft, fleshy maidens are refusing them a bit of nookie. But characters such as Merrill, Alister etc. would obviously settle for less.

But like I say, on the flipside of that what if you refuse a big brute like Sten, or randy berzerker like Ogrim? Would you then object to Bioware having characters such as that in the game rape the protagonist? Sten killed a family including kids, what's rape to a man like that if he decides it's what he wants?

I think we're starting to get into Slippery Slope Fallacy here.

Red blooded virile males opposing? Makes sense. As I have mentioned, I do not oppose breakups in-character (I'd just rather it be because of character than the rule).

Rape? This is where one starts adding two and two and getting ten. Though rape (implied, at least) has been used in Bioware productions before, there are obvious blocks.
(1) It has only even been used as a STORY-TELLING point, and the point has been either a) the resulting trauma, or 2) the character of the person, rather than the rape itself. Take Vaughan in the City Elf origin as an example.
(2) The whole point of the PC and its interactions is supposed to be about CHOICE. Actions like this heavily oppose choice, which will automatically negate the idea.
(3) Rape is something taken VERY SERIOUSLY be people as a whole, and thus must be handling delicately. Especially since
(4) ...some players may actually have been sexually abused in the past, and thus anything implying this TOWARDS THE PLAYER is dangerous, dangerous territory. Bioware have said in the past that the main reason women and men do not get any difference in dialogue or action in their games is because some female players get enough of the marginalisation in real life, and don't want it in their games.

There are a few other points here no doubt, that I cannot think of four in the morning. But I think you understand what I mean.
Beyond the ethical and design viewpoints, there's also the fact that the PC is a BAMF. Has to be, just for the gameplay reasons. If Bioware was feeling very brave (or foolish), said character may slap the PC around a bit and certainly indicate in some way they are making an attempt, but the PC would have the strength to oppose them (and then, evidently, punt them from the party, because no one should put up with that kind of crap).

Also, regarding Sten, hell yeah murder! But murder =/= rape. Especially, assuming you know anything about Sten, his reasoning is tied to fear and panic, not anger or hate.

I hope I'm not coming across as too confrontational by the way, I'm wanting to debate this properly without strawmen or ad hominem.

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

randomcheeses wrote...

Agreed so much. The PC
should be allowed to say that they're not ready or not that comfortable
with the LI yet without it completely killing the romance. Otherwise
the LI comes off as a manipulative dick of the "if you really loved me
you would ignore your own emotional and mental discomfort just I can get
some" type.

Being pressured into sex is not attractive. A
LI who's considerate and willing to wait for the PC to feel ready, on
the other hand? Much more likeable and more likely to have the player like them.

I hardly think that walking away from someone refusing sex is "pressuring them into sex" - it's just losing interest.

It does imply however, that their interest is based physically, which automatically indicates a relationship that will have difficulty lasting in the long term.

Chaos Lord Malek wrote...

That's your subjective opinion. I prefer romances treated physically

Yep. But please note I am not saying 'remove sex'. I am not saying 'only have the NPC want it at the end' (that would make no sense for Morrigan). I'm saying that the PC shouldn't be forced into that ultimatum 'just because'. I'm saying that the PC should be able to say 'no'. In previous ones, even with the PC DOES say no, it is less 'no on this point' and more 'NOOO, TO EVERYTHING'.

It isn't just physical either. Take Anders. Don't like him moving into your house? It feels too forward, you're worried he's obsessed, you worry those from Darktown needing help can't find him since he doesn't live there, you worried Justice may manifest unexpectedly and hurt you? WAIT nope, you were just using him that whole time, go away now Anders, lol! Now for the PC's next heartbreaking conquest...

Modifié par Karsciyin, 13 décembre 2012 - 03:47 .

[Iakus]

Heh, this reminds me of BG2 where in the Aerie (and I believe, in the Jaheira romance as well) if you accept the initial offer to sleep with her, she later decides she wasn't ready, leaves the party forever, and the romance ends.

It was only later, in the expansion, that she's rady and you can "conclude" the romance, as it were...

[Sylvanpyxie]

That's your subjective opinion. I prefer romances treated physically

That's your subjective opinion. I prefer romances to be treated with more emotional investment.

Different strokes for different folks.

As a side note - It's become increasingly worrying to me how much the Bioware Social Network has become invested in the sexual conclusions of in-game romances, even going so far as to rate non-sexual progression or conclusions as "invalid romance options".

Although i'm not pointing fingers or claiming that everyone that frequents these forums is a nyphomanic, i'm honestly beginning to wonder why so many people put such great stock in the pixelated physicality of romantic climaxes(pardon the pun).

Modifié par Sylvanpyxie, 13 décembre 2012 - 03:55 .

[JCAP]

iakus wrote...

Heh, this reminds me of BG2 where in the Aerie (and I believe, in the Jaheira romance as well) if you accept the initial offer to sleep with her, she later decides she wasn't ready, leaves the party forever, and the romance ends.

It was only later, in the expansion, that she's rady and you can "conclude" the romance, as it were...

So you tecnically rape her? lol

I am thinking on playing this game, but I just can't get over the outdated graphics 

[upsettingshorts]

Karsciyin wrote...

Why do the romances treat sex as so integral? In fact, they are usually considered an 'end goal'. Now for some characters that makes sense, I'm not debating that (Zevran and Isabel are the most obvious examples).

Uh, sex was hardly the end goal in either of those.  In fact, both get that out of the way relatively early.

Then there's Morrigan, who your Warden can sleep with before even getting to Lothering.  There's clearly much more left in that romance.

Alistair well, sex is kind of a big deal for him relative to the others so it takes on somewhat greater importance.  But that's hardly the endgame for him either, especially if you're a human female.

Leliana I'm not sure where I'd put their first night together in any kind of importance.

As far as DA2 goes - aside from Isabela - you could argue that in all cases the romance begins with a sexual encounter, but it's hardly the endgame of any of them.  Ironically especially Isabela.

Karsciyin wrote...

However, in DA:O your Warden could have relationships with other party members purely on an emotional level (including Zevran, in fact!). That's not to say they weren't emotionally hurt or disapproving when the Warden turned them down, but it wouldn't be true interaction if you just chose whatever was worth the most points regardless.

In DA:E (DAII) EVERY SINGLE ONE had it integral. If you refused it, it prevented any progress whatsoever (or ended the relationship). 

Oh, so you want to be able to progress the romance without sex.  Okay.

Not my preference but I see no reason to actively oppose it.  Resources are resources though.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 13 décembre 2012 - 03:56 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

Karsciyin wrote...

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Karsciyin wrote...
*pyramid snip*

I see your point, and I think it just boils down to the types of characters who you meet up with. Red blooded virile males aren't gunna hang around if soft, fleshy maidens are refusing them a bit of nookie. But characters such as Merrill, Alister etc. would obviously settle for less.

But like I say, on the flipside of that what if you refuse a big brute like Sten, or randy berzerker like Ogrim? Would you then object to Bioware having characters such as that in the game rape the protagonist? Sten killed a family including kids, what's rape to a man like that if he decides it's what he wants?

I think we're starting to get into Slippery Slope Fallacy here.

Red blooded virile males opposing? Makes sense. As I have mentioned, I do not oppose breakups in-character (I'd just rather it be because of character than the rule).

Rape? This is where one starts adding two and two and getting ten. Though rape (implied, at least) has been used in Bioware productions before, there are obvious blocks.
(1) It has only even been used as a STORY-TELLING point, and the point has been either a) the resulting trauma, or 2) the character of the person, rather than the rape itself. Take Vaughan in the City Elf origin as an example.
(2) The whole point of the PC and its interactions is supposed to be about CHOICE. Actions like this heavily oppose choice, which will automatically negate the idea.
(3) Rape is something taken VERY SERIOUSLY be people as a whole, and thus must be handling delicately. Especially since
(4) ...some players may actually have been sexually abused in the past, and thus anything implying this TOWARDS THE PLAYER is dangerous, dangerous territory. Bioware have said in the past that the main reason women and men do not get any difference in dialogue or action in their games is because some female players get enough of the marginalisation in real life, and don't want it in their games.

There are a few other points here no doubt, that I cannot think of four in the morning. But I think you understand what I mean.
Beyond the ethical and design viewpoints, there's also the fact that the PC is a BAMF. Has to be, just for the gameplay reasons. If Bioware was feeling very brave (or foolish), said character may slap the PC around a bit and certainly indicate in some way they are making an attempt, but the PC would have the strength to oppose them (and then, evidently, punt them from the party, because no one should put up with that kind of crap).

Also, regarding Sten, hell yeah murder! But murder =/= rape. Especially, assuming you know anything about Sten, his reasoning is tied to fear and panic, not anger or hate.

I hope I'm not coming across as too confrontational by the way, I'm wanting to debate this properly without strawmen or ad hominem.

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

randomcheeses wrote...

Agreed so much. The PC
should be allowed to say that they're not ready or not that comfortable
with the LI yet without it completely killing the romance. Otherwise
the LI comes off as a manipulative dick of the "if you really loved me
you would ignore your own emotional and mental discomfort just I can get
some" type.

Being pressured into sex is not attractive. A
LI who's considerate and willing to wait for the PC to feel ready, on
the other hand? Much more likeable and more likely to have the player like them.

I hardly think that walking away from someone refusing sex is "pressuring them into sex" - it's just losing interest.

It does imply however, that their interest is based physically, which automatically indicates a relationship that will have difficulty lasting in the long term.

And to be fair for the most part I agree with you, I just think there's more to it than simply adding a "let's just cuddle" option.

As for Sten I was using his example as a big brute who could force himself on to anyone and was capable of horrid acts, regardless of the motivation.

And finally I'd say most relationships usually start out physically and grow from there. As discussed earlier it will depend on the character, but I'd expect 80-90% of people to go for the leg-over first, then look for a relationship.

If anything I think it would make more sense just to have a string of bunk-buddies as youmake your way across the world. Any port in a storm as they say.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 13 décembre 2012 - 03:58 .

[snackrat]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Karsciyin wrote...

Why do the romances treat sex as so integral? In fact, they are usually considered an 'end goal'. Now for some characters that makes sense, I'm not debating that (Zevran and Isabel are the most obvious examples).

Uh, sex was hardly the end goal in either of those.  In fact, both get that out of the way relatively early.

Then there's Morrigan, who your Warden can sleep with before even getting to Lothering.  There's clearly much more left in that romance.

Alistair well, sex is kind of a big deal for him relative to the others so it takes on somewhat greater importance.  But that's hardly the endgame for him either, especially if you're a human female.

Leliana I'm not sure where I'd put their first night together in any kind of importance.

As far as DA2 goes - aside from Isabela - you could argue that in all cases the romance begins with a sexual encounter, but it's hardly the endgame of any of them.  Ironically especially Isabela.

You are correct on this. (I confess I was mostly thinking of Shepard). I use the term 'end goal' to use as an example less an an end to the romance, and that there is no progression afterwards, but more like it isn't 'truly' a romance until sex happens. I apologise for my confusing choice of words, though I'm not sure what words would describe that better.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Karsciyin wrote...

However, in DA:O your Warden could have
relationships with other party members purely on an emotional level
(including Zevran, in fact!). That's not to say they weren't emotionally
hurt or disapproving when the Warden turned them down, but it wouldn't
be true interaction if you just chose whatever was worth the most points
regardless.

In DA:E (DAII) EVERY SINGLE ONE had it integral. If
you refused it, it prevented any progress whatsoever (or ended the
relationship). 

Oh, so you want to be able to progress the romance without sex.  Okay.

Not sure if this is deadpan snark (because, y'know, BSN) but basically, yes.

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
*snip*

And finally I'd say most relationships usually start out physically and
grow from there. As discussed earlier it will depend on the character,
but I'd expect 80-90% of people to go for the leg-over first, then look
for a relationship.

If anything I think it would make more sense
just to have a string of bunk-buddies as youmake your way across the
world. Any port in a storm as they say.

Perhaps I'm rather cynical for thinking for thinking this, but that does some provide some explanation into divorce rates. (And I have seen it happen for people close to me... relationships crumble because the initial attraction was based physically, and now one wants to progress where the other does not.)

As for your second point, well, I'm not opposing that as an option for the PC either! Just that it should be that: an option.

Most of this is all academic debate of course, adding a "let's cuddle" option will likely be all Bioware is capable of - a quick "no, this time" and then progressing otherwise normally.

Modifié par Karsciyin, 13 décembre 2012 - 04:05 .

[Hainkpe]

Sylvanpyxie wrote...
Different strokes for different folks.

As a side note - It's become increasingly worrying to me how much the Bioware Social Network has become invested in the sexual conclusions of in-game romances, even going so far as to rate non-sexual progression or conclusions as "invalid romance options".

Although i'm not pointing fingers or claiming that everyone that frequents these forums is a nyphomanic, i'm honestly beginning to wonder why so many people put such great stock in the pixelated physicality of romantic climaxes(pardon the pun).

^ I agree.

I would add that we are dealing with a population that is predominantly male, a good portion being young adults. Having wrote that, sexuality is very different for males and females. Males are more visual. Females more emotional. By knowing these two characteristics, then the pattern arising makes sense. The reality is, does Bioware want to make a game that has elements for both genders? What have we seen in the past? I would guess, probably not and the pattern will continue. 

[upsettingshorts]

Yeah I'm following along fine. You're arguing that DA:O allowed for a romantic asexual romance because you could refuse a sexual encounter and still advance the emotional intimacy.  Or, in case I'm getting too specific, just a romance for someone who prioritizes emotional intimacy over physical.

Seems perfectly reasonable to ask for the option again.

When you look at it from a certain perspective, sexual romances are possible, as are asexual aromantic relationships (Max out Friend/Approval), but asexual romantic ones are limited to the examples in DA:O you describe. So... yeah. Like I added in my edit it's not my cup of tea and resources matter and such but I mean, I'm not going to object to the request and would be happy if BioWare made some room for it provided it didn't cost them too much.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 13 décembre 2012 - 04:06 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

Karsciyin wrote...




Perhaps I'm rather cynical for thinking for thinking this, but that does some provide some explanation into divorce rates. (And I have seen it happen for people close to me... relationships crumble because the initial attraction was based physically, and now one wants to progress where the other does not.)

As for your second point, well, I'm not opposing that as an option for the PC either! Just that it should be that: an option.

But look at it from the other way round - my GF and I were bunk-buddies for 9 months when we first met. No relationship, not even any post-sex cuddles, just a roll over and a good nights kip 8 years later we're getting engaged and if anything the shallow pace at the start gave us plenty of time to suss each other out, whilst having a bit of fun in the meantime.

It's horses for courses and what suits each individual, but basing relationships purely on psyicality can lead to good stuff too. So game-wise I'd expect to see a mixture of options for a mixture of characters.

It certainly would be nice to see it if there was no typical "right" answer to progress a relationship. Some NPCs being offered a cuddle should leave, others should stay. Similarly, some characters should respond positively to digs and micky-taking, others should feel offended and shun you. This way it reflects life a bit more realistically.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 13 décembre 2012 - 04:13 .

[snackrat]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Yeah I'm following along fine. You're arguing that DA:O allowed for a romantic asexual romance because you could refuse a sexual encounter and still advance the emotional intimacy.  Or, in case I'm getting too specific, just a romance for someone who prioritizes emotional intimacy over physical.

Seems perfectly reasonable to ask for the option again.

When you look at it from a certain perspective, sexual romances are possible, as are asexual aromantic relationships (Max out Friend/Approval), but asexual romantic ones are limited to the examples in DA:O you describe. So... yeah. Like I added in my edit it's not my cup of tea and resources matter and such but I mean, I'm not going to object to the request and would be happy if BioWare made some room for it provided it didn't cost them too much.

Sorry, missed your edit, thanks for pointing it out.

Also, hell yes. In fact, even sexual aromantic options are available: Isabela all-game (if you don't question her past, anyway) and Zevran and Morrigan are both intended to be thus (and can continue as such if you do not raise their approval too high).

I'm not expecting anything too complex, and I have said I am aware they have no intention to increase the amount of time, budget, and data on romances. It just feels like such a poor (or mistaken) choice of what to remove when.... 'stream-lining' interaction.

That said, I have hopes for DA3. DAO was testing the water. DA2 corrected for the feedback, but by too much. With two things to compare, I'm hoping DA3 will fall snugly between them.

[snackrat]

TheJediSaint wrote...

Reading this thread, it has gotten me thinking, what about a romance were a physical relationship is impossible? ...

That would be fascinating (for me anyway) and provided a different view on the relationship completely. It is a large part of what gave the (unfortunately cancelled) show Pushing Daisies such appeal to a large portion of its audience (including me). It is why some people want a romancable Ardat-Yakshi in Mass Effect. It explores the romance in a new way, rather than just a token "Hi we meet you flirt I smile we sex now" (a blatant over-summerisation of some other 'romances' seen).