228 réponses à ce sujet

[snackrat]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

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.

I'm not disagreeing that it is possible, of course, just that it will not be without its potential barriers. Isabela, Zevran, and Morrigan all fall into what you describe when romanced to end-game. The epilogue supports all as including emotional attatchment, even in minor ways (Morrigan thinking of the Warden, Isabela being the only one to stay with Hawke, and Zevran's depends on the Warden's state).

[Iakus]

JCAP wrote...

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I am thinking on playing this game, but I just can't get over the outdated graphics 

Nono, she offers to sleep with you.  But if you accept, she regrets it afterwards.  It's only later, in the expansion, that she's truly ready for that level of intimacy.

And then, she ends up pregnant afterwards

RE:  romance with ghost.  Bioware did that once too, Neverwinter Nights, Hordes of the Underdark, the shade of Aribeth

[Sylvanpyxie]

what about a romance were a physical relationship is impossible?

There was actually a post in the F/M Thread some months ago that suggested a different format to romance that I found utterly brilliant.

I believe the suggestion was that attempting to pursue a romance while maintaining a friendly relationship with the Love Interest concluded in a stunted relationship - stuck in the friendzone as it were. The character in question, being content to enjoy your companionship, would refuse to accept your romantic or sexual advances and the relationship would remain purely benign.

I considered the idea to be amazing, but it was quickly ignored by the majority of the thread followers. From my personal experiences, and again i'm not pointing fingers, quite a few people on the BSN dislike the idea of approaching romance without a sexual conclusion to the relationship.

Modifié par Sylvanpyxie, 13 décembre 2012 - 04:25 .

[snackrat]

Sylvanpyxie wrote...

what about a romance were a physical relationship is impossible?

There was actually a post in the F/M Thread some months ago that suggested a different format to romance that I found utterly brilliant.

I believe the suggestion was that attempting to pursue a romance while maintaining a friendly relationship with the Love Interest concluded in a stunted relationship - stuck in the friendzone as it were. The character in question, being content to enjoy your companionship, would refuse to accept your romantic or sexual advances and the relationship would remain purely benign.

I considered the idea to be amazing, but it was quickly ignored by the majority of the thread followers. From my personal experiences, and again i'm not pointing fingers, quite a few people dislike the idea of approaching romance without a sexual conclusion to the relationship.

That suggestion brings up amusing memories of the earlier Sims games.... Hello stranger! Let us talk for a few hours. Now we are friends! Let us talk for a few hours. Now we are best friends! Kiss! Marry me? YOU HAVE MADE ME SO HAPPY let us spin into our formal wear! ... ... ...hello other stranger!"

Actually I think Sims 2 (for console!) had this. I received a 'mission' to get my dude a date, and unfortunately in the process of wooing the target ended up a friend. Since they were now friends, any advances were rejected (despite them becoming friends during a DATE...)

But yes, though it is NOT unheard of by any means in real-life, it does seem weird that romance is treated like a boolean value. Go from best friends to close lovers immediately! The reason many 'friendzone' romances are rare is often because that the primarily interested party is ready to advance the relationship when the secondary is not, since the primary will usually have felt that way for longer. So... for Anders is may make sense (obsession, ho!). But for, say Fenris, less so.

Not that it matters much in the end of course, Bioware have made it plain they have no intention to provide such extra detail to romances (too intensive) so boolean it will no doubt remain to be.

[Xilizhra]

I can only speak for the Merrill romance, but saying that there's pressure involving sex is wholly inaccurate. At least, from Merrill's in-character end. She never asks about it at all, she just makes a statement that questions whether or not Hawke is serious about their relationship, and if it's positive, then sex will happen as a consequence. Similarly, she doesn't ask to move in with Hawke, just says that she loves her.
Now, if you want to say that Hawke should have more dialogue options because you wouldn't want sex or cohabitation then, that's fine, but Merrill as a character never acts out-of-sorts from either angle, and I never felt any clash between emotional and physical fulfillment.

I considered the idea to be amazing, but it was quickly ignored by the majority of the thread followers. From my personal experiences, and again i'm not pointing fingers, quite a few people on the BSN dislike the idea of approaching romance without a sexual conclusion to the relationship.

Well, yeah. Most people as a whole aren't asexual.

[upsettingshorts]

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, yeah. Most people as a whole aren't asexual.

While that's true, it's further complicated by the fact that some asexual gamers might enjoy sexual relationships within a game if not their own lives, and some sexual gamers might enjoy asexual relationships within a game as well.  So I' m not sure how useful demographics would be here, in much the same way the number of LGB people in a given population doesn't equal the number of people who participate in LGB romances in BioWare games.

But the real question here is asking for an option to progress a romance while refusing or not being initially interested in sex, something that has previously been possible.  As to anyone's particular motivation in asking for this option, it's not strictly essential.  What's important is how much this would cost to implement, and if it would be cheap and/or easy, how much it could open things up for some players.

Sadly none of us can really answer that question.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 13 décembre 2012 - 05:25 .

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...

I can only speak for the Merrill romance, but saying that there's pressure involving sex is wholly inaccurate. At least, from Merrill's in-character end. She never asks about it at all, she just makes a statement that questions whether or not Hawke is serious about their relationship, and if it's positive, then sex will happen as a consequence. Similarly, she doesn't ask to move in with Hawke, just says that she loves her.
Now, if you want to say that Hawke should have more dialogue options because you wouldn't want sex or cohabitation then, that's fine, but Merrill as a character never acts out-of-sorts from either angle, and I never felt any clash between emotional and physical fulfillment.

Pretty sure this is what's being asked.  I mean sleeping with the LI is all well and good, but I think it's the perception that it's the culmination of the romance rather than the advancement of it that's the issue.

Continuing with Merrill's romance as an example, I found here Act 3 "I love Hawke" banter with Aveline to be just as emotional as the love scene in Act 2.  And the final embrace before the battle at the Gallows to be the true "culmination" of the romance.

[snackrat]

Xilizhra wrote...

I can only speak for the Merrill romance, but saying that there's pressure involving sex is wholly inaccurate. At least, from Merrill's in-character end. She never asks about it at all, she just makes a statement that questions whether or not Hawke is serious about their relationship, and if it's positive, then sex will happen as a consequence. Similarly, she doesn't ask to move in with Hawke, just says that she loves her.
Now, if you want to say that Hawke should have more dialogue options because you wouldn't want sex or cohabitation then, that's fine, but Merrill as a character never acts out-of-sorts from either angle, and I never felt any clash between emotional and physical fulfillment. ....

You are right about Merril of course. I have actually used her as an example of such. But... can Hawke romance Merill without being required to sleep with her? Can Hawke say, yes, they are serious, without having to prove it physically? Now, if it is in Merril's character to ask Hawke prove it physically, well fine. But Merril is actually a good example, because she is NOT driving it towards a physical relationship - Hawke is, and Hawke has no option but to do so (or negate the romance completely). Am I remembering this incorrectly?

[Plaintiff]

I have no problem with people having the option to turn down sex, but I'm bothered by your implication that the DA2 relationships were somehow "less focused" on the emotional side of things just because they required "sex" in order to progress.

[Xilizhra]

Pretty sure this is what's being asked. I mean sleeping with the LI is all well and good, but I think it's the perception that it's the culmination of the romance rather than the advancement of it that's the issue.

The culmination? I really don't think so, and in fact believe it was more true for Leliana especially in DAO than anyone in DA2. In DA2, sex happens in Act 2, but that leaves several things undone, especially for Isabela and Fenris. However, for Merrill and Anders, the most serious problems of the game are approaching for them, and because of the relationship between them and Hawke, said problems are approached in a romantic context, and I consider them part of the romance itself. So I never saw sex as a true culmination, just a sort of official milestone.

You are right about Merril of course. I have actually used her as an example of such. But... can Hawke romance Merill without being required to sleep with her? Can Hawke say, yes, they are serious, without having to prove it physically? Now, if it is in Merril's character to ask Hawke prove it physically, well fine. But Merril is actually a good example, because she is NOT driving it towards a physical relationship - Hawke is, and Hawke has no option but to do so (or negate the romance completely). Am I remembering this incorrectly?

It's true that Hawke is interested in sex if she accepts Merrill, yes. However, that's an issue on Hawke's dialogue end, not on Merrill's character end.

[upsettingshorts]

Plaintiff wrote...

I have no problem with people having the option to turn down sex, but I'm bothered by your implication that the DA2 relationships were somehow "less focused" on the emotional side of things just because they required "sex" in order to progress.

I imagine that for individuals who do not prize physical intimacy, the emotional currency that something like sex carries is probably hard if not impossible to appreciate.  It's a perspective issue, though some do treat it - incorrectly - as a zero-sum game I don't think that is always intended. 

In any case, while the motivation for requesting this option may or may not be complex, the request itself is quite simple.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 13 décembre 2012 - 05:30 .

[Knight of Dane]

Karsciyin wrote...
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.

To be fair you only really refuse/accept "sex" in Isabela's case. In the other's case your are given a choice of "i love you" and "I don't love you" which automatically results in a love scene, or rather a implied love scene, in case you choose the former.

[Plaintiff]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I have no problem with people having the option to turn down sex, but I'm bothered by your implication that the DA2 relationships were somehow "less focused" on the emotional side of things just because they required "sex" in order to progress.

I imagine that for individuals who do not prize physical intimacy, the emotional currency that something like sex carries is probably hard if not impossible to appreciate.  It's a perspective issue, though some do treat it - incorrectly - as a zero-sum game I don't think that is always intended. 

In any case, while the motivation for requesting this option may or may not be complex, the request itself is quite simple.

Perhaps. I'm sure OP didn't mean to offend, but the request, while perfectly reaasonable from where I'm standing, is unfortunately worded.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 13 décembre 2012 - 05:35 .

[ejoslin]

Karsciyin wrote...

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.

I disagree with this in the case of DAO, at least with Zevran.  Here's a late-game dialog if the warden is entering into a political marriage but the sex with Zevran hasn't happened (the dialog is a bit different if the warden and Zevran have had sex).  The sex may never happen, but obviously the romance has progressed to a serious point where the future is being discussed.  It's not the discussion which the future is spelled out; it's just one of the several alternative dialogs when Zevran and the warden are romantic but not having sex.

In fact, with both Zevran's and Morrigan's romance, the sex is actually the least important part of the romance.  For those two romances, the emotional engagement is the goal, not the physical -- and both have interesting reactions if it happens. Falling in love truly shakes the foundations of everything they believe.  I think that's why those two romances are so powerful for so many.

With Alistair and Leliana, the emotional engagement is also important, but they do lead to the sex.  But that's in a natural way as well, as generally, most people, when they fall in love, they want to be physically close as well.  But it's not required for either.

I do agree that with DA2, the relationships were more on a set path and the sex really was required and refusal was seen as a breakup.  I hope in DA3, the romances have a bit more room for the same kind of nuance the romances in DAO had. 

Modifié par ejoslin, 13 décembre 2012 - 05:44 .

[snackrat]

Xilizhra wrote...
*snip*
The culmination? I really don't think so, and in fact believe it was more true for Leliana especially in DAO than anyone in DA2. In DA2, sex happens in Act 2, but that leaves several things undone, especially for Isabela and Fenris. However, for Merrill and Anders, the most serious problems of the game are approaching for them, and because of the relationship between them and Hawke, said problems are approached in a romantic context, and I consider them part of the romance itself. So I never saw sex as a true culmination, just a sort of official milestone.

You are right about Merril of course. I have actually used her as an example of such. But... can Hawke romance Merill without being required to sleep with her? Can Hawke say, yes, they are serious, without having to prove it physically? Now, if it is in Merril's character to ask Hawke prove it physically, well fine. But Merril is actually a good example, because she is NOT driving it towards a physical relationship - Hawke is, and Hawke has no option but to do so (or negate the romance completely). Am I remembering this incorrectly?

It's true that Hawke is interested in sex if she accepts Merrill, yes. However, that's an issue on Hawke's dialogue end, not on Merrill's character end.

I'm reffering to the interaction as a whole, not just specific NPCs. I'm asking for the option as a player. I am not wanting to negate situations where it would be in-character (eg: Isabela) and I am not saying that all the current NPCs are written to be entirely physically drivern (I apologise if that was mistakenly implied).

What I would like is for one to persue a romance with a character without the automatic assumption that sex must be involved for the romance to continue or be validated, be it from the PC, or the NPC. Does that make sense?

[BubbleDncr]

DA2 did have a romance that didn't involve sex - Sebastian. And I did find that romance quite rewarding.

And how does DA:E = DA2? What does that E stand for?

[upsettingshorts]

BubbleDncr wrote...

And how does DA:E = DA2? What does that E stand for?

DA2's original working title was Dragon Age: Exodus.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 13 décembre 2012 - 05:45 .

[Xilizhra]

What I would like is for one to persue a romance with a character without the automatic assumption that sex must be involved for the romance to continue or be validated, be it from the PC, or the NPC. Does that make sense?

I don't know. You'd either have to write characters as being able to accept asexual romances, or create multiple sex scene conditions so that it could be properly delayed if you were going to engage in it at some point. It seems to involve sticking more zots into romantic development than is practical.

[Medhia Nox]

@Xilizhra: Surely you've heard of lesbian bed death (or marriage for straight folks) - I demand representation!

[upsettingshorts]

Xilizhra wrote...

What I would like is for one to persue a romance with a character without the automatic assumption that sex must be involved for the romance to continue or be validated, be it from the PC, or the NPC. Does that make sense?

I don't know. You'd either have to write characters as being able to accept asexual romances, or create multiple sex scene conditions so that it could be properly delayed if you were going to engage in it at some point. It seems to involve sticking more zots into romantic development than is practical.

OP is saying that she was perfectly able to imagine that they were okay with such a relationship as long as there was a scene in which the character was turned down for sex and the romance progressed anyway. DA:O wasn't explicit with regards to it, but it satisfied these conditions nonetheless.

The request isn't for specifically asexual content, only content that allows for an asexual interpretation. The difference being exactly as she says, "to be able to pursue a romance with a character without the assumption that sex must be involved for the romance to continue or be validated."

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 13 décembre 2012 - 05:48 .

[BubbleDncr]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

BubbleDncr wrote...

And how does DA:E = DA2? What does that E stand for?

DA2's original working title was Dragon Age: Exodus.

Ah, did not know that.

[Xilizhra]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Xilizhra: Surely you've heard of lesbian bed death (or marriage for straight folks) - I demand representation!

There's only one sex scene; roleplay what happens thereafter however you want. Nothing is stopping you.

The request isn't for specifically asexual content, only content that
allows for an asexual interpretation. The difference being exactly as
she says, "to be able to pursue a romance with a character without the
assumption that sex must be involved for the romance to continue or be
validated."

I... don't know. Sex is an extremely fundamental part of romance for the vast majority of people; even if delayed for personal reasons, it's assumed to happen at some point. For most, sex must be involved for it to continue beyond a certain point. Strictly speaking, I don't see anything wrong with the idea, but it comes across as very strange to me.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 13 décembre 2012 - 05:51 .

[Medhia Nox]

@Upsettingshorts: And this is the BSN - if it isn't awkward digital dolls rubbing against each other to overly melodramatic music while in their loin cloths... it ain't quality storytelling.

[Xilizhra]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Upsettingshorts: And this is the BSN - if it isn't awkward digital dolls rubbing against each other to overly melodramatic music while in their loin cloths... it ain't quality storytelling.

I admit, I wonder what personal demons drive you to be unable to find sufficient enjoyment in your own stories without denigrating others'.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 13 décembre 2012 - 05:52 .

[upsettingshorts]

Xilizhra wrote...

I... don't know. Sex is an extremely fundamental part of romance for the vast majority of people; even if delayed for personal reasons, it's assumed to happen at some point. For most, sex must be involved for it to continue beyond a certain point. Strictly speaking, I don't see anything wrong with the idea, but it comes across as very strange to me.

If all that it requires is:

Character: "Lets bang"
PC: "I'd rather not"
<Literally all other content in the romance plays out exactly the same>

What do you lose if OP is allowed their interpretation of whatever follows?  That genuinely seems to be all they're asking for.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 13 décembre 2012 - 05:53 .