228 réponses à ce sujet

[Redbelle]

Karsciyin wrote...

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?

*snip

Personally, I don't see them as integral. I do not consider sex to be the end game of a relationship...... In real life.

Video games are not real life however. They are entertainment. Make of that what you will in the context of this discussion, but I argue this.

BW games require role play and role play is best when it gives you multiple options for how to proceed. When it comes to how you want to further a relationship with a character, the player should have the option to proceed in a variety of manners. Sex being one, of many, of them.

The reason I hold this view is because BW made Baulders Gate 2 and gave us 3 romancible characters who you could have, implied sex with as you never see it. The consequence's however are different for all.

Viconia start's to push you away because she's afraid of losing you, being hunted by the Drow Deity. Then if you refuse to abandon her she give's into her love with a sense of grief that the best thing to happen in her life will not last forever.

Jaheria want's to be with you, but want's to settle things alone with her old organisation so you don't get hurt by them.

And Aerie, the relationship is destroyed by having sex with her. But by not having sex the relationship deepens.

I think a mature attitude towards the relationship in question, as well as the consequence's of those choices is a more important aspect of the gameplay as opposed to a, hide the evidence under a matress approach. A sexual relationship is not wrong. And putting one into a game is as valid as writing one in a book or filming one in a movie.

Provided it pushes some aspect of the narrative forward and is not just there to be gratuitous.

Modifié par Redbelle, 13 décembre 2012 - 06:00 .

[Xilizhra]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

I don't lose anything as such. So I'm not opposed to it being in the game, per se; I'm just leery of this attitude in general, because while I know that some people genuinely have no interest in sex, in other cases it's linked to moral attitudes about sex that I frequently find repulsive. I'm likely wrong for doing so, but I'm a bit wary of this in general.

[snackrat]

Knight of Dane wrote...

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.

You are right, absolutely. And that is actually a pitfall there. Isabela's, I believe, was handled well. The others backfire a little.
However, even with others saying "I love you", the implications of the conversations are clear (less so with grabbing Fenris's arm as he leaves after Bitter Pill, which was more surprising), and yet your only way to avoid the encounter is to end the relationship.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

Correct. Though to be frank, I think other dialogue would be affected in minor ways (eg: no banter about yey-sexy-times would fire, since there was a separate flag). However, they were extremely minor, and not at all a worry. In fact, some things slipped through the cracks (chaste Zevran still has Wynne berating you about keeping the others up with your noise!), but that was tolerable.

Plus, even beyond emotional, romantic, or ethical portions of the debate, maybe some of us just aren't interesting in watching polygons compare their underwear, skippable or no!

[Redbelle]

Karsciyin wrote...

*snip

 skippable or no!

Just skip it. And try not to think about it afterwards when they walk out of that tent walking funny.

[snackrat]

Redbelle wrote...

*snip*

BW games require role play and role play is best when it gives you multiple options for how to proceed. When it comes to how you want to further a relationship with a character, the player should have the option to proceed in a variety of manners. Sex being one, of many, of them.

...

As I have said, fine in-character. I dislike the assumption being either "Let us bang" or "I never loved you",

Also, " the player should have the option to proceed in a variety of manners. Sex being one, of many, of them.". Yep. I am not asking them to remove it. I am not saying it shouldn't have an impact in some ways. But you just said options. Plural. And one of them. An inidividual in a list. But that is literally the ONLY option, and that is what a politely request be changed.

[Medhia Nox]

@Xilizhra: If a Pride and a Rage demon had an OGB - that would probably be close.

Why do you find my moral attitudes about sex repulsive... what demons drive you that you can't keep your real world derision from the boards?

Hmm... is Hypocrasy Demon a thing?

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 13 décembre 2012 - 06:02 .

[Xilizhra]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Xilizhra: If a Pride and a Rage demon had an OGB - that would probably be close.

Why do you find my moral attitudes about sex repulsive... what demons drive you that you can't keep your real world derision from the boards?

Hmm... is Hypocrasy Demon a thing?

I never mentioned your values about sex specifically, only your odd habit of attacking people who do romances.

[Medhia Nox]

And I'm addressing your derision to someone with different values than you.

I don't care who you "romance" in the game - what I care about is the reaction to people who even remotely suggest that sex isn't relevant to their gaming experience.

Though I do have an opinion about the level of ... let's say passion... that the BSN forum goers have for these romances it's really not relevant to anyone.  So I really only jump on threads like this - not the "I Heart Garrus/Tali/Zevran?Morrigan/My Mabari Hound" threads.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 13 décembre 2012 - 06:13 .

[Xilizhra]

And I'm addressing your derision to someone with different values than you.

I don't care who you "romance" in the game - what I care about is the reaction to people who even remotely suggest that sex isn't relevant to their gaming experience.

I never said anything about anything against Karsicyn in particular. I was referring to a set of attitudes in general that I've encountered before to my sorrow.

[Kidd]

Easy now, you two. Be excellent to each other, and especially so toward sweet mabari.

[Medhia Nox]

@KiddDeBeauty: You're right of course.

I apologize Xilizhra.

Much love to Mabari.

[schalafi]

I wasn't going to touch this topic because I've seen so many of them descend into flamers, but I have an opinion about romance in rpgs, so I'll put in my 2 cents worth.
1. If you like the romance in the game then play it that way.
2. If you don't like romance in any game, then just ignore it.
3. If you don't like the way the romance is handled in a game then make your own game and do it your way, but don't expect the devs to change their take on romances because of your likes/dislikes. After all it's their game, and ultimately, their decisions.

[ScarMK]

schalafi wrote...

I wasn't going to touch this topic because I've seen so many of them descend into flamers, but I have an opinion about romance in rpgs, so I'll put in my 2 cents worth.
1. If you like the romance in the game then play it that way.
2. If you don't like romance in any game, then just ignore it.
3. If you don't like the way the romance is handled in a game then make your own game and do it your way, but don't expect the devs to change their take on romances because of your likes/dislikes. After all it's their game, and ultimately, their decisions.

Where's Fast Jimmy and that house analogy he had?  Never here when you need him.

[Medhia Nox]

@schalafi: As for your #3 - I fully agree that Bioware should make the game they want - but isn't that one function of the boards? To receive opinion and feed back on what their consumers would like to see?

Of course - it's for them to disseminate between what they would like to put in... but if you don't speak your mind - they'll be operating in ignorance.

And creating video games sounds tremendously boring. 

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 13 décembre 2012 - 06:27 .

[Quething]

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.

Eh?

In DA:O, you can proposition Morrigan for sex pretty early on in the romance path, and she'll go for it, and you get the Morrigan Sex Scene. If you ignore that option and continue courting her all gentlemanly, she'll eventually proposition you. You can either tell her "never" to end the romance, "I'm not opposed, but this isn't the time" to avoid the sex but continue to progress the romance, or "hell yes" and get the Morrigan Sex Scene.

Given that the sex scene and the variables for Morrigan's different affection levels are already part of the romance to begin with, that would have taken me about half an hour to code from scratch in the DA:O toolset, and ten minutes of that would just be hunting down the existing sex scene call, a problem the devs don't have. Admittedly I don't know what the Frostbite toolset is like but I sincerely doubt they'd have chosen it if the dialog manipulation was worse than their traditional tools. On its own, yes, there's a lot of resources required, but all of those resources are already required by the rest of the romance anyway, so you're doing like 0.2% extra work and paying the VAs for maybe an extra hour. Sure, it's a corner they could conceivably cut (and obviously one they did, in DA2, though I think that's more to do with the general issue with companion dialog in that game than any romance-specific resource allocation decision), but considering their games sell on the strength of their character writing, it's not the first place I'd go to save the budget, if I were them.

[NoForgiveness]

one thing that really bugs me in da2 is why is anders bi? i never heard him say anything about guys in awakening.He says he wants a pretty GIRL and to shoot fools with lightning. its just way out of his character

Modifié par MR_PN, 13 décembre 2012 - 06:32 .

[Mummy22kids]

I didn't really see the DA2 relationships as having sex as the beginning of the romance at all (excepting maybe Isabella). By the time you get to the point of having Anders/Fernris/Merril show up at your place you've know that person for 3? 4? years and been through a lot of stuff together. And you've, presumably, been flirting with that person the whole time. I think if you had been through all that and then say "No I'm not interested" would be a conflicting message to the whole backstory and would lead the NPC to figure that you weren't interested like they thought you were.
Also, I think that the whole idea of your PC wanting to wait until marriage is a bit out of sync with the story. I don't think it would be that easy to take Anders into the chantry and say "yes I want to marry my apostate boyfriend". Isabella's been married before and it's easy to see why she would be gunshy about marriage.

[Gazardiel]

I'll bring in another perspective on this (interesting discussion, and good for emphasizing that love and relationships work in many different ways): I was actually struck by how un-focused on sex DA2 was in comparison to DA:O.

1) You don't get achievements for boinking companions. I was fully expecting one on my first playthrough, and was (pleasantly?) surprised when I didn't get one after having Anders over.
2) OP - a gentle counter: on the one hand you say that the relationship relies heavily on sex, but then you point to how Anders considers the relationship over if you don't let him move in with you. To me, that actually decentralizes the sex from the relationship - it's the commitment and trust and support that matters to him, not the sex.
3) You *do* get an achievement for "completing" a romance with a companion, which to my observation only happened if you continued to love and support them through to the end of the game (with nary a "second boinking" in sight).

I do agree that there should be more variety and depth to the relationships, but I see the above as an improvement over DA:O's mechanics. Maybe in DA3 we'll see more ways to engage in an intimate relationship with companions.

[schalafi]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@schalafi: As for your #3 - I fully agree that Bioware should make the game they want - but isn't that one function of the boards? To receive opinion and feed back on what their consumers would like to see?

Of course - it's for them to disseminate between what they would like to put in... but if you don't speak your mind - they'll be operating in ignorance.

And creating video games sounds tremendously boring. 

I'm not saying it's wrong to speak your mind about any facet of a game, It's just that you have to be resigned to the fact that your, (and most everyone's) suggestions have been heard over and over for years. I find it amazing that any Bioware developer even comes on the forums to explain things, but that's what I like about these forums, and yes, I do think some suggestions are even adopted.

[upsettingshorts]

Hypothetically how would the thread feel about a situation where the protagonist and the companion share their feelings for each other followed by a fade to black, with no explicit reference to sex following but among various interpretations you would be free to make as a player.

[NoForgiveness]

i know this isn't da but asari can **** ur soul

[Medhia Nox]

@Upsettingshorts: I'd prefer it - digital doll loin cloth rubbing adds absolutely nothing to the game for me.

While more interesting dialogue moments actually about a relationship wuld add to the game for me.

[schalafi]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Hypothetically how would the thread feel about a situation where the protagonist and the companion share their feelings for each other followed by a fade to black, with no explicit reference to sex following but among various interpretations you would be free to make as a player.

I can't wait to hear all the answers to this! 

Modifié par schalafi, 13 décembre 2012 - 06:40 .

[NoForgiveness]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Hypothetically how would the thread feel about a situation where the protagonist and the companion share their feelings for each other followed by a fade to black, with no explicit reference to sex following but among various interpretations you would be free to make as a player.

imo that would be dumb i want more like a movie sex scene not straight up porn but something good

[thats1evildude]

Gazardiel wrote...

OP - a gentle counter: on the one hand you say that the relationship relies heavily on sex, but then you point to how Anders considers the relationship over if you don't let him move in with you. To me, that actually decentralizes the sex from the relationship - it's the commitment and trust and support that matters to him, not the sex.

Gazardiel speaks truth. It is the same with Merrill; sex progresses the romance but in the end making a commitment to Merrill concludes the romance.