228 réponses à ce sujet

[zevranarainais]

I'm totally coming into this thread late, but so help me Maker, I have a lot of opinions. So, bear with me, please.

OP, I agree completely. In fact, I think this is one of the reasons why I couldn't really connect with any of the DA2 romances. They felt artificial to me, in the sense that there was so much importance placed on the physical, on the ~night of sex~, that all other emotional connection would be invalidated if your character did not want (or just was not ready) to get it on. That's not to say that there's no emotional connection within sex, of course, but the idea that the entire relationship hinges on it (and not just on it, but at that exact moment) actually makes me somewhat uncomfortable.

Which brings me to my next point: I didn't like how you couldn't choose when it happened. I would have loved being able to continue a relationship without sex (as in DAO), but if it is considered necessary, I would've at least liked to be able to choose when it goes down. It took a lot away from my agency as a player, being shoehorned into a storyline that your Hawke (perhaps) didn't want, or wasn't ready for -- and not even saying, well, maybe I'll wait for this scene to happen later on down the road.

As I know player agency is something the devs are really focusing on for DA3, I really, really hope that that changes. More of DAO and less of DA2 in this respect would be greatly appreciated. A relationship continuing without having to have sex, or having to have it right away.

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 actually don't think I'd want that. I mean, I appreciate what it does, in that each person is allowed to decide what happens for their own characters -- but at the same time, I actually like being able to have some sort of emotional (or not) cutscene. I feel disappointed when I don't see something emotional happen -- not because I like watching "pixels rub on each other," but because as the player, I like to be connected to important moments in my character's life. Having so much of DA2 behind closed doors or time skips -- including romances -- frustrated me, in that I didn't feel as though I was really connected to what was going on. Having things be alluded to, but not seen, takes away from my immersion -- in a way, at least.

But at the same time, I agree that it would be a useful way to satisfy the different demands everyone has, because everyone clearly wants something unique for their characters. It's just not something I'd prefer, and I don't think my opinion on this is an indication of my apparent "stupidity/intelligence," thanks.

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Erm, I'd say, if there's no sex involved (either currently or as an interest for later) then it's not a romance.  It's a friendship.  The sexual component is what makes it a romance. 

No. Just no. Asexuals (and people who are not ready for sex, but are still in relationships) everywhere just died a little inside. This is why someone can be asexual and romantic, while others can be aromantic and sexual. Sex can have emotional implications, of course, but it does not have to. Romance is about an emotional connection to someone; whether or not physical affection is included in that does not matter.

--

tl;dr, I agree with the OP and I like player agency.

Modifié par aetherwyn, 13 décembre 2012 - 09:36 .

[Maria Caliban]

PsychoBlonde wrote...


If you "can" have romance without sex or sexual interest, either past, present, or future, then define the difference between romance and friendship.

If two (or more) people are in a relationship they consider a romance, it's a romance. If they don't see it that way, then it's not.

Romance, like friendship, is something only those involved can determine. It's not something like parentage or marriage, which require biological or legal definition.

 It's not love--I love my friends, and my romantic partner, and (some of) my family members, and, heck, chocolate.  There is a difference, otherwise we'd use the same word for both of them.

I love different people (and things) different ways. Love is a rather broad term. For me, platonic love isn't romantic love isn't familiar love isn't my love of a peppermint brick. And yeah, many cultures use different words for those concepts. You're acting as though the fact we use love for all of these is reflective of an objective quality instead of a product of language.

Either that, or admit that you don't consider the word to have ANY actual meaning...

I see. My options are to agree with you or say that there's no meaning to words. This isn't at all a false dichotomy that you're pulling out of your backside.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 13 décembre 2012 - 09:39 .

[Todd23]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...
The only fundamental distinguishing factor between whether or not a given relationship is a romance is whether or not there's sexual attraction or sex involved.  So the discussion is really kind of bizarre...

This is about as arbitrary as saying that sex only happens when a dude sticks his happy bit inside a woman's happy bit.

'Romance' means different things to different people. A person could have sex without romance or romance without sex, even if that's not something you can do.

If you "can" have romance without sex or sexual interest, either past, present, or future, then define the difference between romance and friendship.  It's not love--I love my friends, and my romantic partner, and (some of) my family members, and, heck, chocolate.  There is a difference, otherwise we'd use the same word for both of them.  So what is it, if it's not sex?

Either that, or admit that you don't consider the word to have ANY actual meaning, in which case I'm free to define them arbitrarily any way I want and you have no cause to complain.  If you do actually use the word to mean something else, tell me the way in which you DO use it.  If my definition isn't inclusive enough, proffer a better, more inclusive definition.  And if you can't do it, then why complain?

Now you're getting in to a debate on love.  There are different kinds of love.  Is the love you hear in stories possible?  If it is I submit you have not experianced such love if you'd compare it to chocolate.  Someone else is asking for a different kind of romance in game.  What do you gain in argueing semantics?

[esper]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...
The only fundamental distinguishing factor between whether or not a given relationship is a romance is whether or not there's sexual attraction or sex involved.  So the discussion is really kind of bizarre...

This is about as arbitrary as saying that sex only happens when a dude sticks his happy bit inside a woman's happy bit.

'Romance' means different things to different people. A person could have sex without romance or romance without sex, even if that's not something you can do.

If you "can" have romance without sex or sexual interest, either past, present, or future, then define the difference between romance and friendship.  It's not love--I love my friends, and my romantic partner, and (some of) my family members, and, heck, chocolate.  There is a difference, otherwise we'd use the same word for both of them.  So what is it, if it's not sex?

Either that, or admit that you don't consider the word to have ANY actual meaning, in which case I'm free to define them arbitrarily any way I want and you have no cause to complain.  If you do actually use the word to mean something else, tell me the way in which you DO use it.  If my definition isn't inclusive enough, proffer a better, more inclusive definition.  And if you can't do it, then why complain?

Romance means a bond of intimacy, trust and allowing the romanced person to know thing about me I wouldn't allow any other person know. It also means for me accepting the other person a hundred percent as they are. It also means a place second in my heart to all. It also means, hopefully, to have/find a partner for life.

Friendship means trust, the ability to relax around one another and to have their bonds. Still there are things, I wouldn't allow a friend to say to me, and things I would not explain to my friends (not necessary the same things to the same friends). Friendships may terminate over time do to you not moving in the same pace in life.

Any way, you question have been pondered as long as people has been had love stories. There is no definite answer, just accept that there is people with a different sex drive than yours.

Modifié par esper, 13 décembre 2012 - 10:13 .

[AtreiyaN7]

Karsciyin wrote...

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).

I'm mainly quoting this because I quite liked Pushing Daisies too - pity it was canceled. Anyhow, I basically agree with the point that sleeping with the LI shouldn't necessarily be a prerequisite to advancing a romance.

However, I think that that is what a lot of people probably expect to see in a game when you do have romances. My impression is that physical consummation of the relationship with the player's LI of choice is almost considered a goalpost/validation of the relationship.

[snackrat]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Karsciyin wrote...

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).

I'm mainly quoting this because I quite liked Pushing Daisies too - pity it was canceled. Anyhow, I basically agree with the point that sleeping with the LI shouldn't necessarily be a prerequisite to advancing a romance.

However, I think that that is what a lot of people probably expect to see in a game when you do have romances. My impression is that physical consummation of the relationship with the player's LI of choice is almost considered a goalpost/validation of the relationship.

"..a lot of people probably expect to see in a game when you do have romances..."
This is fine. I'm not asking them to remove them, only to make them optional. I am not so arrogant as to assume I should get my options by removing others', their's.

"...almost considered a goalpost/validation of the relationship."
This is where I have a problem. Are engaged people not in a relationship if they're saving it for marriage? If someone is 'not ready' to sleep with their significant other the moment they are asked, does that mean they should break up?
I know Bioware's DA team is capable of handling it, because they did so in DA:O well enough. This isn't me asking for a flashy new feature. It's not me asking for a mechanic they have since decided ineffectual. Simply a social interaction that was forgotten... or perhaps 'streamlined'... to make a reappearance, without necessarily overhauling everything to account for it. Which, if you'll read, I also technically didn't ask for, merely mused on (and hoped for). I know better than to make demands of people, especially those that probably steer clear from any threads with 'romances' in the title.

Plus, even if it doesn't happen, debate can be its own reward. I find it interesting to swap views with other people here in this thread, and pleased that it didn't rapidly derail into mockery and hate. The cases of ad hominem are so rare as to be almost non-existent, too, which is something for forums.

Modifié par Karsciyin, 13 décembre 2012 - 10:28 .

[Auintus]

Karsciyin wrote...
Plus, even if it doesn't happen, debate can be its own reward. I find it interesting to swap views with other people here in this thread, and pleased that it didn't rapidly derail into mockery and hate.

This one, she understands.

More on-topic, DA2 just made character interaction in general too....there's a word for it.
Like how you know when to go talk to your allies because the questlog says to do so, and you know they will have nothing relevent to say otherwise. Same things with the romance situation. It moves at it's own pace, and if you try to slow it down, you lose the entire romance.

MODEDIT: Removed deleted quote

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 13 décembre 2012 - 10:49 .

[snackrat]

aetherwyn wrote...

*snip*

...so much importance placed on the physical, on the ~night of sex~, that all other emotional connection would be invalidated if your character did not want (or just was not ready) to get it on. That's not to say that there's no emotional connection within sex, of course, but the idea that the entire relationship hinges on it (and not just on it, but at that exact moment) actually makes me somewhat uncomfortable.

Which brings me to my next point: I didn't like how you couldn't choose when it happened. I would have loved being able to continue a relationship without sex (as in DAO), but if it is considered necessary, I would've at least liked to be able to choose when it goes down. It took a lot away from my agency as a player, being shoehorned into a storyline that your Hawke (perhaps) didn't want, or wasn't ready for -- and not even saying, well, maybe I'll wait for this scene to happen later on down the road.

*snip*

A valid point. I'm not sure what triggers when, but if you delay certain quests, it is quite possible for you to have just [DA:E SPOILER---> have had your mother die,<---SPOILER] then go home and someone wants to jump your bones. That's ahh... a little weird. It did get weird if I just wanted to check my mail... or perhaps my inventory was almost full, but I wanted to keep this stuff, so I went to put it in my storage at hoo--- Unspecified Love Interest? What are you doing he-- oh. Oooooooh"

Modifié par Karsciyin, 13 décembre 2012 - 10:39 .

[snackrat]

Auintus wrote...

Karsciyin wrote...
Plus, even if it doesn't happen, debate can be its own reward. I find it interesting to swap views with other people here in this thread, and pleased that it didn't rapidly derail into mockery and hate.

This one, she understands.

More on-topic, DA2 just made character interaction in general too....there's a word for it.
Like how you know when to go talk to your allies because the questlog says to do so, and you know they will have nothing relevent to say otherwise. Same things with the romance situation. It moves at it's own pace, and if you try to slow it down, you lose the entire romance.

In DA:O is does get saddening if you exhaust questions early on. But one benefit was that there were PLENTY of investigate options - particularly for main members Morrigan and Alistair - so even if you didn't turn to them and they didn't immediately go "here's a flower/get into my tent/nudge nudge wink wink" you still had something to talk to them about. In DA:E those investigates are one-off questions tied to one conversation in particular. The dialogue is there, and they're not ACTUALLY as limited as they look (though, yes, there is less of it), it is just they are in a scenario where they can be easy to miss. Especially since it makes picking up the conversation proper again seem stilted and... topic-jumpy.

[Auintus]

Karsciyin wrote...

In DA:O is does get saddening if you exhaust questions early on. But one benefit was that there were PLENTY of investigate options - particularly for main members Morrigan and Alistair - so even if you didn't turn to them and they didn't immediately go "here's a flower/get into my tent/nudge nudge wink wink" you still had something to talk to them about. In DA:E those investigates are one-off questions tied to one conversation in particular. The dialogue is there, and they're not ACTUALLY as limited as they look (though, yes, there is less of it), it is just they are in a scenario where they can be easy to miss. Especially since it makes picking up the conversation proper again seem stilted and... topic-jumpy.

As far as I noticed, no one ever started an actual conversation with me unless it was on my quest list. So the true conversations were entirely on the whims of the storyline, while I got the same meaningless line everytime I'd show up just to say hi. Did I miss something?
So it's not so much that the conversations are limited, just that they are controlled by the game.

[AtreiyaN7]

Karsciyin wrote...

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

Karsciyin wrote...

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).

I'm mainly quoting this because I quite liked Pushing Daisies too - pity it was canceled. Anyhow, I basically agree with the point that sleeping with the LI shouldn't necessarily be a prerequisite to advancing a romance.

However, I think that that is what a lot of people probably expect to see in a game when you do have romances. My impression is that physical consummation of the relationship with the player's LI of choice is almost considered a goalpost/validation of the relationship.

"..a lot of people probably expect to see in a game when you do have romances..."
This is fine. I'm not asking them to remove them, only to make them optional. I am not so arrogant as to assume I should get my options by removing others', their's.

"...almost considered a goalpost/validation of the relationship."
This is where I have a problem. Are engaged people not in a relationship if they're saving it for marriage? If someone is 'not ready' to sleep with their significant other the moment they are asked, does that mean they should break up?
I know Bioware's DA team is capable of handling it, because they did so in DA:O well enough. This isn't me asking for a flashy new feature. It's not me asking for a mechanic they have since decided ineffectual. Simply a social interaction that was forgotten... or perhaps 'streamlined'... to make a reappearance, without necessarily overhauling everything to account for it. Which, if you'll read, I also technically didn't ask for, merely mused on (and hoped for). I know better than to make demands of people, especially those that probably steer clear from any threads with 'romances' in the title.

Plus, even if it doesn't happen, debate can be its own reward. I find it interesting to swap views with other people here in this thread, and pleased that it didn't rapidly derail into mockery and hate. The cases of ad hominem are so rare as to be almost non-existent, too, which is something for forums.

Oh, I complete agree there - that's why I said that I think that sleeping with an LI should not be a prerequisite to advancing the relationship. It's not something that should be a make-or-break point, and if you want to be engaged/whatever else and leave it that for however long, that should be fine for those so inclined.

You should probably be able to get the same endearments (a la Alistair's changed combat shouts/dialogue after you're in a romance) and progress along the lines of those people who do go for physically consummating a relationship.

That being said, it can be satisfying/a relief when two characters doing the unresolved sexual tension thing on a show that you like finally, FINALLY get together (per a certain series that I watch but won't name due to spoilers - although I really want to name it so badly right now  ). I think there's probably an aspect of this too when it comes to romances in games - the tension of will they/won't they and then the resolution, heh.

[snackrat]

Auintus wrote...

Karsciyin wrote...

In DA:O is does get saddening if you exhaust questions early on. But one benefit was that there were PLENTY of investigate options - particularly for main members Morrigan and Alistair - so even if you didn't turn to them and they didn't immediately go "here's a flower/get into my tent/nudge nudge wink wink" you still had something to talk to them about. In DA:E those investigates are one-off questions tied to one conversation in particular. The dialogue is there, and they're not ACTUALLY as limited as they look (though, yes, there is less of it), it is just they are in a scenario where they can be easy to miss. Especially since it makes picking up the conversation proper again seem stilted and... topic-jumpy.

As far as I noticed, no one ever started an actual conversation with me unless it was on my quest list. So the true conversations were entirely on the whims of the storyline, while I got the same meaningless line everytime I'd show up just to say hi. Did I miss something?
So it's not so much that the conversations are limited, just that they are controlled by the game.

Nope, you hit the nail on the head. What I'm referring to are things like going to Varric to talk about the expedition - only THERE will you find investigate options "Tell me about you ... what do you do?" and "tell me about Batrand", for example, and after that conversation (or rather, after you say the next advancing LINE) those dialogues are lost forever.

The romances do feel a lot less fleshed out for it. One important thing to remember about characters is that it is NOT just the romantic dialogue that matters - the downtime is important, too. Unfortunately and time-skip format, well.. skipped most of that, so even though you may KNOW in your HEAD that the bom-chikka-wow-wow is coming three years later, it still feels first-date-ish because you haven't interacted with them much beyond that.

[frostajulie]

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 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.

Agreed so hard:wub:

[Pelle6666]

Play Witcher II, romance Triss, take her to the elven ruins and then come back and tell us that sex scenes are only validation of the romance. A scripted love scene like that can be really intense and this one was actually one of the most emotional and entertaining scenes I've ever seen in a video game... not only for the full nudity...

[Auintus]

Karsciyin wrote...

Nope, you hit the nail on the head. What I'm referring to are things like going to Varric to talk about the expedition - only THERE will you find investigate options "Tell me about you ... what do you do?" and "tell me about Batrand", for example, and after that conversation (or rather, after you say the next advancing LINE) those dialogues are lost forever.

The romances do feel a lot less fleshed out for it. One important thing to remember about characters is that it is NOT just the romantic dialogue that matters - the downtime is important, too. Unfortunately and time-skip format, well.. skipped most of that, so even though you may KNOW in your HEAD that the bom-chikka-wow-wow is coming three years later, it still feels first-date-ish because you haven't interacted with them much beyond that.

I see. Yeah, that kinda stuff you could just randomly ask your party members in DAO. Even in the midst of the gore-splattered walls of the Circle tower.

I can agree with that. The time-skips may or may not have allowed for a lot of bonding or events that we just didn't get to see. It's like my character and his relationships are developing without me.

[zeMadMonkey]

The sex being a "gate" to the relationship or a reward for the relationship depends entirely on their character. I feel DA:O captured this well as you could have sex with Zevran almost straight away while with Leliana you had to make her love you in order to have sex.

DA2 was a bit unrealistic in terms of some characters e.g Anders. you do have the option to have sex with him when he comes and it is after the 3 year timeskip. He then says he loves you but there should be a third option. Instead of yes i will enter a relationship with you or no i will never enter one there should be an option that says we should go steady. Say you will enter a relationship with them but hold off on the sex for a while.

For some characters the sex straight away is realistic in terms of how the relationship goes e.g Isabela. Sex is just how you show interest in her and the rest is her coming to terms how she feels about you and trying to deny it by saying it is just "skin deep". The reward for the relationship is not the sex but the fact that you have broken down her barriers and made her come to realise that she loves you.

Whereas in Anders case Love and sex happen straight away. The romances should have been different in terms of where the sex took place or if it happened at all. For some romances you should have the option to go steady and then when both are willing engage in the sex. It all depends on the personality of who you are romancing.

Modifié par zeMadMonkey, 13 décembre 2012 - 11:18 .

[Gotholhorakh]

Agree with the OP.

Less sordid, please.

Also, romance should be almost, but not quite, entirely invisible to you if you don't want it, and it should NEVER limit your party or your progress to be... uninterested in romances.

My 2¢.

[Plaintiff]

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.

It's perfectly fine by me. I'm far less interested in the act of sex than I am in how the performance of the act affects the development of the characters involved. I don't need to see the sex in order to understand that it has likely occured.

[Xilizhra]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

If the writers created the ambiguity on purpose - as they would have in this hypothetical - what then?

I would say that they made a poor decision to do so.

What if the resources (cinematics, word budget, etc) was spent elsewhere in the relationship instead?

Is it a question of the sex scene (or closest thing thereof) taking precednce over other possible scenes that would also contribute to the story and provide characterization?  If so, what makes them special?

There are few LI cinematics other than that; the closest thing I've seen is kissing, which is easy to do, and other cinematics with the character in question play regardless of whether you romance them or not.  This would only leave the word budget, which could be used elsewhere... however, while again I can only personally speak for Merrill, her own scene was wonderful for characterization, even in the nonverbal areas (but the verbal areas were great too). Since a lot of the other in-depth things I might be interested in with an LI would make them too plot-specific, I don't really see resources used for sex scenes being better used anywhere else.

No. Just no. Asexuals (and people who are not ready for sex, but are still in relationships)
everywhere just died a little inside. This is why someone can be
asexual and romantic, while others can be aromantic and sexual. Sex can
have emotional implications, of course, but it does not have to. Romance
is about an emotional connection to someone; whether or not physical
affection is included in that does not matter.

True... but aromantic people have brothels. Asexual people might not have enough to be ideal, I grant (and I wouldn't wish Sebastian on anyone), but what would you propose? That "herosexuality" (which I dislike anyway; I believe it's perfectly fine for all LIs to just be bisexual) would also allow all LIs to be able to happily be in asexual relationships?

Modifié par Xilizhra, 14 décembre 2012 - 03:24 .

[rapscallioness]

What I'm understanding from the OP is that--basically--the PC should be able to say "no" when approached for a bit of nookie w/out it meaning the end of the romance.

I agree. The moment should be more in the players control. The player most definitely should be able to say "not right now" w/out getting ditched. In DA2 it was the NPC's that determined when and where they wanted to do it. And if Hawke didn't go along, that was it for the romance.

[brushyourteeth]

I agree with this completely.

I'm totally not against my protagonist having sex -- but it did rather cheapen the DAII romances once I discovered that saying "no" to their advances (whether it was more "I'm not ready" for relational/character reasons or "now isn't a good time" for story reasons) meant I was going to get dumped.

IRL, that's not a healthy relationship. It's not an equal partnership. Both parties should feel free to say no, and unashamed about saying yes.

The lack of control on that point is distressing not just because I'm the protagonist and I should control everything because this is an RPG and I payed money, dammit. It's distressing because a relationship where sex doesn't happen unless the other person demands it and refusing means you'll be abandoned is a terrible model for a relationship. And less appealing for me to engage in.
(especially since Anders and Fenris both essentially check out of the relationship afterwards)

One of the reasons I choose to opt out of the DAII romances on my recent playthroughs, though it wasn't game-breaker (because I'm obviously still playing).

Modifié par brushyourteeth, 14 décembre 2012 - 05:52 .

[Xilizhra]

brushyourteeth wrote...

I agree with this completely.

I'm totally not against my protagonist having sex -- but it did rather cheapen the DAII romances once I discovered that saying "no" to their advances (whether it was more "I'm not ready" for relational/character reasons or "now isn't a good time" for story reasons) meant I was going to get dumped.

IRL, that's not a healthy relationship. It's not an equal partnership. Both parties should feel free to say no, and unashamed about saying yes.

The lack of control on that point is distressing not just because I'm the protagonist and I should control everything because this is an RPG and I payed money, dammit. It's distressing because a relationship where sex doesn't happen unless the other person demands it and refusing means you'll be abandoned is a terrible model for a relationship. And less appealing for me to engage in.
(especially since Anders and Fenris both essentially check out of the relationship afterwards)

One of the reasons I choose to opt out of the DAII romances on my recent playthroughs, though it wasn't game-breaker (because I'm obviously still playing).

But... that's not the issue. At least not with Merrill; again, I can't really speak for other romances. In her case, though, sex is never the primary issue (although the sex scene is by far the best in the game); the only possible flaw is Hawke not having enough dialogue options, because Merrill never brings up sex as a primary component of anything.

[brushyourteeth]

Xilizhra wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

I agree with this completely.

I'm totally not against my protagonist having sex -- but it did rather cheapen the DAII romances once I discovered that saying "no" to their advances (whether it was more "I'm not ready" for relational/character reasons or "now isn't a good time" for story reasons) meant I was going to get dumped.

IRL, that's not a healthy relationship. It's not an equal partnership. Both parties should feel free to say no, and unashamed about saying yes.

The lack of control on that point is distressing not just because I'm the protagonist and I should control everything because this is an RPG and I payed money, dammit. It's distressing because a relationship where sex doesn't happen unless the other person demands it and refusing means you'll be abandoned is a terrible model for a relationship. And less appealing for me to engage in.
(especially since Anders and Fenris both essentially check out of the relationship afterwards)

One of the reasons I choose to opt out of the DAII romances on my recent playthroughs, though it wasn't game-breaker (because I'm obviously still playing).

But... that's not the issue. At least not with Merrill; again, I can't really speak for other romances. In her case, though, sex is never the primary issue (although the sex scene is by far the best in the game); the only possible flaw is Hawke not having enough dialogue options, because Merrill never brings up sex as a primary component of anything.

I've never experienced the Merrill romance, so I can't really say if my other issues would apply to it or not.
Does she show up at your house, initiate sex, and then break up with you if you refuse?

That's really what I have a problem with.

But I definitely agree with you on that last part -- (again, not having experienced it myself). I'm totally curious about how Merrill feels about sex, what it means to her, what her history with it has been like, etc. So if that didn't get much coverage in the romance, it's too bad. 


Essentially, "I'm not ready for this" shouldn't be a dealbreaker in a relationship. Not in real life, not in a game, not even for "promiscuous" companions. Unless we want one them to be legitimately selfish, immature, and untrustworthy. In which case, go for it, writers -- and thanks for that first bit of foreshadowing!

Modifié par brushyourteeth, 14 décembre 2012 - 06:13 .

[Xilizhra]

I've never experienced the Merrill romance, so I can't really say if my other issues would apply to it or not.
Does she show up at your house, initiate sex, and then break up with you if you refuse?

That's really what I have a problem with.

No, she shows up at your house seeking answers about whether or not you're in a real relationship, though she doesn't say so out loud due to being shy about it. If Hawke answers in the affirmative, sex... happens, basically; presumably they were both in the mood, and Merrill was happy enough for her shyness to no longer be an issue. There's a state transition between the initial kiss and the heading into bed, however, so I presume some time passed between them.

But I definitely agree with you on that last part -- (again, not having experienced it myself). I'm totally curious about how Merrill feels about sex, what it means to her, what her history with it has been like, etc. So if that didn't get much coverage in the romance, it's too bad.

Regrettably little in the romance itself, but it can be discerned, in part through banter with Isabela. She sees sex decidedly as an intimate/romantic thing, although one dialogue line in the romance scene implies that she doesn't know what it might mean for Hawke, at least initially. Her history is unclear and needs to be extrapolated, but given her surprisingly active role in pursuing it once she realizes it's a possibility, I suspect that she isn't a virgin as many have assumed.

Essentially, "I'm not ready for this" shouldn't be a dealbreaker in a
relationship. Not in real life, not in a game, not even for
"promiscuous" companions. Unless we want one
them to be legitimately selfish, immature, and untrustworthy. In which
case, go for it, writers -- and thanks for that first bit of
foreshadowing!

True, so long as one keeps in mind the difference between "not ready" and "never ready."

Modifié par Xilizhra, 14 décembre 2012 - 06:20 .