270 réponses à ce sujet

[Warden661]

Edit: http://dgaider.tumbl...mances-in-games

Opinions on what he's said?

Modifié par BoBear, 20 janvier 2013 - 07:43 .

[Xilizhra]

I believe that Thane showed that romances that end with one person dying are doomed. And I disagree with the line about "plausibility." All that matters in terms of plausibility is if the romances are plausibly successful; you don't need to add some kind of matching ratio of doomed romances. That sort of thing might work in a novel, but tends to produce only bad feelings in games.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

He "dislike the idea of every character being sexually available to the player" and yet he has no problem creating every romance-able characters sexually available to the player?

He dislike negativity as he pointed out as toxin environment and yet it's the negativity that he craved in his romance story? Wow just wow. He's right tho, it's not going to be received well. Just scrap the damn romance.

[Emzamination]

Link to the source, and not second hand journalism.

[Maria Caliban]

I think it's funny that the examiner links to Game Banshee instead of David's publicly available tumblr. I don't understand why sites like these always rely on secondary sources.

Of course, they then slap on the questionable title ''Dragon Age 3' writer voices displeasure with romance elements' which suggests their reading comprehension is.. well, about as good as the average forum goers.

[Neoleviathan]

Xilizhra wrote...

I believe that Thane showed that romances that end with one person dying are doomed. And I disagree with the line about "plausibility." All that matters in terms of plausibility is if the romances are plausibly successful; you don't need to add some kind of matching ratio of doomed romances. That sort of thing might work in a novel, but tends to produce only bad feelings in games.

Did Thane's romance progress beyond his death at all, like changes in dialoge & perhaps scenes where Shep was obviously morning? Haven't romanced Thane myself, so I was just curious. I think deaths would be fine, as long as the romance didn't die with the character. Not sure if I'm writing this clearly as I'd like...


I think they should totally go with those options on their upcoming games. They have to change things as they go, to give themselves new directions to write in, to give the players something new to experiance. Otherwise it'll just gets old, for them & for us. If this is something he sees as a challenge to Bioware they should meet it, defeat it, & share us the spoils!

[AppealToReason]

I found myself agreeing with a lot of his points. Especially the whole thing about people arguing about how something isn't legitimate because it didn't end in a fairy tale.

[SweQue]

"2) I dislike the idea of every character being sexually available to the player."

yet half the party members are like bisexuals?

[The Hierophant]

SweQue wrote...

"2) I dislike the idea of every character being sexually available to the player."

yet half the party members are like bisexuals?

It's the romance lobbyists doing.

[Nashiktal]

While I don't agree with everything he said, I respect Gaider enough as a writer that I am sure he will make some great content out of new ideas.

However I must say that I personally do not think the controversy around thane's romance was JUST about unhappy ending. Although that probably was a large part of the negative reaction to it. I believe that was just one part of it, the most visible and vocal.

Honestly? There were plenty of romances in ME3 that were shafted. Probably plenty of reasons for it, time, money, etc, but the point is there were a few characters who were given a pitiful amount of content compared to others coupled with perceived mishandling of events that just seemed to boil over along with all the other negative storms that were brewing around the same time.

Thane barely had any content. Its been a long time since I played ME3 so my memory might be fuzzy, but you get two good scenes and only one chance to actually talk to him before its all over. When you do talk to him, he barely talks, and its over before you know it. The next time you see him, he gets one admittedly awesome scene that is somewhat ruined by the controversial Kai Leng, and then you get one more scene that is over before you know it.

I personally found that last scene very emotional, but I can definitely see how those who romanced him, even if they didn't mind the unhappy ending, would have felt shafted. There is no real chance to consummate feelings with him, no chance to really bond again. No chance to even get a feel for his tragic back story before it is all swiftly cut off. You get more content with the completely optional and completely irrelevant Diana Allers than you do with Thane.

Of course this isn't even touching a few of the other romances and all of their problems. I can understand going new directions, but Jacobs story for completely invalidates the players romance and I feel the same story could have been told better if it wasnt just a "Hi sorry Its not working out bye! All in one mission.

[Fredward]

That awkward moment when you can't have a personal blog without every second article getting dragged onto a public forum and being interpreted in whatever way best suits a person's personal agenda. >.>

[Endurium]

I haven't really enjoyed a Bioware romance since Baldur's Gate 2. They feel like quick flings nowadays, and just about anything goes. Heck, I'll take NWN2:MotB's Safiya over any DA companion in terms of relationship (and no obligatory sex scene or fade-to-black).

It's funny David chose to highlight The Witcher's sex card mini-game, which is purely optional. Also there's the matter of Geralt being a sterile mutant monster hunter who is disdained by many people, so he can take affection where it is given. Also, shocking I know, Geralt is hetero. He knows how biology works.

Modifié par Endurium, 20 janvier 2013 - 08:15 .

[Nashiktal]

AppealToReason wrote...

I found myself agreeing with a lot of his points. Especially the whole thing about people arguing about how something isn't legitimate because it didn't end in a fairy tale.

Indeed I agree with this. However if bioware is going to take new directions with these romances I believe they should at least go all in.

Having a romance character break up with the player is an interesting concept even if I do not believe it is viable for the long term fan wise. However they simply sprung it on the players who romanced jacob and had the whole subplot play out pretty much within one mission. 

One mission, about 40 minutes long if you are not rushing. In the whole game. There was no way that was going to work out, even ignoring the controversy caused by experimenting in the first place. 

[Khayness]

His spin on the romances actually sound interesting, but the gamer audiance no longer tolerates investment met with failure.

Which is a shame, since RPGs are obsessing over choices and consequences as of late, but few games have the balls to make you pay for your actions if neccessary.

[Maria Caliban]

SweQue wrote...

"2) I dislike the idea of every character being sexually available to the player."

yet half the party members are like bisexuals?

He doesn't want all characters to be romanceable but he wants romancable characters to be available to all genders.

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

That awkward moment when you can't have a personal blog without every second article getting dragged onto a public forum and being interpreted in whatever way best suits a person's personal agenda. >.>

Every post is about his professional life, so I don't think of it as a personal blog.

Nashiktal wrote...

Indeed I agree with this. However if bioware is going to take new directions with these romances I believe they should at least go all in.

I don't think anything in the tumblr suggests he's going to take it in a new direction.

Morrigan dumps you. Alistar will dump you or kill himself depend on what you do. Fenris dumps you but will come back if you don't romance anyone else.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 20 janvier 2013 - 08:22 .

[NovaBlastMarketing]

this has actually been discussed in quite a few threads. I personally don't share a lot of his opinions my own thoughts can be found here.

http://social.biowar.../index/15590784

Modifié par NovaBlastMarketing, 20 janvier 2013 - 08:22 .

[Fredward]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

That awkward moment when you can't have a personal blog without every second article getting dragged onto a public forum and being interpreted in whatever way best suits a person's personal agenda. >.>

Every post is about his professional life, so I don't think of it as a personal blog.

Yet he expresses his personal opinion in each and every article. It straddles an awkward gray area. People are going to be interpreting his opinion as "Bioware is going to do this now!" and then spit venom all over the place when it isn't so, even when they misinterpret it. Because apparently for some it's awfully difficult to separate opinion from like an official announcement.

Oh well. C'esl la BSN.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Maria Caliban wrote...

SweQue wrote...

"2) I dislike the idea of every character being sexually available to the player."

yet half the party members are like bisexuals?

He doesn't want all characters to be romanceable but he wants romancable characters to be available to all genders.

Which is essentially a moot point since non-romanceable characters have never be an option at all in every games including dating simulation games regardless whether the character is "sexually available" or "racial available" or "cultural and religional available" or "species available" or "whatever bull**** available." I do not see the reason for Gaider to include non-romanceable characters into his equotation. If he wants to talk about romance option, then let's start with romance-able characters. Why the need to include the non-romanceable characters?

[CrystaJ]

I'm still bitter that Aveline chose Donnic over me. ;_;

In all seriousness, DAO shouldn't be a dating sim, so I'm glad not everyone will want into my sexy hero pants.

[Danny Boy 7]

SweQue wrote...

"2) I dislike the idea of every character being sexually available to the player."

yet half the party members are like bisexuals?

He didn't say romanceable characters, he said characters as in every character in the game or party as the original question was....


A friend of mine and I had a discussion regarding romances in Dragon Age. He said he had a problem with the fact that not all of the companions were romanceable, stating that there should be some way to, not necessarily on the same playthrough, convince every member of your party to have some manner of relations. I stated that it wasn’t feasible because of the effort required, and the sacrifices to other gameplay aspects it would cause. In a perfect world, though, would you even condone this?

[Sacred_Fantasy]

CrystaJ wrote...

I'm still bitter that Aveline chose Donnic over me. ;_;

In all seriousness, DAO shouldn't be a dating sim, so I'm glad not everyone will want into my sexy hero pants.

Wow DAO again?  The attacks on DAO is unbelievable. 

And yet that's exactly what happen in DA 2. Everyone aka every romanceable followers, will end up into your hero's sexy pants as long as you clicked the heart icons. I haven't see a heart icon or flirt option would result in disapproval. Yet I could see a lot of disapproval coming from Morrigan, if you pick the wrong dialogues.  

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 20 janvier 2013 - 09:18 .

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Tbh Bioware games are becoming more like dating sims, its getting old, if I wanted a dating sim I'd play that crap that comes out of Japan, not an RPG.

[Danny Boy 7]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

SweQue wrote...

"2) I dislike the idea of every character being sexually available to the player."

yet half the party members are like bisexuals?

He doesn't want all characters to be romanceable but he wants romancable characters to be available to all genders.

Which is essentially a moot point since non-romanceable characters have never be an option at all in every games including dating simulation games regardless whether the character is "sexually available" or "racial available" or "cultural and religional available" or "species available" or "whatever bull**** available." I do not see the reason for Gaider to include non-romanceable characters into his equotation. If he wants to talk about romance option, then let's start with romance-able characters. Why the need to include the non-romanceable characters?

Because the question he was replying to asked if he would be up for making every companion romanceable if in a perfect world he had the rescources to do so. He said no because that's not what the game (Dragon Age) is for and if they were to do that they'd be taking the focus of the game away from the plot and moving it towards the romances which is not what they want to do.

[Lilaeth]

In RL, everyone is potentially romanceable to everyone else. But for various reasons, you don't always hit it off with some people, or find them attractive. I mean, technically, Tom Cruise could try to romance me - would I go for it - absolutely not!

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Danny Boy 7 wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

SweQue wrote...

"2) I dislike the idea of every character being sexually available to the player."

yet half the party members are like bisexuals?

He doesn't want all characters to be romanceable but he wants romancable characters to be available to all genders.

Which is essentially a moot point since non-romanceable characters have never be an option at all in every games including dating simulation games regardless whether the character is "sexually available" or "racial available" or "cultural and religional available" or "species available" or "whatever bull**** available." I do not see the reason for Gaider to include non-romanceable characters into his equotation. If he wants to talk about romance option, then let's start with romance-able characters. Why the need to include the non-romanceable characters?

Because the question he was replying to asked if he would be up for making every companion romanceable if in a perfect world he had the rescources to do so. He said no because that's not what the game (Dragon Age) is for and if they were to do that they'd be taking the focus of the game away from the plot and moving it towards the romances which is not what they want to do.

And yet he make comparison with The Witchers' followers when the Witcher's  followers are all romanceable and  "sexually available", which is actually what he did with DA 2. All romanceable followers in DA 2 are sexually available. If he want to talk about non-romanceable companions as "sexually available", The Witcher 2 also feature non "sexually available" and non-romanceable companions, even better than DA 2, because Geralt is heterosexual.