270 réponses à ce sujet

[Amycus89]

I rarely agree with Gaider honestly, but this is one of the few cases where I do. Not every romance has to be a happy fairy tale.

As for the romances being available to all genders, that's something I have no problem with as long as it makes sense - and when I say "makes sense" I mean that the NPC doesn't actively avoid reffering you, the PC, as male or female, or that certain parts of the romance might play out differently depending on your gender where required.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

I agree with everything Gaider said. This is unusual.

[Harle Cerulean]

Plaintiff wrote...

Khayness wrote...

Harle Cerulean wrote...

So in your opinion, people are only allowed to be gay/bi if they have a backstory that demands it in a professional capacity?  People can't be gay or bi 'because that's what they are?

Oh I knew this thread is going to be amusing.

Who the Hell cares about what people are like or not?

I'm talking about Dragon Age characters. And it makes sense to them if they are written as the writers want to, not because how we the fans want them to.

And how do you know the writers didn't intend Anders to be bisexual from the beginning? How can you prove that it was due to fan demand and not their initial intention?

 

What Plaintiff said, pretty much!  (Funny, I usually disagree with him.  Guess this is the one topic we can agree on...  XD)

Additionally - if you want well-rounded characters, you should care about what people are like, because as characters, they are intended to feel like people.   And guess what?  A well-rounded character needs no more explanation for why they aren't straight than they do for why they are.  Morrigan needs no explanation for why she doesn't want to bang women - she just doesn't.  Likewise, Fenris and Anders don't need to have a reasons for why they want to have sex with men.  They just do.

Modifié par Harle Cerulean, 20 janvier 2013 - 12:49 .

[Khayness]

Plaintiff wrote...

And how do you know the writers didn't intend Anders to be bisexual from the beginning? How can you prove that it was due to fan demand and not their initial intention?

And how do you know they did?

If I wouldn't value my time I could look up some Mr. Gaider statemets about why they decided to go with the all bi route where I draw my conclusions from. But I don't see the point.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Amycus89 wrote...

I rarely agree with Gaider honestly, but this is one of the few cases where I do. Not every romance has to be a happy fairy tale.

Not every romance has to be a fairy tale, is reasonable. I don't have any issue with that. All my romance options in DAO are bitters anyway. Almost all my wardens are dead. The one that gets to live today ( with Morrigan ) is denied to have a closure on his son's story ( shall I call him Urthemiel, the god of beauty? ) while the one that romance Leliana was left by Leliana and myseriously disappear in DA 2. 

I have issue with limited 4 to 5 dialogue conversation in each ACTs. I have issue with quest centric romanceable companion. And I have issue with non-interactivity exposition dialogues that are dumped in party banters. If you do not put much stock on the player to interact with expository dialogues, because you're too afraid that expository dialogues would affect the character's growth, then you could forget about adding negative elements to the romance story because I don't give a damn about the companions.  Seriously, he couldn't make some players to care about DA 2's companions and yet he wanted to talks about more complex elements such as "The Bittersweetest Thing."? 

[Plaintiff]

Khayness wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

And how do you know the writers didn't intend Anders to be bisexual from the beginning? How can you prove that it was due to fan demand and not their initial intention?

And how do you know they did?

If I wouldn't value my time I could look up some Mr. Gaider statemets about why they decided to go with the all bi route where I draw my conclusions from. But I don't see the point.

Let me save you the few minutes it would take: Gaider has stated that he wanted to be as fair as he could to sexual minorities in the audience. He made that decision on his own, whether he was motivated by fan feedback is not known, but Gaider is a grown man, and if he thinks a fan suggestion is stupid, he will say so. It's more than likely that he was motivated by his own desire to be more equitable to minorities in the audience, though feedback and the existence of mods that allowed players to have same-sex relationships with Alistair and Morrigan my have tipped the scales slightly.

Gaider has said that what he would've liked to do was provide an "even spread" of romanceable characters of various "fixed" sexualities, but that would've required more resources than he felt could be spared. Making the four available love interests romanceable to player characters of either gender was a good compromise, because it made things as fair as possible while requiring much less time and effort.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 20 janvier 2013 - 01:32 .

[Maria Caliban]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Yup, and even so, he fail to see that not every companions is romanceable in the Witcher series, - which render his reasoning a moot point. 

Right. You finding a women the Witcher can't have sex with totally means that women weren't objectified in the game.

Oh wait... nope.

[Rawgrim]

Plaintiff wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Battlebloodmage wrote...

Somehow all these arguments essentially about people disliking ghey stuffs in the game.

I do belive most people have problems with every love interest being biswitching sexuality just to cater to the PC`s choice of gender. I don`t remember anyone complaining about Wade + Herren in the first game.

Wade and Herren were never shown to be gay in the game, that is metaknowledge due to an announcement by David Gaider, well after the game came out. So, technically, this declaration was as much of a retcon as Anders' ever was.

The reason people don't **** about Wade and Herren being officially labelled as gay is because they are hypocritical bigots. Nobody cares that Wade and Herren are gay, because the player only interacts with them briefly, if at all, and they acted so "obviously"  gay that being told explicitly so later was not any sort of revelation.

People are only upset about Anders being "retconned" because he was their "bro". They don't want to even be pretend friends now that he's been revealed to be a bisexual male. They hate Anders now, because of this revelation. They hate it because it suggests that people who are not obviously gay can sometimes be gay, and that scares the hell out of them. Because they are stupid bigots.

Harle Cerulean wrote...

So in your opinion, people are only allowed to be gay/bi if they have a backstory that demands it in a professional capacity?  People can't be gay or bi 'because that's what they are?

Nope. As a homosexual, I should know. My life revolves entirely around my love for dick; it's intertwined into every single aspect of my life.

The stereotypically fey Wade and stereotypically catty Herren are deep and well-rounded, despite being bit characters with no secondary character traits, because their homosexuality was apparently planned from the beginning, despite never being explicitly stated in-game.

Anders' tragic backstory with Karl and his passionate romance with maleHawke are shallow pandering, because he didn't mention being gay the very first time we saw him, and didn't have the decency to mince around, lisping his spells at the Darkspawn.

You can interact with Anders briefly too, if you wish. You arn`t forced to do his quests or use him as a companion. For my part I hated the fellow because he was a whiny moron, and later because he completely betrayed my trust. A third reason why I hate him is the fact that he got retconned. He could die in Awakening and showed up in Kirkwall anyway (even before he actually died in Awakening, if you check the timeline).

Sounds more like you are looking for reasons to play the homophobia card whenever someone disagrees with you on this subject.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Yup, and even so, he fail to see that not every companions is romanceable in the Witcher series, - which render his reasoning a moot point. 

Right. You finding a women the Witcher can't have sex with totally means that women weren't objectified in the game.

Oh wait... nope.

The reason why he doesn't want to make every companions romanceable because he doesn't like the idea of every female characters in the game to have sex with the player, am I right?

His argument fail flat on two things.

1. Not every female characters in the Witcher is "sexually available" to Geralt. You can't have sex with Carmen, Grandma and some other female characters.  

2. Not every female character in the game is Grealt's companion. And not every companions is romanceable and sexually available to Geralt. You can't romance Eskel, your best pal. 

Therefore, his reasoning to base on The Witcher 1's example is flaw and baseless. It's safe to assume he didn't pay much attention to the game's detail as he should have. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 20 janvier 2013 - 01:57 .

[CrystaJ]

Or he was just generalizing.

[Rawgrim]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Yup, and even so, he fail to see that not every companions is romanceable in the Witcher series, - which render his reasoning a moot point. 

Right. You finding a women the Witcher can't have sex with totally means that women weren't objectified in the game.

Oh wait... nope.

The reason why he doesn't want to make every companions romanceable because he doesn't like the idea of every female characters in the game to have sex with the player, am I right?

His argument fail flat on two things.

1. Not every female characters in the Witcher is "sexually available" to Geralt. You can't have sex with Carmen, Grandma and some other female characters.  

2. Not every female character in the game is romanceable. And not every companions is romanceable and sexually available to Geralt. You can't romance Eskel, your best pal. 

Therefore, his reasoning to base on The Witcher 1's example is flaw and baseless. It's safe to assume he didn't pay much attention to the game's detail as he should have. 

In the second Witcher game you can romance\\have sex with even fewer women, i think. But if you have read the books, this sort of thing is very much in Geralt`s character. The guy is a man-****. The game is based on the books, after all.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Rawgrim wrote...
In the second Witcher game you can romancehave sex with even fewer women, i think. But if you have read the books, this sort of thing is very much in Geralt`s character. The guy is a man-****. The game is based on the books, after all.

I would do the same if I'm given the choice. Having sex with every hot chicks in the world is my ultimate fantasy. 
But I know it's impossible. The best I could do is create every fictional hot chicks ( some are based on real life models )  and simulate explicit sex contents by myself. But even then, I could easily get bored.... and with every female character in the game? Even the most womanizer and ambitious characters know their limit.  

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 20 janvier 2013 - 02:21 .

[Selene Moonsong]

I happen to agree with David Gaider on romances and would really rather have only two or three (I wouldn't reject a fourth) well written romance possibilities and they do not have to be perfect lollipop, sunshine and rainbow romances and the same goes for friendships and rivalries.

What I would like to see for romances are scenarios like the following

1. Not having a set 'doomed romance' interest (of those available as romantic interests).

This would require quite a bit of finesse on the writers part, I think, but have it so that any one of the possible romantic interests could end up a doomed romance based on the protagonists actions (such as decisions or other actions by the protagonist).

2. Opposites attract.

This would be something like being based on mutual respect and trust gained throughout the game events and romance arc.

3. NPC romantic interest with another NPC (rival suitors).

This scenario would be where both the PC and an NPC have a romantic interest in another NPC and could go several ways such as a bitter rivalry, rejections, the rivals ending up romantically interested in each other, etc.

4. Tragic

This could mean any kind of breakup or other loss of the romantic interest either to a suitor or because of a disagreement, or any other tragic end.

5. Romanced based of character's actions

An NPC sees the PC as possible romantic interest based on actions taken by the PC as they progress through the game (the NPC starts the romance (something like was done with Merril

6. Forbidden romance

This could consist of things such as a mage and a templar, royalty and commoner, etc.

7. Unrequited romance

One that never is never fulfilled.

There are always different possibilities.

I enjoy romances, friendships, and even rivalries because they tend to give a NPC more depth and give a player insight to the characters. Fleshed out NPC characters make them far more interesting to have along than their stats and abilities to me.

Some  things I dislike in games is gratuitous sex for the sake of having sex, and identifying a romance as an achievement on a checklist, and not fond of not being able to let down a suiter gently.

I am perfectly fine with same gender romance options and enjoyed those offered in DA: Origins and DA II.

Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 20 janvier 2013 - 02:43 .

[Rawgrim]

I`d like to see a romance with someone older than my PC. Don`t think that has been done in a Bioware game before? Well, the elves in BG2 are technically older, but they don`t count. Usuall yin Bioware games the love interests are of the same age as the PC.

[Sylvanpyxie]

I agree with the majority of what Gaider says on his blog. Specifically, exploring different avenues of romance and not making all characters sexually available.

While I would like to see Bioware branch out on their romantic story-lines a little, I personally believe they're more of a crowd pleaser than anything, so it seems unlikely that they would fully invest in a more tragic romantic option.

Saying that, I suppose they did attempt it with Thane Krios in Mass Effect, but it was poorly implemented with no recognition. There were complete breaks in his mindset that was inconsistent with a romanced play-through, little alteration to the scenes for a romantically involved Shepard and his death was poorly handled with little to no recognition. There was no period of mourning, no emotional reflection - Thane Krios simply ceased to exist.

Assuming they do attempt to go down a different path with romances in future, I simply hope they handle it in a less ham-fisted manner. Tragedy requires a delicate hand and it would be important to take care with any attempts at "diversion" from the classic Fairy-Tale Wedding conclusions.

That said, I think it's more important to me that we keep a cast of strictly "friendly" characters, as a full cast of sexually available of characters can easily damage a Player's perception of the characters, possibly diminishing them into little more than Potential Love Interests. It can cause the romantic aspect of interactions to overshadow the characterization.

Of course, that's just me - Different strokes for different folks.

2. Opposites attract. 

On the subject of different strokes... I utterly despise the whole Opposites Attract troupe. No offense or anything, just voicing my opinion.

I find it utterly ridiculous that a Lawful, Selfless White Knight might accept or love a Chaotic, Lawless, Self-Absorbed Douchebag.I find it utterly impossible to believe that any level of romantic relationship could evolve between two people that are constantly reminded, day after day, of the vasts differences between them. Watching an idiot perform self-centered acts of greed that puts the lives of innocents in harm's way on a regular basis would breed a level of contempt in a Lawful, Selfless character that would make it utterly impossible for any friendly relationship to evolve, let alone a romantic one.

That said, I have no problem what so ever if a relationship between two vastly different characters could evolve because the Player themselves makes an effort to change, for the sake of a relationship with the character in question. I would like to see the Player conform to the Character for a change.

Modifié par Sylvanpyxie, 20 janvier 2013 - 03:55 .

[Amycus89]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Amycus89 wrote...

I rarely agree with Gaider honestly, but this is one of the few cases where I do. Not every romance has to be a happy fairy tale.

SNIP

I have issue with limited 4 to 5 dialogue conversation in each ACTs. I have issue with quest centric romanceable companion. And I have issue with non-interactivity exposition dialogues that are dumped in party banters. If you do not put much stock on the player to interact with expository dialogues, because you're too afraid that expository dialogues would affect the character's growth, then you could forget about adding negative elements to the romance story because I don't give a damn about the companions.  Seriously, he couldn't make some players to care about DA 2's companions and yet he wanted to talks about more complex elements such as "The Bittersweetest Thing."? 

I agree that I thought there was a lack of interaction, dialogue options in the DA2 romances, and didn't like the "press the heart option to sucessfully win" option, nor turning the whole thing into a simple quest to get laid with a  guiding quest arrow...   

The lack of dialogue options is likely due to the voiced protagonist (which is just one of many reasons why I don't like it), but the rest is just due to bad designer choices - However, I didn't see anything in this specific article that I disagreed on. 

[Zkyire]

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.

You did?

I found it one of the most enjoyable aspects of the DA2 romance plots.

The fact that Aveline has her own preferences and doesn't bed the PC simply because it's the player.

[Zeta42]

I agree with Gaider. Making only some of the companions LIs makes sense, because it's only natural others have feelings for somebody else. I liked Aveline a lot for that reason, and I'm even okay with Kasumi (ME2&3), even though her crush on Jacob was unrequited. Companions should have their own lives!

Modifié par Zeta42, 20 janvier 2013 - 03:06 .

[Plaintiff]

Rawgrim wrote...

You can interact with Anders briefly too, if you wish. You arn`t forced to do his quests or use him as a companion. For my part I hated the fellow because he was a whiny moron, and later because he completely betrayed my trust. A third reason why I hate him is the fact that he got retconned. He could die in Awakening and showed up in Kirkwall anyway (even before he actually died in Awakening, if you check the timeline).

Sounds more like you are looking for reasons to play the homophobia card whenever someone disagrees with you on this subject.

No, I accuse people of homophobia when they're homophobes. Note that I have not accused you of homohobia, and don't intend to. Yet, anyway. All I was saying was that "People aren't homophobic about Anders because Wade and Herren" is a weak argument. There are plenty of reasons why a homophobe might be bothered by Anders, but not Wade and Herren. Homophobia is not always obvious, and it doesn't always express itself in the same ways.

All these points you made just now are irrelevent. The people who are angry about Anders being "retconned" as bisexual are the ones who enjoyed his character in Awakening and perceived him as a "bro" or whatever. The fact that some people chose not to recruit him is of no consequence to this issue, we're talking specifcally about the "retcon" of him being made into a bisexual, not any other retcon that his character might have undergone.

People are free to hate Anders for any reason they wish, even if I think those reasons exist only in their heads. But if someone specifically dislikes Anders for suddenly expressing homosexual desire (and plenty of people do), it's patently obvious that their hatred stems from homophobia, not from any sort of genuine desire to maintain the integrity of his character.

[Plaintiff]

Rawgrim wrote...
In the second Witcher game you can romancehave sex with even fewer women, i think. But if you have read the books, this sort of thing is very much in Geralt`s character. The guy is a man-****. The game is based on the books, after all.

So... it's okay for the videogames to objectify women, because the books do it, and being sexist is part of Geralt's character?

[frostajulie]

DinoSteve wrote...

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.

God you are ignorant.  Stop talking out your ass about things you know nothing about.  Bioware games are NOTHING like dating sims.  I actually played one it was a trite awful mess of juvenile wish fulfillment.  Bioware on its worst day is nothing like that.  Until you actually play a japanese dating sim shut your mouth.  And don't start lieing and saying you did because it is obvious if you compare Biowares games to a dating sim you have not.

I mean there are a lot of reasons to hate on bioware and complain about their suck assishness but this really?!  JFC!! You know nothing about a japanese dating sim if you can seriously compare a buioware romance to one of those monstrosities.

[DPSSOC]

On topic I agree with most of what Gaider said.

Off topic rambling commencing in 3, 2, 1...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
No? He said, "Take the first Witcher game, for instance— I enjoyed many things about that game, but the collectible sex card mechanic? Ultimately it rendered every female character in the game into a puzzle to be solved. What do I do to sleep with them?"

Can you sleep with this character? Does this character equote to every female characters as well?
 [Image Snip]

You're missing the point.  Gaider was saying that making all companions romanceable would cheapen them, they wouldn't be characters anymore they'd be objectives, what do I need to do to romance this character.  He compares this to the Witcher where, on a first run, the card mechanic turns every female character into a puzzle of "How do I sleep with you."  Whether or not you can sleep with every female character isn't the point he's making, the point is that the mechanic gets the player into that state of mind.

You don't know when you load up the game for the first time that you can't sleep with everyone, so every female character becomes a puzzle to figure out how.  You didn't get to sleep with this character but maybe you just did something wrong, back up try again, and again, until you figure it out.

Think of it like the Super Mario Bros (original NES) when you first realize you can go down the pipes you try to go down all the pipes, because there are goodies down there and you don't want to miss them.

Harle Cerulean wrote...
So in your opinion, people are only allowed to be gay/bi if they have a backstory that demands it in a professional capacity? People can't be gay or bi 'because that's what they are?

I've seen this brought up before and I feel the need to remind people of a harsh truth about the human condition. We're animals, for all our technology and sophistication we're still just animals. As animals there are two drives that we all possess, that never go away, and that effect pretty much everything we do to varying degrees. Survival and sex. Our sexuality, who we want to have sex with and how much, factors in to almost any interaction we have with people to a certain degree (YMMV), we behave differently towards people we find desirable than we do towards those we don't.

This is why a character's sexuality really should be decided early on and encorporated throughout; Isabela, Zevran, and Leliana do this well because the fact that they are bisexual is factored in to how they behave towards people (not just the obvious ways and not just the PC). You don't need a backstory that demands it, none of them to date have, but if a character is bi/homosexual make them bi/homosexual, don't make them herosexual where you strip them of any hints of sexuality outside their interaction with the PC.

Example from another Bioware game is Liara in ME1. The character is utterly sexless and outside of interacting with Shepard expresses no interest in anyone of any species or gender. Ashley and Kaidan on the other hand do, because their orientation is not dependent on the PC. If you're female Ashley is still attracted to men and interactions change (Ash's sister talking about Kaidan as opposed to Shepard), vice versa with Kaidan (Kaidan's response when asked if he's interested in Liara). In this regard Ashley and Kaidan are much stronger characters because Liara might as well be a robot. I can't really comment on if this changes in ME2/3 because I avoided Liara like the plague in those games (do not like the character can't say why).

[Nashiktal]

Maria Caliban wrote...
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.

Yes they may dump you, but it it is all part of a bigger system based upon approval and is part of a branching sysem of choice, and in Morrigans case she isn't just dumping you because she fell in love with another man.

In any case I was referring to the Mass Effect romances, not the romances written by Gaider in the Dragon Age universe.

[xAmilli0n]

Selene Moonsong wrote...

I happen to agree with David Gaider on romances and would really rather have only two or three (I wouldn't reject a fourth) well written romance possibilities and they do not have to be perfect lollipop, sunshine and rainbow romances and the same goes for friendships and rivalries.

What I would like to see for romances are scenarios like the following

1. Not having a set 'doomed romance' interest (of those available as romantic interests).

This would require quite a bit of finesse on the writers part, I think, but have it so that any one of the possible romantic interests could end up a doomed romance based on the protagonists actions (such as decisions or other actions by the protagonist).

2. Opposites attract.

This would be something like being based on mutual respect and trust gained throughout the game events and romance arc.

3. NPC romantic interest with another NPC (rival suitors).

This scenario would be where both the PC and an NPC have a romantic interest in another NPC and could go several ways such as a bitter rivalry, rejections, the rivals ending up romantically interested in each other, etc.

4. Tragic

This could mean any kind of breakup or other loss of the romantic interest either to a suitor or because of a disagreement, or any other tragic end.

5. Romanced based of character's actions

An NPC sees the PC as possible romantic interest based on actions taken by the PC as they progress through the game (the NPC starts the romance (something like was done with Merril

6. Forbidden romance

This could consist of things such as a mage and a templar, royalty and commoner, etc.

7. Unrequited romance

One that never is never fulfilled.

There are always different possibilities.

I enjoy romances, friendships, and even rivalries because they tend to give a NPC more depth and give a player insight to the characters. Fleshed out NPC characters make them far more interesting to have along than their stats and abilities to me.

Some  things I dislike in games is gratuitous sex for the sake of having sex, and identifying a romance as an achievement on a checklist, and not fond of not being able to let down a suiter gently.

I am perfectly fine with same gender romance options and enjoyed those offered in DA: Origins and DA II.

Wow, I couldn't have said it better myself.  I think you literally stole the words out of my mouth.