642 réponses à ce sujet

[wright1978]

iakus wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Not as far as i'm concerned. The bonus of companions is they can be alongside the protaganist throughout the story which greatly adds to the romance experience, beyond the simple romance specific content.

Well, yes, the advantage is that the companion is around a lot to talk to.  That's why NPC romances like Samantha and Steve can work out well, as even though they are not companions on the battlefield, you hang out with them a lot between missions.  If an NPC is important enough to the overall story, I don't see why a romance couldn't form even if you can't take them out adventuring.

No doubt they can form but i still don't think it would feel as fulfilling as them being present and commenting during adventuring is important imo. If they are added extra alongside the existing level of choice per sexuality then fine but i wouldn't want to see choice cut down to add them in. If not stick to the current method where sexuality is reactive to a particular playthrough choice.

[draken-heart]

wright1978 wrote...

iakus wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

Not as far as i'm concerned. The bonus of companions is they can be alongside the protaganist throughout the story which greatly adds to the romance experience, beyond the simple romance specific content.

Well, yes, the advantage is that the companion is around a lot to talk to.  That's why NPC romances like Samantha and Steve can work out well, as even though they are not companions on the battlefield, you hang out with them a lot between missions.  If an NPC is important enough to the overall story, I don't see why a romance couldn't form even if you can't take them out adventuring.

No doubt they can form but i still don't think it would feel as fulfilling as them being present and commenting during adventuring is important imo. If they are added extra alongside the existing level of choice per sexuality then fine but i wouldn't want to see choice cut down to add them in. If not stick to the current method where sexuality is reactive to a particular playthrough choice.

anyways, off topic, but could make sense. Have a bi side option per gender like Kelly or Allers, except they would prefer if you do not go for anyone else, but would be okay to be the "other interest."

how would everyone feel about a Bi Non-party option with a preference for the same gender, with an option to tell the person when they ask if you want to be with them again "Lets keep it casual" or "Sure, but only each other" type of thing?

Modifié par draken-heart, 13 février 2013 - 11:20 .

[draken-heart]

RainbowPuppy wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Alistair mentions being raised to treat WOMEN with respect. Morrigan mentions acting the scared girl to get her way around MEN. how is that not acknowledgement.

It's not acknowledgement. Being romantically attracted to people of the opposite gender only means you're not gay, not that you're straight. Even preferring people of the opposite gender does not mean you're straight.

Bisexual and pansexual people exist too, and from what I have seen, one of the things they struggle with is having their sexuality taken seriously. Demanding that certain characters jump through flaming hoops in order to prove that they're "really" bisexual to the point where even falling in love with the PC regardless of gender is not considered acceptable evidence unless it comes with an intricate backstory or a loud proclamation that yes, they really do fancy both the lads and the lasses, is really not helpful.

You can be a virgin and still be bisexual. You can be more attracted to women than men and still be a bisexual man. You can be reserved about your sexual preferences and still be bisexual. Merrill and Kaidan Alenko and Anders are just as "qualified" to be bisexual characters as Isabela or Zevran are.

what about the times he flirts with the female wardens and not the male ones?

this is again off topic.

Modifié par draken-heart, 13 février 2013 - 11:40 .

[DialupToaster]

How has this not devolved into a flame war yet? You guys are boring... ):

[draken-heart]

randomchasegurney wrote...

How has this not devolved into a flame war yet? You guys are boring... ):

I may have this thread locked so I can restart it and get it back on track.

[draken-heart]

RainbowPuppy wrote...

draken-heart wrote...
what about the times he flirts with the female wardens and not the male ones?

this is again off topic.

Him flirting with the female wardens and not the male ones doesn't make him straight, unless he actually turns a male warden down or states that he only likes women. That wasn't my point anyway, my point is that the notion that some characters don't "make sense" as bisexuals is harmful to real-life bisexual people who often have their sexuality dismissed and told that they're either actually straight or actually gay, along a number of other assumptions. So, basically, if we're going to have a discussion about the sexual orientation of fictional characters, I think such rethoric ought to be left out.

If you do not flirt with someone, you usually do not have an interest in that person. The fact that he does not do that with any other MALE companion shows he is straight.

[Battlebloodmage]

Maybe he just wasn' attracted to the males around him. bisexuals don't mean attraction to everyone and everything.

[DialupToaster]

draken-heart wrote...

RainbowPuppy wrote...

draken-heart wrote...
what about the times he flirts with the female wardens and not the male ones?

this is again off topic.

Him flirting with the female wardens and not the male ones doesn't make him straight, unless he actually turns a male warden down or states that he only likes women. That wasn't my point anyway, my point is that the notion that some characters don't "make sense" as bisexuals is harmful to real-life bisexual people who often have their sexuality dismissed and told that they're either actually straight or actually gay, along a number of other assumptions. So, basically, if we're going to have a discussion about the sexual orientation of fictional characters, I think such rethoric ought to be left out.

If you do not flirt with someone, you usually do not have an interest in that person. The fact that he does not do that with any other MALE companion shows he is straight.

HOWEVER them flirting does not mean they're interested either, for example, i only flirt with people who know I have no interest in them (though I do this with the intention of weirding them out.)

Modifié par randomchasegurney, 14 février 2013 - 12:25 .

[syllogi]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Wow, everybody. This guy/girls avatar is Traynor, s/he has four traynor images in their signature. A same sex only romance.

Give them a break. This is carrying it too far.

Personally, if draken heart was proposing NPC same sex romances in *addition* to full party member s/s romances, I'd be a lot more supportive, but as it is, I'm not thrilled by the reasoning, and even liking Traynor doesn't mitigate the message he/she is sending.

As you've said in the past that you're black, would you be cool with dating a white person who didn't want to introduce you to their friends and family, and made racist jokes around you, but said "you don't count, you're different"?  That's the sort of "down low" vibe I get from this proposal; characters like Traynor are good enough for romancing, but someone like Merrill is "ruined" by being available to both sexes...that's odd, suspicious logic to me.

I'm not saying NPC romances are totally unappealing, but the ones I've seen so far in ME2 and 3 don't compare with full party member romances, and draken's reason for wanting to segregate s/s romances doesn't sit well with me.

Modifié par syllogi, 14 février 2013 - 02:38 .

[Nashiktal]

I feel like this thread is having cognitive dissonance. The topic feels more like "Would you support non companion romanced" rather than just S/S npc romance. That seems like two different things.

Personally? I'm all for npc romances. However considering my only experience with NPC romance is with ME3, I found samantha and cortez, while both excellent characters, were much less fleshed out, and had much less content than what was possible with the squadmates.

As such I am hesitant to make NPC's the only romanceable characters. If they just stayed in the home base, wouldn't that restrict interactions with other characters save for specifically scripted events? Also since they are not companions and thus cannot follow us, wouldn't that also restrict the npc's to largely reactionary characters?

[Plaintiff]

draken-heart wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

I think everyone being bi is better than relegating S/S romances to second class status.

made no sense for any of the characters except Isabela. And you could add them to the list but not add them as party member, but meake them just as important to the story.

"Made no sense"? And how exactly do you judge that?

Why are gay and bisexual characters required to provide justification for their sexuality? I demand to know what excuse Alistair and Morrigan have for being straight.

[Dhiro]

Plaintiff wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

I think everyone being bi is better than relegating S/S romances to second class status.

made no sense for any of the characters except Isabela. And you could add them to the list but not add them as party member, but meake them just as important to the story.

"Made no sense"? And how exactly do you judge that?

Why are gay and bisexual characters required to provide justification for their sexuality? I demand to know what excuse Alistair and Morrigan have for being straight.

I find that, much like "dark and gritty", BSN seems unable to decide what "sense" and "realism" actually mean... thus, they curiously become whatever the speaker feels that will validate their argument the most.

Spooky.

[draken-heart]

Can we get the thread locked now?

This thread has gotten off-topic and it cannot be salvaged.

[DialupToaster]

in b4 lock (hopefully this speeds it along Draken)

Nah I just wanna necro

Modifié par randomchasegurney, 14 février 2013 - 03:31 .

[draken-heart]

randomchasegurney wrote...

in b4 lock (hopefully this speeds it along Draken)

Nah I just wanna necro

I hoped this thread would be able to talk about the inclusion of S/S romances. Whether that be in addition to party romances or not.

[Yggdrasil]

draken-heart wrote...

 I decided to make this thread to talk about the idea of non-party S/S *exclusive* romance options. I feel it would work by giving players a more personal aspect to the base instead of having the party member romance around all the time, someone waiting at home.

Feel free to ad your reasons why you think the Idea would or would not work.

I think it's simply a matter of depth.  While I think the non-party NPC's are well-fleshed out, we don't really get to know anyone except party members in depth, and they're the ones you spend the game running around with.  Romancing a non-party NPC would require the devs to program a lot of additional conversations and cutscenes.

That said, I certainly don't think it's a matter of the idea not working.  The buzz seems to favor the PC getting some kind of castle or keep, so who knows?  Maybe they're planning to have romance options there. 

Having your love interest move in with you can nominally happen in DA2, but we never got to see any domestic activity.  I thought that would have brought a more personal aspect to the home base, regardless of whether your love interest was a party or non-party NPC.

As far as exclusive same-sex romance options, I agree with other posters who have said they should return to the fixed sexuality of DA:O, but with straight, same-sex and bisexual options.  I would have loved to romance Alistair, but I felt it brought a level of bittersweet immersion that I couldn't (as a male PC).  Just like in life, we can't always pursue those we're interested in.  (Then again, fantasy is generally wish-fulfillment, so I definitely can see the "everyone should be bi" side of the argument.)

[Xilizhra]

draken-heart wrote...

Can we get the thread locked now?

This thread has gotten off-topic and it cannot be salvaged.

No, I'd really rather keep it around as a monument to your failure.

Regardless, I shall agree with Syllogi on the rest.

[draken-heart]

Xilizhra wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

Can we get the thread locked now?

This thread has gotten off-topic and it cannot be salvaged.

No, I'd really rather keep it around as a monument to your failure.

Regardless, I shall agree with Syllogi on the rest.

I'd rather it get locked.

[Shya]

I like haveing my LI in my parrty for the interaction. The waiting back at home thing i can't see me enjoying

[Iakus]

Nashiktal wrote...

Personally? I'm all for npc romances. However considering my only experience with NPC romance is with ME3, I found samantha and cortez, while both excellent characters, were much less fleshed out, and had much less content than what was possible with the squadmates.

Don't think that was specific to them.  Certain ME3 squadmates were awfully quiet...

[milena87]

I always think of Sword/Shield when I see S/S, thanks to all those years with DAoC...

Anyway, it's an interesting option, but in reality I wouldn't really care for it. I'd rather have less romance options (I understand that none at all would be a big no-no) and more fleshed out/interesting characters overall.