1981 réponses à ce sujet

[Cheylus]

I personally would welcome a lesbian character that refuses my male Inquisitor's advances if it meant staying true to her character and vice versa.

Or make your love interest reacts properly to your choices in general. Don't enable Merrill interest in you if your character has proven in front of Merrill that he dislikes elves. Don't make a romance with Fenris possible if you dislike his attitude and if you're a power hungry mage. Most of the times, rivalry romances don't convince me.

DA2 romances felt completely cut from the plot to me: by romancing Anders, I kept on disagreeing with the mages I've seen, even killing some in the process. I know you can end the romance in one quest, but why does he loves me or flirts with me if my character strongly disagrees with him? I thought it does not fit his characterization.
In one of my playthroughs, one of my character started by supporting mages, then changes his mind by supporting templars. Well, you can fuel his rivalry bar he's still in love with you.

It has to feel more organic and dynamic than it is, not tied to an "approval" bar of any kind. Not act 1: encounter & flit / act 2: romance / act 3: romance complete (+ achievement).
To have to wait for an act, a dialog or a quest to romance a character was a chore to me (both in ME and DA2). I liked the fact you could romance people approximately anytime during the story of DA:O by really talking with them and understanding them, but it was still far from perfect. If i remember correctly, you were also able to end this romance anytime by dismissing your former LI.

Also, please, please, I beg you. Don't make a "Achievement unlock" pop up when I'm intimate with my LI again. That's completely juvenile. 

Modifié par Cheylus, 28 juin 2013 - 02:03 .

[Ieldra]

Ziggeh wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
(2) It affects suspension of disbelief and world integrity. People aren't bi as a rule, and I can't believe in a world where the majority is. I know we're expected to treat every playthrough as an AU, but that's not how things work on the emotional level once you know things work differently in another's playthrough. 

Suspension of disbelief, like immersion is far too personal and subjective a thing to really hold up as an argument, but I do agree that despite it relying on knowledge external to the gameplay we likely percieve them as bisexual and will concede this can affect your ability to "immerse", largely because you're forced into a position of using external knowledge when navigating the relationship.

But here's the thing: the reason we get tripped up mentally on issues like that is because there really aren't parallels for this kind of storytelling. We're attempting to apply the methods of engagement we have with films and books - inflexible narratives - and it doesn't always work. Bioware are literally in the process of defining the ways in which such interacting storytelling will be interpreted. We and they are learning how to write and view this maturing medium.

And while it is maturing, isn't it better to include, and thus teach useful habits, such as drawing lines of distinction between gameplays?

That's the problem indeed. Games represent a new way of storytelling, and I'm absolutely for experimenting with ways to improve it. All I'm saying that at this moment, "everyone is bi" makes the romances feel less real to me and the DAO romances feel quite a bit more real because everyone has a defined in-world sexual orientation and it's not all bi. Maybe they can do something to improve it, maybe it's I who must adapt, maybe we need a different solution, but at the moment, I do not find the sole realized example of the new setup convincing and I'd rather have something like in DAO.

[Dirgegun]

Cheylus wrote...

I personally would welcome a lesbian character that refuses my male Inquisitor's advances if it meant staying true to her character and vice versa.

Or make your love interest reacts properly to your choices in general. Don't enable Merrill interest in you if your character has proven in front of Merrill that he dislikes elves. Don't make a romance with Fenris possible if you dislike his attitude and if you're a power hungry mage. Most of the times, rivalry romances doesn't convince me.

DA2 romances felt completely cut from the plot to me: by romancing Anders, I kept on disagreeing with the mages I've seen, even killing some in the process. I know you can end the romance in one quest, but why does he loves me or flirts with me if my character strongly disagrees with him? I thought it does not fit his characterization.
In one of my playthroughs, one of my character started by supporting mages, then changes his mind by supporting templars. Well, you can fuel his rivalry bar he's still in love with you.

It has to feel more organic and dynamic than it is, not tied to an "approval" bar of any kind. Not act 1: encounter & flit / act 2: romance / act 3: romance complete (+ achievement).
To have to wait for an act, a dialog or a quest to romance a character was a chore to me (both in ME and DA2). I liked the fact you could romance people approximately anytime during the story of DA:O by really talking with them and understanding them, but it was still far from perfect. If i remember correctly, you were also able to end this romance anytime by dismissing your former LI.

Honestly, this is what I would rather see them work on rather than this gender argument. I would rather the romance options (and characters in general, for that matter) react to my character's deeds, personality and specialisation than his or her gender.

[Dirgegun]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
(2) It affects suspension of disbelief and world integrity. People aren't bi as a rule, and I can't believe in a world where the majority is. I know we're expected to treat every playthrough as an AU, but that's not how things work on the emotional level once you know things work differently in another's playthrough. 

Suspension of disbelief, like immersion is far too personal and subjective a thing to really hold up as an argument, but I do agree that despite it relying on knowledge external to the gameplay we likely percieve them as bisexual and will concede this can affect your ability to "immerse", largely because you're forced into a position of using external knowledge when navigating the relationship.

But here's the thing: the reason we get tripped up mentally on issues like that is because there really aren't parallels for this kind of storytelling. We're attempting to apply the methods of engagement we have with films and books - inflexible narratives - and it doesn't always work. Bioware are literally in the process of defining the ways in which such interacting storytelling will be interpreted. We and they are learning how to write and view this maturing medium.

And while it is maturing, isn't it better to include, and thus teach useful habits, such as drawing lines of distinction between gameplays?

That's the problem indeed. Games represent a new way of storytelling, and I'm absolutely for experimenting with ways to improve it. All I'm saying that at this moment, "everyone is bi" makes the romances feel less real to me and the DAO romances feel quite a bit more real because everyone has a defined in-world sexual orientation and it's not all bi. Maybe they can do something to improve it, maybe it's I who must adapt, maybe we need a different solution, but at the moment, I do not find the sole realized example of the new setup convincing and I'd rather have something like in DAO.

Honestly, I think it had less to do with gender and more to do with how much you could speak with the DA:O romance options and companions. In DA2 you don't get too many conversations with your companions, and most of the conversations, aside from one or two, are all about their issues. In DA:O you could speak with your companions about more than the blight and their personal hang up. 

In DA:O you got to ask everyone about their history, where they'd come from, and what events in their past had shaped them. In DA2 you got less of that, and so you didn't feel quite as connected with the characters in general, despite how Hawke is supposed to have known these people for years.

Modifié par Dirgegun, 28 juin 2013 - 02:06 .

[Plaintiff]

Ziggeh wrote...

Taint Master wrote...
I want complete characters, whos preferences are independent of my M/F toggle at character creation.  Not a bunch of relatively blank slates inserted to meet a quota.

Is that the case? 

The characters are blank slates?

Haven't you heard? Personality is entirely derived from sexuality.

[Herr Uhl]

Morocco Mole wrote...

I'd rather they just ditch approval systems. They discourage roleplaying and encourage hitting the options that give you the maximum approval from your party to make them actually useful

You mean that it shouldn't give a stat buff?

[Dirgegun]

Plaintiff wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Taint Master wrote...
I want complete characters, whos preferences are independent of my M/F toggle at character creation.  Not a bunch of relatively blank slates inserted to meet a quota.

Is that the case? 

The characters are blank slates?

Haven't you heard? Personality is entirely derived from sexuality.

I guess I'm a blank slate, then, seeing I don't personally identify as any sexuality. Maybe Demisexual? I've honestly never been in a situation that would allow me to find out. 

[Welsh Inferno]

Ziggeh wrote...

But you'd like it to be, right?

And if you were posting your prefences on a forum read by the creators of reality, would you be saying "screw fairness"?

Games are not reality. They are fiction. I would like the things I like in the fiction I like. I would be surprised to hear other people did not feel the same.

I dont like everything being rosey in my RPG's. Its boring.

[nightscrawl]

Cheylus wrote...

Or make your love interest reacts properly to your choices in general. Don't enable Merrill interest in you if your character has proven in front of Merrill that he dislikes elves. Don't make a romance with Fenris possible if you dislike his attitude and if you're a power hungry mage. Most of the times, rivalry romances doesn't convince me.

DA2 romances felt completely cut from the plot to me: by romancing Anders, I kept on disagreeing with the mages I've seen, even killing some in the process. I know you can end the romance in one quest, but why does he loves me or flirts with me if my character strongly disagrees with him? I thought it does not fit his characterization.
In one of my playthroughs, one of my character started by supporting mages, then changes his mind by supporting templars. Well, you can fuel his rivalry bar he's still in love with you.

It has to feel more organic and dynamic than it is, not tied to an "approval" bar of any kind. Not act 1: encounter & flit / act 2: romance / act 3: romance complete (+ achievement).
To have to wait for an act, a dialog or a quest to romance a character was a chore to me (both in ME and DA2). I liked the fact you could romance people approximately anytime during the story of DA:O by really talking with them and understanding them, but it was still far from perfect. If i remember correctly, you were also able to end this romance anytime by dismissing your former LI.

This is getting away from the main issue of the thread, but I wanted to address it anyway. Most of what you write here is a result of the friend/rival system and its flaws. There has been a great deal of discussion about this in other threads, including many where people suggest alternate approval systems.

Ultimately, while it was a good concept, the F/R system was not dynamic enough. It also did not manage to convey why a follower would continue a rival romance because the "agree to disagree" element was lacking. The rivaled follower tends to come across as self-destructive at worst, or pliable to the PC's whims at best. Also, while I can see a rival romance working for a short time (a passionate, dangerous fling), I don't think it works well over the long time span that DA2 takes place.

Morocco Mole wrote...

I'd rather they just ditch approval systems. They discourage roleplaying and encourage hitting the options that give you the maximum approval from your party to make them actually useful

I think that is an extreme measure. If they make the meters hidden I don't think it would be too much of an issue. If there were no points shown in DA2, you would gradually gain Anders rivalry for anti-mage actions and you would see this by the way he reacts to you. If you played the game again on a more pro-mage stance he would react differently. You would observe, as a person, the NPC's reactions to your deeds.

The game can still keep track of things internally so it knows how people are supposed to react, but we as players don't need to see it. It would all be data-mined eventually, with results posted on the DAwiki, along with guides to achieve certain results, but that is to be expected no matter what system they use.

Another issue that DA2 had was that follower plots only triggered if you had a certain level of friendship OR rivalry. If you wavered in the middle you never progressed with the person, leading to frustration. IMO plot events should not be tied to meter levels, regardless of whether they are hidden or not.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 28 juin 2013 - 02:21 .

[Plaintiff]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Sexuality is a part of your personality

Yeah, a part.

So where the hell did this false dichotomy of "have a defined sexuality or be a blank slate" come from?

[Jonata]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Sexuality is a part of your personality

I think that how do you approach sexuality is a part of your personality, not sexuality in itself. 

And by that I mean: do you approach sex casually (like Jack or Zevran, for example)? Or do you think that behind sex there's something more meaningful? Or even being a virgin (like Morrigan and Alistair, for example) can put your personality under a different point of view and is definitely an important part of the whole.

But with whom you have sex with? I don't think it's that important in building a character. 

[Welsh Inferno]

Plaintiff wrote...

Haven't you heard? Personality is entirely derived from sexuality.

More bull****. No one said anything of the sort. Part does not mean all.

[Ziggeh]

Ieldra2 wrote...

That's the problem indeed. Games represent a new way of storytelling, and I'm absolutely for experimenting with ways to improve it. All I'm saying that at this moment, "everyone is bi" makes the romances feel less real to me and the DAO romances feel quite a bit more real because everyone has a defined in-world sexual orientation and it's not all bi. Maybe they can do something to improve it, maybe it's I who must adapt, maybe we need a different solution, but at the moment, I do not find the sole realized example of the new setup convincing and I'd rather have something like in DAO.

As dirgegun says, I would find it problematic to make that comparison, because that’s not the sole difference between the relationships. The correlation/causation thing.

Out of curiosity, do you think it would help if they were to decide that pc-sexual was the intended way the characters are viewed, and made it clear by presenting (more) directly contradictory information between playthroughs, or would you find that detaching?

Modifié par Ziggeh, 28 juin 2013 - 02:14 .

[Plaintiff]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

But you'd like it to be, right?

And if you were posting your prefences on a forum read by the creators of reality, would you be saying "screw fairness"?

Games are not reality. They are fiction. I would like the things I like in the fiction I like. I would be surprised to hear other people did not feel the same.

I dont like everything being rosey in my RPG's. Its boring.

Nobody is asking for that in the least.

[Plaintiff]

Morocco Mole wrote...

So where the hell did this false dichotomy of "have a defined sexuality or be a blank slate" come from?

From the part where parts of a character's personality are up to the player and not the writer

The sexuality of the characters is entirely up to the writers, and only they know what it is.

[Ziggeh]

Morocco Mole wrote...
From the part where parts of a character's personality are up to the player and not the writer

Characters, by definition are a collobration between author and reader. In games such as this, even more so. 

[Dirgegun]

Morocco Mole wrote...

So where the hell did this false dichotomy of "have a defined sexuality or be a blank slate" come from?

From the part where parts of a character's personality are up to the player and not the writer

Except they're not. Just because a character happens to get together with Hawke, doesn't mean they don't also like the opposite gender to that Hawke. Not everyone feels the need to talk about their previous relationships or who they find hot or not when in a relationship.

[syllogi]

Dirgegun wrote...

Cheylus wrote...

I personally would welcome a lesbian character that refuses my male Inquisitor's advances if it meant staying true to her character and vice versa.

Or make your love interest reacts properly to your choices in general. Don't enable Merrill interest in you if your character has proven in front of Merrill that he dislikes elves. Don't make a romance with Fenris possible if you dislike his attitude and if you're a power hungry mage. Most of the times, rivalry romances doesn't convince me.

DA2 romances felt completely cut from the plot to me: by romancing Anders, I kept on disagreeing with the mages I've seen, even killing some in the process. I know you can end the romance in one quest, but why does he loves me or flirts with me if my character strongly disagrees with him? I thought it does not fit his characterization.
In one of my playthroughs, one of my character started by supporting mages, then changes his mind by supporting templars. Well, you can fuel his rivalry bar he's still in love with you.

It has to feel more organic and dynamic than it is, not tied to an "approval" bar of any kind. Not act 1: encounter & flit / act 2: romance / act 3: romance complete (+ achievement).
To have to wait for an act, a dialog or a quest to romance a character was a chore to me (both in ME and DA2). I liked the fact you could romance people approximately anytime during the story of DA:O by really talking with them and understanding them, but it was still far from perfect. If i remember correctly, you were also able to end this romance anytime by dismissing your former LI.

Honestly, this is what I would rather see them work on rather than this gender argument. I would rather the romance options (and characters in general, for that matter) react to my character's deeds, personality and specialisation than his or her gender.

This is pretty much where I stand, if they're going to change anything in the name of realism, give your companions individual crisis points that will cut off romance and even friendship, when reached.  Even side quests should provoke reactions from my party members.  If I'm doing something Stupid Evil (or Stupid Good) that a potential LI would obviously not agree with, I want to see and hear their opinions, even if it cuts off future romance options.  

I've already made my opinion on same gender romances known, but for the heck of it, I'll say it again; not all people who identify as bisexual are extroverted, sexually liberated, charming rogues.  If a character has not disclosed their prior sexual/romantic history, and they are willing to enter into a romance with your character of either gender, that does NOT mean that the character is bisexual.  It *only* means that each game is it's own "canon", and you can't judge a character by actions he or she might take in another playthrough.  If you want a game that is completely static in the way characters interact with you, you might want to look into other genres of video games.

[Plaintiff]

[Spam post removed.]

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 28 juin 2013 - 08:45 .

[Welsh Inferno]

Plaintiff wrote...
-

Derp.

Modifié par Welsh Inferno, 28 juin 2013 - 02:21 .

[Plaintiff]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
-

Derp.

You actively supported the notion that a character without a defined sexuality is a blank slate. It's right there, I quoted you.

You can backpedal now, if you want. But please stick to your guns this time.