1981 réponses à ce sujet

[nightscrawl]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

In DAO there's a quest at Ostogar where a prisoner begs you for some food. If you take certain dialogue options he'll tell you that he has a key that can open one of the chests in camp, and will give it to you if you feed him. However, it is posible to go through the entire quest without ever learning that he has that key.

If he doesn't mention it, did that key ever exist?

The prisoner may or may not be alive in one person's game compared to another, so we're already seeing some divergence. Although we're talking about personalities here.

...

With your example, however, it's most definitely certain that you don't know if he has a key. And depending on what influence you exert on the game world, he may or may not still have the key (i.e. things can change in different ways depending on the player's choices).

He "may or may not be alive"? I don't understand. You basically have one shot to do this quest, and that is when you are wandering around the camp before you are sent into the Korcari Wilds. During that time, you just go up to him in camp and talk to him. There is nothing that is affected by your actions.

From the prisoner's dialog, I would say that yes, regardless of whether you ask him or not, he does indeed have the key. You have the option to ask, "Why should I help you?". To which he responds, "Because you may want something I have." If you do NOT ask this and simply agree to his request, you never learn about the key at all. In this instance, your PC's knowledge of the key is the only thing influenced by your own actions.

Iakus, who you quoted, was responding to Kallimachus, who said "... that which doesn't exist in the narrative does not exist." Iakus was trying to counter the point using a non-character example of a piece of knowledge that your character may or may not have, which is dependent on your own actions (asking the prisoner about it).

Linking this back to DA2, and specifically companion sexuality, it has certainly been suggested that the companions are what they are, and player actions have no sway over them. Just because you as a player have the perception that a follower is bi, gay, or straight, does not mean that the companion actually IS because they never describe themselves as such. The followers' actions speak for themselves. It is the players who choose to interpret those actions in a certain way.

David Gaider wrote...

Their sexuality does not "flip-flop". It would only be that way if the characters discussed how they were only attracted to a gender in one version, and then discussed how they were attracted to a different gender in another version. This is not the case. Even Anders only mentioning his relationship with Karl to a male player does not change who he actually is. So I find it a bit strange that someone would paint this as inconsistencies of character when it relates only to your perception, seeing as they never discuss it... and I don't think such a discussion is always necessary.

David Gaider wrote...

Anders and Fenris explicitly discuss their views on mages and blood magic. If the player being a mage or not changed their views, that would indeed change their character to suit the player.

Neither Anders nor Fenris discuss their sexual preferences. They do not say "I'm gay" if the player is male and "I'm straight" if the player is female. Nor do they say they're bisexual. They don't discuss their sexuality at all. You are inferring their sexuality based on their actions, and then claiming that your inference is an objective truth.

[Iakus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Viconia's personlity doesn't change unless you treat her a certain way

Alistair's changes come as a result of meeting Goldanna, your advice afterwards, and events in the Landsmeet.

We certainly do pander, don't we?

I think you've mistaken me for another poster, as I have never accused romances (of any kind) of being that.

What is being talked with about playersexual characters or subjective sexuality, or whatever the official term is, they're saying that these characters do or do not hold these traits based entirely on who the player is. Not on what the NPC is. The player is not shaping the NPC, the player is defining the NPC

Six of one, half a dozen of the other as far as I'm concerned. My difference is that I don't see whom the NPC is attracted to as a defining aspect of their personality. In my opinion, the NPCs are all still the same character with the same motivations and the same goals and aspirations in life. On the other hand, I also consider the entire metaknowledge application to be a mostly invalid criticism, so at this point I suspect it's irreconcilable differences. I'm not interested in discussing the point further, since I fundamentally disagree with your perspective.

I see it as a very important aspect.  But then, if you don't want to discus it any further, you don't want to discuss it.

If this is the line in the sand that you wish to draw, then that's your prerogative, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. It's not one I, personally, agree with, and I also am not interested in chasing down the metagame rabbit hole when considering development because it's ultimately something that can go on forever.

It's not a line in the sand for me (I have other lines)  But it is certainly my opinion.

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...

Fewer options is what you'd produce unless you made six LIs, two of each variety of orientation. When working with only four, this is what we must have.

So the question is, why not six?

ME2 and ME3 has 6-7 full romances.  Though not with as even a spread, clearly

[Iakus]

Thomas Andresen wrote...
And how does the romances in DAII qualify as the latter rather than the former?

When DA2 LI sexualities became defined by who Hawke flirted with.

[Xilizhra]

iakus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Fewer options is what you'd produce unless you made six LIs, two of each variety of orientation. When working with only four, this is what we must have.

So the question is, why not six?

ME2 and ME3 has 6-7 full romances.  Though not with as even a spread, clearly

They were staggered over multiple games, with... numerous shortcuts taken. Thane was killed and Jacob cheated, so only Garrus and Kaidan carried over to ME3, while Jack and Miranda just had reduced roles due to not being squadmates. This left only five "core" romance possibilities: Liara, Kaidan, Ashley, Tali and Garrus, and all but two of those were straight. Along with the minor technically romanceable characters Samantha and Steve. But ME3 itself didn't create any romances except for those last two.

I would also say, as a personal opinion, that none of the romances were implemented as well as the DA ones, and that oversaturation of (nearly all straight) options played a definite role in that. Certainly they didn't have to do as much work in a single game as DA does.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 29 juin 2013 - 01:04 .

[nightscrawl]

iakus wrote...

So the question is, why not six?

ME2 and ME3 has 6-7 full romances.  Though not with as even a spread, clearly

Because the DA team doesn't want to make that many? Mass Effect is not Dragon Age. They are done by different teams that have different goals in mind for their respective IPs. Many people use this argument about various things in the ME games.

"They did it in ME!"
My response is, "So?"

[Thomas Andresen]

iakus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Fewer options is what you'd produce unless you made six LIs, two of each variety of orientation. When working with only four, this is what we must have.

So the question is, why not six?

ME2 and ME3 has 6-7 full romances.  Though not with as even a spread, clearly

In short, two words: Fairness, resources.

iakus wrote...

Thomas Andresen wrote...
And how does the romances in DAII qualify as the latter rather than the former?

When DA2 LI sexualities became defined by who Hawke flirted with.

And when was the DAII love interests' sexualities, with the exception of Isabella's, ever defined in the game?

[Rixatrix]

mopotter wrote...

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...

Aleya wrote...

Chanda wrote...
I don't really understand why people are still arguing about this feature of the LI's being player-sexual. Player-sexual is how it's going to be. It's already set in stone. Nothing you say is going to change it. It's time to build a bridge, get over it, and move on.

Because I vehemently disagree with the notion of NPCs being different people depending on who the PC is.

That works for games where everything gets tailored to the player, but Bioware is supposed to be the one shining oasis of a company that actually creates companions with strong individual identities. I love that about Bioware. I was unbelievably sad that it changed in DA2, and I suppose somewhere deep down the hope remains that if the dissatisfied faction of the player base can just explain why player-based sexuality is bad, maybe the writers will change it back to normal in DAI.

If the NPCs being "different people depending on who the PC is" is your true issue, would all romanceable NPCs being strictly homosexual solve your problem?

Would mine.  But I'd far rather have some of each, SS/MF/EitherS, so I can play a variety of games with different options.  If everyone is willing to bang my character, then my character is a sex god/goddess.  I'd far far rather play a character where i can flirt and have them say sorry, not my type.  Then play another game where my character is their type.

I'd even be happy of instead of gender it was based on something else.  Templar LI option  to a mage " A mage?  No way could I fall for someone who might turn into a blood mage.  don't even think it"   Mage LI option to my Templar npc- all you want is to lock mages up, I don't trust you and never will."  Then the next game I'd play a non-templar romancing a mage or a rogue romancing the mage or something totally different.

 Just wish BW would get over the idea everyone has to adore and love my character.

Emphasis added.  I am glad that you would not be put off by an all-homosexual LI cast.  Sadly, I don't think many "anti-playersexual" posters would agree.  As to the rest...

Firstly, "rather" is a great word to throw around, but unfortunately, it doesn't mean much when what you'd "rather" have means BioWare spending more money to deliver it.  Right now, they don't have to spend anything more, and equality is achieved.  How much more would have to be spend to ensure than an equal amount of options were available to all orientations?  Why should they bother, when their goal is already achieved?  (Those citing Mass Effect 3 as a great example of "equality" seriously need to do a recount about the number of LIs available to each orientation.)

Secondly, we are playing a fantasy game here.  What is realistic and what is enjoyable are, for many people, not the same thing.  Do you think most people can go out there and get whoever they want (think of LGBT-oriented individuals in small town America)?  Or are they limited by people's orientations?  In a game where you can cast magic, have elves and dwarves, slay dragons, be a king/queen, etc., why is it so outlandish and unacceptable that a PC be able to romance 4-5 people out of the hundreds of people in a game?  Must it be, "Why, yes, casting fireballs and slaying dragons is fantasy, but having 4-5 LIs available to any orientation is too much fantasy"?

Thirdly, a mage falling for a templar or vice versa is not as ridiculous in a game as you make it sound.  "Opposites attract" has been around for how long now?  Substitute "mage and templar" for "Montague and Capulet" or "aristocrat and peasant," or any number of "forbidden loves", etc. and you have the same trope.  Love (especially in fiction, but IRL too) has been known to, you know, not adhere to social norms held by the majority.

I do, however, agree that there is too much control given to the PC - something along the lines of eating your cake and having it too.  Like Syllogi said in a post a few pages back IIRC, characters should have "crisis points" where they just don't accept something the PC chooses to do.  In DA2, we had a situation in which companions became Hawke's sycophants and went along with whatever the PC chose "because for Hawke!"  That part of the F/R system bothered me.  When Anders blows up the chantry and you choose to save him, it makes little sense to me that he would go along with annulling the Circle (if that's what Hawke chooses).  If your Hawke is pro-slavery, pro-mage, and pro-Anders to a radical degree, Fenris should have hit a "Hell to the no" crisis point IMHO.  This issue, however, is rooted much more in the approval or F/R system than the sexual orientations of LIs.

[Hazegurl]

I think the biggest issue with players and the DA2 LIs is metagaming. That's what it boils down to. Just because a player can have all the available LIs does not mean they are all drooling after the PC and waiting around to serve him/her.

I do think they are headed in the right direction by making all the LIs available to any gender and adding in two or three who will never romance the player at all. Is it perfect? no, but I don't want to be forced into making a character of a certain gender just to romance a certain character nor do I want to go down some sexuality checklist while trying to talk to a character and get to know them better. If i want to see that I would watch Queer As Folk or L Word. I just want to create my hero, immerse myself in the DA world, and get my character some buttsecks without having to hear somebody's coming out story.

[El Dude 9]

I think romances should be like ME3 with a little of everything plus a playersexual character.

[Xilizhra]

El Dude 9 wrote...

I think romances should be like ME3 with a little of everything plus a playersexual character.

You mean 'vast straight majority with two bisexuals and two gays who never join you on missions and who have no adequate farewell scene?"

[Ryzaki]

iakus wrote...

Thomas Andresen wrote...
And how does the romances in DAII qualify as the latter rather than the former?

When DA2 LI sexualities became defined by who Hawke flirted with.

And when pray tell does this happen?

Just because someone's not screaming from the hilltops or being blatant about the gender they're attracted to does not suddenly make them not attracted to said gender.

Fenris expresses an attraction to Isabela regardless of my male Hawke. Now he might tell her to back off after a while if my Hawke romances him fast enough...but that happens regardless of Hawke's gender.

Merrill? She never shows any attraction save to saying the Qunari are "easy on the eyes" Isabela and Aveline are very sisterly to Merrill (as is a femHawke that is her friend and doesn't romance her) not that strange that she wouldn't have a crush on them.

Anders? Could simply avoid mentioning Karl is a lover to a femHawke because he's an overly secretive bastard and some women find that a turnoff.

And no one controls Isabela's sexuality but herself.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 juin 2013 - 02:43 .

[Iakus]

nightscrawl wrote...

iakus wrote...

So the question is, why not six?

ME2 and ME3 has 6-7 full romances.  Though not with as even a spread, clearly

Because the DA team doesn't want to make that many? Mass Effect is not Dragon Age. They are done by different teams that have different goals in mind for their respective IPs. Many people use this argument about various things in the ME games.

"They did it in ME!"
My response is, "So?"

Point being, six has been done before.  It's feasilbe.  Whether the Dragon Age team wants to go that route is another story.  But my position is six LIs, with variable sexualities that provides an even spread of options is win-win for players.

[Ryzaki]

iakus wrote...
Point being, six has been done before.  It's feasilbe.  Whether the Dragon Age team wants to go that route is another story.  But my position is six LIs, with variable sexualities that provides an even spread of options is win-win for players.

It was six straight LIs with mostly crap dialogue that wasn't pertaining to their romance. Woe betide you not romance them. Then you were stuck in an endless loop of Garrus calibrations, Thane was a walking codex, Jacob was...Jacob. Jack pretty much told you to GTFO if you weren't interested in romancing her, Miranda had a decent friendship track but it was very short. Let's not forget that tidibit. As well as about...3 romance conversations. The meat of their dialogue was during their loyalty and recruitment missions.

So yeah. It's feasible if you're willing to settle for far far less than DAO and DA2 usually gives you. No thank you.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 juin 2013 - 02:49 .

[Iakus]

Ryzaki wrote...

It was six straight LIs with mostly crap dialogue that wasn't pertaining to their romance. Woe betide you not romance them. Then you were stuck in an endless loop of Garrus calibrations, Thane was a walking codex, Jacob was...Jacob. Jack pretty much told you to GTFO if you weren't interested in romancing her, Miranda had a decent friendship track but it was very short. Let's not forget that tidibit. As well as about...3 romance conversations. The meat of their dialogue was during their loyalty and recruitment missions.

So yeah. It's feasible if you're willing to settle for far far less than DAO and DA2 usually gives you. No thank you.

That goes more towards  the general writing for the game as well as the lack of party banter.

I hope you're not saying party banter is what's preventing us form having two more LIs? :innocent:

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

I have two issues with the romances being open to everyone, I suppose.

The first is from a perspective that they're being too carefully engineered, perhaps so precious that issues of sexuality or gender won't even be mentioned by the LIs lest someone be offended. Admittedly, I mostly got these feelings by contrasting Anders with Zevran. Zevran, a bisexual LI in DA:O, will not only tell both a male and female Warden that he takes pleasure in the arms of both genders, but that he prefers the intimate company of women. The player can take that as they will. Anders, on the other hand, will only tell a male Hawke that Karl was his 'first',

I've always been curious to know what the reasoning behind Anders' dialogue is, from the writer. Was it a conscious choice of the writer to clue the (male) PC in that Anders liked guys without scaring off the womenfolk? Was it to indicate that Anders has been with a man only if the PC is a man? Or is it something Anders as a character would really do? If it's the latter I'm totally cool with it. If it's one of the former then I'm not.

That links in to my second problem: dialogue contrivance, sacrificing what the NPC would do or say for the sake of the Player's delicate sensibilities (and really, it's not a problem that only LI dialogues suffer from). As a writer, I hate compromising the integrity of NPCs, and I feel like the mandate of all LIs must be bi is just that. But I thought that a lot of the 'rivalmance' threads were that too, so, yeah.

I'd much prefer that Players had to roll a new character if an LI was allowed to be not interested in the one they'd made, but that's me. I don't think one-size-fits-all romances ruin the overall plot, or destroy the game, or are as big a deal as people make it out to be. I don't like them, but I dislike other contrivances much more than this.

Red lyrium, for instance. Or the double final stupid battle. Gah.

[Ryzaki]

iakus wrote...
That goes more towards  the general writing for the game as well as the lack of party banter.

I hope you're not saying party banter is what's preventing us form having two more LIs? :innocent:

? 

Not at all. Not sure where you got that from. The banters are also non interactive by the player save predetermined barks (though DA2 did banter very well with the differences based on relationships (friendship/rivalry) and tone (diplomatic/snarky/aggressive). I'm just saying from what I've seen the more LIs a game gets the less each LI gets (either that or some get the lion's share with others getting pebbles which has it's own disadvantages). One would think it's a lot more resource friendly to have a LI be for both genders than to make another squad character into a LI. If anything's preventing six LIs I'd think it'd be resource management.

Seriously though if I get another game where there's a horde of romance options and they have crap for friendship dialogue I shall not be pleased. If I wanted to play a game evolved around mostly romance there's a ton of other games I could play.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 juin 2013 - 03:29 .

[Silfren]

iakus wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

iakus wrote...

So the question is, why not six?

ME2 and ME3 has 6-7 full romances.  Though not with as even a spread, clearly

Because the DA team doesn't want to make that many? Mass Effect is not Dragon Age. They are done by different teams that have different goals in mind for their respective IPs. Many people use this argument about various things in the ME games.

"They did it in ME!"
My response is, "So?"

Point being, six has been done before.  It's feasilbe.  Whether the Dragon Age team wants to go that route is another story.  But my position is six LIs, with variable sexualities that provides an even spread of options is win-win for players.

No, it's really not, because it does nothing at all to address the issue of players wanting to romance a particular LI but without having to create a PC of the gender that the LI in question is available to.  Some players simply want to play their PC as one gender; others just want to experience a specific LI according to their chosen dynamic.  Having ANY LI that is cut off due to only being available to one gender does not solve this at all.  This point has been brought up before, several times, so why it is consistently overlooked as being part of the problem that is solved by having all-inclusive LIs is beyond me. 

Ultimately, one faction is going to be dissatisfied with the solution Bioware creates.  Either the people who think that all inclusive LIs is unrealistic and immersion-breaking, or the people who feel slighted by gender-specific LIs.  I fully agree with David Gaider that the optimal solution is to err on the side of inclusivity, especially since the question of how realistic it is is an entirely subjective problem.  Many people don't find it unrealistic or immersion-breaking at all.

[LPPrince]

Where's that quote of Gaider saying that if the resources were there and they could do it, he'd prefer to have equal measures of straight, same and bisexual romance options, rather than all available to everyone? But that if the resources for that aren't there, they'll go with all romances available to everyone?

I wouldn't know where to look but its out there somewhere, probably in this thread already.

[Iakus]

Ryzaki wrote...

Not at all. Not sure where you got that from. The banters are also non interactive by the player save predetermined barks (though DA2 did banter very well with the differences based on relationships (friendship/rivalry) and tone (diplomatic/snarky/aggressive). I'm just saying from what I've seen the more LIs a game gets the less each LI gets (either that or some get the lion's share with others getting pebbles which has it's own disadvantages). One would think it's a lot more resource friendly to have a LI be for both genders than to make another squad character into a LI.

I was joking about how you said the characters in ME2 didn't have much to say outisde their missions.  Which is true to an extent.  But I think it was more a problem of resource management than just resources. 

But while it may be more resource friendly to make all LIs available to both genders, it's also a problem.  I find that when that happens, th eromances get...flatter...more Skyrim-like.  The romances get more copy-paste and don't fel so unique since it has to account for both a male and female player

I mean,  how likely would it have been for Alistair to make a female Cousland his Queen if a male Cousland could also romance him?

What are the odds Morrigan would have born the Warden's child without the Dark Ritual if a female Warden could romance her?

These are gender-restricted outcomes to romances.  Is it resource-friendly to include these details?

Note I'm not saying these details could never happen.  I am saying that being too resource-friendly can lead to this, and I fear the DA2 romances are the first steps down that path.

[Ryzaki]

iakus wrote...
I was joking about how you said the characters in ME2 didn't have much to say outisde their missions.  Which is true to an extent.  But I think it was more a problem of resource management than just resources. 

But while it may be more resource friendly to make all LIs available to both genders, it's also a problem.  I find that when that happens, th eromances get...flatter...more Skyrim-like.  The romances get more copy-paste and don't fel so unique since it has to account for both a male and female player

I mean,  how likely would it have been for Alistair to make a female Cousland his Queen if a male Cousland could also romance him?

What are the odds Morrigan would have born the Warden's child without the Dark Ritual if a female Warden could romance her?

These are gender-restricted outcomes to romances.  Is it resource-friendly to include these details?

Note I'm not saying these details could never happen.  I am saying that being too resource-friendly can lead to this, and I fear the DA2 romances are the first steps down that path.

The romances in Skyrim were hardly romances. I mean...really. You chose the most stripped down version of romances to prove all bi LIs were bad? Fable has similar terribad romances and they have varations.

I would hardly compare DA2's romances to Skyrim's. At all. The Skyrim romances are closer to Fable's than anything.

...why would that change anything? It's no different than him romancing my CE and making my HN his wife (or his mistress which is the ending I tend to pick).

...She wouldn't. She'd get the child the same way she does if the PC's female.

Nope but it's variation. They don't automatically exclude s/s versions of the same conversations. (well...maybe Alistair's but that could simply be another reason he gives the PC for dumping em if he becomes King.) Morrigan can try to convince the female PC even more because she loves her.

And why would those characters being bi take those tidbits out? Seeing as you didn't even have to be in a romance with those characters for those scenarios to play out.

Now Alistair couldn't marry my male PC yeah. Just like he couldn't marry my City elf or mage.

Morrigan would have to have her god baby with Alistair and it would simply be a modified version of the female friend PC conversation with her trying to convince femPC to convince Alistair for all their sakes.

As for DA2 Isabela and Anders treat different gendered Hawkes differently. So...not seeing this supposed homogenous blob that happens from all bi LIs. Sure Fenris and Merrill have mostly the same dialogue but that could as easily be their character not to treat Hawke differently just because of his/her gender. (And even they have varations).

Modifié par Ryzaki, 29 juin 2013 - 03:50 .

[Xilizhra]

I mean, how likely would it have been for Alistair to make a female Cousland his Queen if a male Cousland could also romance him?

Very. The only reason the marriage existed was politics; it's totally possible to marry him without romancing him.

What are the odds Morrigan would have born the Warden's child without the Dark Ritual if a female Warden could romance her?

That's, what, one extra dialogue line in Witch Hunt? Maybe? I don't see a problem with them implementing it.

[Paul E Dangerously]

I'd honestly love to know which characters people loved, hated, and were just apathetic about purely in terms of "playersexuality".

I didn't really have a problem with either Fenris or Merill, but they didn't hit you in the face with it over and over the same way some of the other characters did.

By this I mean Anders In Name Only, who had a great deal of his previous characterization and personality scrubbed off and reshaped him into a playersexual love interest. This is especially blatant when you compare MaleHawke's dialogue with him to FemHawke's. Why was it even necessary to remove that?

I actually don't think this would've been such a polarizing issue on the usual suspects (4chan, Reddit, etc) or even here on the BSN if the game's writing as a whole had been stronger. Also doesn't help that Bioware, EA, other sites, and even fans have been more than willing to shrug off criticism of many sorts with "They just don't like the fact we're including LGBT friendly content!"

[Xilizhra]

By this I mean Anders In Name Only, who had a great deal of his previous characterization and personality scrubbed off and reshaped him into a playersexual love interest. This is especially blatant when you compare MaleHawke's dialogue with him to FemHawke's. Why was it even necessary to remove that?

Interesting to take into account, when many have said they want differences in romance dialogue between genders.

[Iakus]

Ryzaki wrote...

The romances in Skyrim were hardly romances. I mean...really. You chose the most stripped down version of romances to prove all bi LIs were bad? Fable has similar terribad romances and they have varations.

I would hardly compare DA2's romances to Skyrim's. At all. They're closer to Fable's than anything.

I didn't say that.  Heck, all bi LI's would be preferable, since there's a better chance the player's gender may be acknowledged..

I'll take your word for it with Fable.

...why would that change anything? It's no different than him romancing my CE and making my HN his wife (or his mistress which is the ending I tend to pick).

But again, would gender-specific outcomes have any place in this new system?

...She wouldn't. She'd get the child the same way she does if the PC's female.

Morrigan has a child with the Warden regardless if they are LIs, whether the Dark Ritual is done or not.

And why would those characters being bi take those tidbits out? Seeing as you didn't even have to be in a romance with those characters for those scenarios to play out.

The characters being bi wouldn't take these tidbits out.  Nickel and diming resources could.