1981 réponses à ce sujet

[LPPrince]

BlueMagitek wrote...

I would need to be much more familiar with that series to get any of those. Tyrion is the short guy right? Something about Hodor.

I don't believe there is currently a society in Thedas where that would be a problem, given our companions have tended to be very shrew about the topic.

Ahh, well don't go out of your way just to understand this. Its a long-term investment. hahaha

I could see a potential forced political marriage causing pain for a loved one though. Regardless.

[Plaintiff]

Tarek wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Let's not make Dragon Age any more like Game of Thrones than it is already.

I can see it now: "Talking; The Game! (with some action!)"

And then the expansion pack "Boobs!"

u mean game of boobs??

If there is a "game", I think it's probably to see how long the viewer can last before falling asleep or killing themselves.

[Hazegurl]

Plaintiff wrote...

Tarek wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Let's not make Dragon Age any more like Game of Thrones than it is already.

I can see it now: "Talking; The Game! (with some action!)"

And then the expansion pack "Boobs!"

u mean game of boobs??

If there is a "game", I think it's probably to see how long the viewer can last before falling asleep or killing themselves.

I doubt straight guys and lesbians would do either of those during that game. lol!

[Chewin]

I have very little interest in characters sexuality in the game. As long as they are portrayed as actual characters with solid characterization, e.g. personality, personal objectives, interest, etc. I'm content.

If BW wants to make everyone bisexual then by all means go for it, as long as you don't do to bend their characterization to please everyone and their egos.

[Fiery Knight]

Chewin3 wrote...

I have very little interest in characters sexuality in the game. As long as they are portrayed as actual characters with solid characterization, e.g. personality, personal objectives, interest, etc. I'm content.

If BW wants to make everyone bisexual then by all means go for it, as long as you don't do to bend their characterization to please everyone and their egos.

Yup, which is why certain character should be strictly straight or homosexual, if they can't write the characters right. 

[Silfren]

DarthLaxian wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...
 not having any children should also be one.

why should having no children be a stigma?

sorry, but no way (!) - i don't have any in real live (ok, i am in my mid-20's so it is not all that unnatural) and i do not want any, so why should i be looked down upon, just because i (or my character in dragon age) do not see my purpose on this world in being a "breeder"? (even more as i would say i would make for a bad father and rather than inflict myself on a child and try being a good father (which i am sure i would fail dismally at), i rather use my time to help others, do my own thing etc....why is that so wrong? - please, tell me...i mean, we are not animals, so we can give live another meaning (animals can't decide that, we can - fortunately!)...why should we not?...and please don't use "god" (atheist here!) as basis for an argument (firstly: you can't base an argument upong a faulty premises - which god is, if you do not believe and secondly: even if there is a god, what i do would be between me and him) or that family and children is the natural way to live (by that argument: marriage is an unnatural construct that is illogical - for the man anyway) etc.

please: give me one reason why people should be looked down upon if they don't have any children and don't want any

greetings LAX

If you'd been reading that particular exchange, the answer is obvious.  It ISN'T a generalized "people who don't have children suck" issue. 

The Dalish have a population problem.  There is pressure on elves to have children.  Having a relationship that leads to human children (not half-elves, but humans, yes, I know, but that's how Gaider wrote it) defeats this purpose, and given the tensions between elves and humans, is a very big deal.  So not having children at all won't carry with it quite the same social stigma, but nevertheless, choosing to have a relationship that can't involve having children should cause similar issues.

Of course, part of the reason it is less of an issue may have something to do with the fact that having a romantic relationship with someone of the same gender does not in any way mean that a person cannot have children, since homosexual persons have children at more or less the same rate as hetero persons do. 

Modifié par Silfren, 30 juin 2013 - 06:25 .

[Cheylus]

Plaintiff wrote...

In any case, Dragon Age already HAS "problematic sexual themes". The issue of interspecies breeding is contentious, particularly for the Elves, rape is present in the setting, Dwarven society supports polygamy, and the sexual exploitation of the lower castes.

WHY do we need "problematic sexual themes" in Dragon Age?

It is far from being fleshed out in the games, but it was overall still better and detailed in DA:O than in DA2. Don't you think?

We don't need "problematic sexual themes", of course. If the writers don't feel necessary to add more sexual themes in the game it's absolutely up to them and I would still like the game; as I said many times before I don't like when writers and creators in general follow my whims, hopes and dreams, or their audience's. I try to avoid expectations, I like to be surprised, shocked or engaged in a work of fiction but it has to be well done.  But yes, you're right, it's not mandatory for a game to be surprising, shocking or engaging to be entertaining or interesting.

The topic is about good writing, characterization and sexuality; I tried to adress everything from my biased point of view and give my useless little humble opinion about it, as I think the subject is not restricted to romance, gender and homosexuality. 

How would you like the "writing+characterization+sexuality" orchestra to be improved in Dragon Age? Of course, if you think it needs it to be improved.

Modifié par Cheylus, 30 juin 2013 - 06:28 .

[Hazegurl]

Personally, I think Bioware should do whatever they like and people should stop whining about things that are their own fault.

Boohoo, I picked a heart dialogue and "accidentally" flirted with a man in game and got kissed.
Boohoo, I want heart dialogues removed
Boohoo, I metagamed and now know who is romancable so now every LI wants me. rpg ruined.
Boohoo, I want everything separated by gender.
Boohoo, I want to be rejected.
Boohoo, I want romances gone.
Boohoo, I made certain characters gay, straight, or bi in my own head canon but they're not acting the way I think they should.
Boohoo, I want to play the game forty million times and want a different outcome each time.
Boohoo, I want a fictional fairytale world to reflect real life and for some reason my rpg experience is ruined when it doesn't.

Oi vey, to be a Bioware writer/dev... lol!!

[Silfren]

BlueMagitek wrote...

I would need to be much more familiar with that series to get any of those. Tyrion is the short guy right? Something about Hodor.

I don't believe there is currently a society in Thedas where that would be a problem, given our companions have tended to be very shrew about the topic.

Not to mention I'm not sure how much of all this is coming from the Game of Thrones t.v. series versus the actual ASOIAF series.  They're not 100% equivalent, as I can see just from some of the references being a fair bit different from the book...and it is the BOOK from which DA was inspired.  (Though I think most of the inspiration can actually be seen in the Grey Warden organization and the ever-present menage of darkspawn, rathern than something like the CE origin).

I very emphatically DON'T want a plot where the PC Hero is driven to destroy the villain out of revenge for the murder of their loved one.  That's not a very overdone, excessively cliched plot contrivance at all, no.

Modifié par Silfren, 30 juin 2013 - 06:42 .

[MisterJB]

Silfren wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

I would need to be much more familiar with that series to get any of those. Tyrion is the short guy right? Something about Hodor.

I don't believe there is currently a society in Thedas where that would be a problem, given our companions have tended to be very shrew about the topic.

Not to mention I'm not sure how much of all this is coming from the Game of Thrones t.v. series versus the actual ASOIAF series.  They're not 100% equivalent, as I can see just from some of the references being a fair bit different from the book...and it is the BOOK from which DA was inspired.

Please allow me to shed some light.
LPPrince is referring to the tv series where tyrion and shae are truly in love and she has become something of a surrogate sister to Sansa. There, she has to watch the man she loves marry her little sister in a political marriage while she must remain his **** while Sansa has to marry a member of the family that has sistematically killed her own family.
In the books, the situation is largely the same but the characters act quite differently. Tyrion loves Shae but she couldn't care less about him or Sansa, she just wants his money. She even suggests drugging Sansa so they can do it beside her on the bed and Tyrions realizes no one ever loved him in his entire life.

[Nole]

Hazegurl wrote...

Oi vey, to be a Bioware writer/dev... lol!!

It is the ultimate challenge.

[LarryDavid]

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...

Once again, agree to disagree?  "Equal" is "=." I'll agree that the equal solution isn't always the satisfying solution, but that doesn't mean that the satisfying solution is thus the equal solution.  If you have $50 you want to give to your two kids, but Kid A needs $30 to cover the rest of their rent and Kid B needs $20, giving them each $25 would be the equal solution ($25 = $25), but the not the most satisfying one for every party involved.  This isn't in any way related to the topic of this thread, but hopefully it illustrates the distinction between "equal" and, say, "satisfying" or "preferred."

I agree that 'equal' is '=' but I'm of the opinion that one can substract several quantities from a statement/solution on which one can apply the definition of equal. You focus on the money and conclude that 25/25 is the only fair solution. Why not focus on 'value'? If you give kid A $30 and kid B $20 dollar, you have given them an equal amount of value.

My wife and I are planning to have multiple kids and I can envision myself in a toy store with my 8year old son yelling "dad, can I have this magnifying glass, pleezze. Then I can go verify that all insects consist of 3 body parts". Meanwhile, my 10year old daughter is looking at a miniature 'large hadron collider' contruction set. Of course I'll give them both what they want and home when my son is running in the garden, maybe discovering why spiders are no insects, I'll be inside helping my daughter to construct her first LHC. In my opinion I have treated them equally because my motivation was to make them equally happy. I guess your reaction to this would be that I treat my children unfair because I didn't spend the same amount of money on them. And on top of that, I didn't distribute my time equally!

I'll address the rest of your post when I have a little more time.

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

Silfren wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

I would need to be much more familiar with that series to get any of those. Tyrion is the short guy right? Something about Hodor.

I don't believe there is currently a society in Thedas where that would be a problem, given our companions have tended to be very shrew about the topic.

Not to mention I'm not sure how much of all this is coming from the Game of Thrones t.v. series versus the actual ASOIAF series.  They're not 100% equivalent, as I can see just from some of the references being a fair bit different from the book...and it is the BOOK from which DA was inspired.

Please allow me to shed some light.
LPPrince is referring to the tv series where tyrion and shae are truly in love and she has become something of a surrogate sister to Sansa. There, she has to watch the man she loves marry her little sister in a political marriage while she must remain his **** while Sansa has to marry a member of the family that has sistematically killed her own family.
In the books, the situation is largely the same but the characters act quite differently. Tyrion loves Shae but she couldn't care less about him or Sansa, she just wants his money. She even suggests drugging Sansa so they can do it beside her on the bed and Tyrions realizes no one ever loved him in his entire life.

...I've read the books, which should've been clear from my post.  And while I thank you for the clarification, I'm just not interested in Game of Thrones.  i'd already lost interest after the fourth book, and the t.v. show kind of killed it for me.

[Allan Schumacher]

Shinian2 wrote...


Personlly I'd prefer the rejection route in that case.

Just like in ME3, as I understand it. As  a male Shep you can make a pass at Traynor but will be politely rejected. I assume the same thing goes with Femshep and Cortez?

The rejection route wasn't an option provided.  I was asking if a player would prefer to have the option to romance any of the romanceable NPCs on a given playthrough, or to simply not even have the option to initiate at all.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 30 juin 2013 - 08:07 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I would not say the two are unrelated; Alistair can only be romanced by a female PC because his preference for females is a part of his character. You are correct in that the actual romanced part is the most important.

That's how you can choose to see it. Or you can see it as Alistair choosing to push someone he loved out of the way. That he happened to love a female doesn't make the fact that it's a female the cause. If Alistair were bisexual or homosexual, I'd still expect him to do the same for a male, because he's sacrificing himself for someone he loves.

On the other hand, does it not bother you about how Anders' relationship with Karl is depicted is based on sex rather than being a static thing (or if it is static, why would Anders choose not to mention it?  If Hawke is considering Anders, him being a Mage would probably be a bigger hurdle than previous sexual partners).

It actually doesn't bother me.  I can understand the Unfortunate Implications it may insinuate, but for myself I recognize that those scenes happen in different universes, since the only carry over is purely meta.  Wouldn't, however, this situation be just the type of thing you are looking for (different content based on sex)?

I suppose you are correct.  I simply prefer for a game to not alter itself to fit my character.  I feel that different solutions should be available for different characters; this includes subtle things like sex to more obvious things like class.  For example, look to Fallout 2.  A Female PC is able to sleep with the slaver boss to drastically reduce
the amount of money required to buy a quest important slave.  This option isn't available to male PCs.  I do not have a problem with this because it allows for more varied playthroughs.  Is that desire wrong?

If a game dev wants to go that way, that's fine.  It's also a product from a different era (and a game in a different setting).  In New Vegas, they do the same with Benny.  They also do the same with Ranger Knight, except in this case, only if the player is a homosexual.

Thing is, if the slaver were gay, I'd suspect that suddenly there'd be problems.  Although Fallout was much more open with this sort of stuff than other games.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 30 juin 2013 - 08:08 .

[ReallyRue]

Personally, I like the all-bi thing. People can romance the character they like most, rather than being restricted due to sexuality and nothing else. You can't point to DA2 and say 'look at the effect the all-bi thing had on their character development'. It was a rushed game. It's like saying 'look at the effect combat had on the game, we should remove it' because of enemies falling from the sky and various nonsense. Or that that we should remove exploration because DA2 had a lot of recycled environments.

However, I think if Bioware went for set sexualities for each LI, a couple of points:

-DAO was not a good example of this. Straight characters got two options, bi characters got three, and gay characters got only one. One is not a choice.

-Having two straight LIs and two gay LIs is not representative and realistic. Bisexual people exist.

-And the thing I think is particularly worth considering is that if you're going to have straight/bi/gay LIs in the name of 'realism' or 'good writing' or whatever other reason... give other restrictions to LIs too. Look at Anders and Fenris. The pro-mage/anti-mage thing was a HUGE part of their characterisation, far more than their sexuality is. Surely the priority, for the sake of 'good writing' should be to restrict romances to them if you're extremely pro-templar or pro-mage. Same with most other characters, they all have some issues that would restrict a romance. Tbh, if you're looking for realism then Bioware should restrict a lot more things, people are particular in real life. Alistair's romance had a somewhat good example in that a non-human or a mage couldn't marry him if he was made king. This wasn't an actual restriction in his tastes, but it was an example of restrictions affecting a story.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Shinian2 wrote...


Personlly I'd prefer the rejection route in that case.

Just like in ME3, as I understand it. As  a male Shep you can make a pass at Traynor but will be politely rejected. I assume the same thing goes with Femshep and Cortez?

The rejection route wasn't an option provided.  I was asking if a player would prefer to have the option to romance any of the romanceable NPCs on a given playthrough, or to simply not even have the option to initiate at all.

I know, I was just saying I prefer a third option

[Ravensword]

Ziggeh wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

It doesn't matter, but people will complain any way.

True, but the specific point being made was that everyone is bi, where as the case is more that "more people than would be probable in our society" are. It doesn't really affect the point much, but it's worth noting.

That's comes from the meta-knowledge that the PC can romance whoever they want. If a person lacked this type of meta-knowledge, then that person would kvetch about the romances, but would ignore the fact that every romanceable character wants to jump the PC's bones regardless of the PC's actions, alignment, personality, etc.

Modifié par Ravensword, 30 juin 2013 - 09:12 .

[LPPrince]

Thats a lot of ifs.

[Ravensword]

LPPrince wrote...

Thats a lot of ifs.

And?

Make your point.

Modifié par Ravensword, 30 juin 2013 - 09:23 .

[LPPrince]

Meta-knowledge/Meta-gaming can't/shouldn't be ignored, especially in Bioware's games which are known for their replayability. You can't count on a gamer not knowing/never finding out. That knowledge can easily be discovered, either through a replay of the game or through discovering it online(though replays would be the more likely way).

The games should(in my opinion of course) account for a player replaying the game, and having content differ between plays. Not only to keep things fresh, but to give reasons for a player to play the game again.

I can't speak as if I'm the average player of Bioware games(I imagine I'm not), but I've played ME1 12 times, ME2 16 times, ME3 three times, DAO 7-8 times(can't remember), and DA2 only once(stopped in the 3rd act on my 2nd playthrough).

Whether a player replays a game or not relies on a gargantuan number of things, such as their personal lives, the time they can put to a game, how they perceive the game, if the game supports replays in certain ways, etc etc.

But in games like the kind Bioware makes, I think replays should be supported by not making everything available in a single playthrough, and part of that I think should extend to romances, by gender choice and elements of character(such as the sexuality of a character or their outlook on certain subjects).

Its also why I wish NG+ was in as I could still be playing DAO to this day, quite possibly. I had a few different characters in DAO(played every origin) and I would've liked to play as them again but making different choices(gender obviously notwithstanding since thats the first choice made). Which is actually part of the reason I played the game more than once- guys and gals had different options. I actually romanced everyone in that game, which I haven't done in any other Bioware game, DA2 or any of the Mass Effect's.

Modifié par LPPrince, 30 juin 2013 - 09:41 .

[Ziggeh]

Ravensword wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

It doesn't matter, but people will complain any way.

True, but the specific point being made was that everyone is bi, where as the case is more that "more people than would be probable in our society" are. It doesn't really affect the point much, but it's worth noting.

That's comes from the meta-knowledge that the PC can romance whoever they want. If a person lacked this type of meta-knowledge, then that person would kvetch about the romances, but would ignore the fact that every romanceable character wants to jump the PC's bones regardless of the PC's actions, alignment, personality, etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a while since I've played the game, but if you were to discount meta knowledge, would you know that all the LI's were into you, given you can only romance one of them?

[Kenshen]

This has most likely already been said but here it is. What I don't like is when I talk to a companion and I am just trying to be friendly the next thing I know I am involved in a romance. When games include all possibilites for romances it can get to the point that you can't talk to anyone because being friendly means more than just being friends. This is the main reason I don't like romances in games and would be more than happy if they were done away with completely. Now I know that won't happen so I am hoping there will be improvements in converations so I can be a nice guy without giving off the "lets hook up" vibe or not having to be a jerk to prevent anything more from happening.

[Silfren]

aryon69 wrote...

This has most likely already been said but here it is. What I don't like is when I talk to a companion and I am just trying to be friendly the next thing I know I am involved in a romance. When games include all possibilites for romances it can get to the point that you can't talk to anyone because being friendly means more than just being friends. This is the main reason I don't like romances in games and would be more than happy if they were done away with completely. Now I know that won't happen so I am hoping there will be improvements in converations so I can be a nice guy without giving off the "lets hook up" vibe or not having to be a jerk to prevent anything more from happening.

This complaint is invalid insofar as it applies to DA2, since you could not accidentally get into a romance.  I think it's also generally true for Origins as well, though the lack of the heart icon may have made it a bit easier...but even so, the text of the dialogue YOU CHOOSE usually makes it crystal clear when you are picking romance-specific dialogue.

Seriously, how much easier can it get when the game gives you a neon sign that spells out for you, "THIS IS ROMANCE TRIGGERING DIALOGUE?" 

Modifié par Silfren, 30 juin 2013 - 10:15 .