1981 réponses à ce sujet

[LPPrince]

I think DA does have excellent friendship paths, even with those you choose not to romance. And I'm 100% positive that will continue going forward.

[Ziggeh]

LPPrince wrote...

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.

Completely agree about the meta knowledge - whatever the intent people can and do see it either way. Both are valid and I feel Bioware accounts for each.

However, on the replayability, firstly you can only romance one character, so I'm not certain what you mean about content differing, unless you're speaking more generally, and more generally:

While they should certainly account for people who will replay, they also, conversely need to account for those that don't. Any content they gate, they know will not be experienced by some percentage of the playerbase, and that "cost" is a balancing act with the value it has to thoes replaying. Where and how they should fall on that balance is so subjective that you really can't point to a specific example, such as the romances and say that it is being done right or wrong in that regard (not that you can't express a preference mind).

[Ninja Stan]

Let's please remember to keep this discussion on track. It's a touchy subject that can get out of hand very quickly. Thank you.

[Ziggeh]

edit: self censored for facetiousness.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 30 juin 2013 - 10:30 .

[daaaav]

ReallyRue wrote...

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.

You may have a point here in that the reaction to the whole "player sexual" issue was compounded by other factors. Sometimes, it appeared that the characters didn't give a damn who Hawke was or what he did as long as Hawke chose the correct dialogue options. With a few exceptions, Hawkes companions were more sycophants than companions...

I mean, would Anders really HELP (did some more research...can Anders really help you anul the circle? wow...) to anul the circle? Would Fenris tolerate a Hawke who sold someone into slavery? Sure he objected to helping the mages but you could get him back on team with yet another dialogue option...

I still think that it is special pleading to require sexuality and gender to be largely irrelevant to the story and I would rather a variety of sexualities  but I don't think it would bother me as much if the characters retained their integrity and were not written merely such that they appear to exist to accomodate the player.

Modifié par daaaav, 30 juin 2013 - 11:19 .

[Kenshen]

Silfren wrote...

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?" 

I wasn't refering to DA2 but more DA:O and all 3 ME games.  If the next DA game follows the same heart choice then not so big of deal.  This complaint is valid.

[BlueMagitek]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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 the difference is that I don't really hold the two to be in different universes.  Hawke being a male or female shouldn't alter a relationship that Anders had year prior.  Different content, would have been an option for a charismatic female Hawke to, perhaps, don the guise of a Chantry Mother and shame the Templar, allowing for her companions to take out a number of their number.

But assuming that Karl and Anders were still linked romantically on a FHawke run, I do not have an issue with different knowledge not being shared in certain situations. 

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.

Yes, I recall Benny as well.  You are correct that this was a different era (another way out was, I believe, to give a kid a live grenade and send them in).  Other games do it differently, back in Elder Scrolls, male and female characters of the same species get different bonuses to their skills (prior to the Skyrim system). 

Why would it be a problem if the male Chosen One was allowed to seduce the slaver boss?  While FO2 only had a trait related to attracting the opposite sex, New Vegas had Confirmed Bachelor (which is arguably worse, given that in addition to opening up new dialog, you do more damage to male enemies).

[Allan Schumacher]

Why would it be a problem if the male Chosen One was allowed to seduce the slaver boss? While FO2 only had a trait related to attracting the opposite sex, New Vegas had Confirmed Bachelor (which is arguably worse, given that in addition to opening up new dialog, you do more damage to male enemies).

It'd be a "problem" only insofar as my general disdain towards humanity

Although it's optional, and the game itself was still pretty niche. I have zero issues with Black Isle/Obsidian doing stuff like that.

[Tarek]

steve is so perfect.... sigh

[Eveangaline]

I really don't see the problem with four bisexual people existing around your main character. I get that it's a bit unlikely but it's not that hard to swallow.

And until bioware wants to do a game with enough companions that they can have some be exclusively gay or straight, it just seems fair.

Modifié par Eveangaline, 01 juillet 2013 - 02:18 .

[LarryDavid]

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...
I don't see how this applicable to this discussion, but here's my bit...  While I was working on my MBA after law school, students getting their Master's in Library Science and students getting their MBA's both worked for the school and earned the same wage.  They didn't have their degrees yet (so their starting salary doesn't matter, really), and they were doing the same work.  They got the same pay.  Equal.

As for the availability problem... The concept of availability here is key.  Take Merrill, for example.  There are people who:

1. Want Merrill to be attracted to one sex only
2. Want Merrill to be available to male and female PCs

If she is attracted to one sex only, players playing PCs of the other sex get no access.  
If she is bi/pan/playersexual, players who wanted her to be attracted to one sex only still have access.  However,their desire that she be attracted to their PC's sex only is not met.  

Given a choice between "I want access to Merrill's content" and "I want access to Merrill's content and I want others to not have access to her content (by locking her to a single-sex orientation)," there is no contest.  Consider the distributions - catering to one group means denying the most fundamental component (access) to the other.  Catering to the other means denying a desire, not access - not only that, but a desire which strips the most basic offering to another group.

Part 2!

Afterthought on part 1; If you say that the equal solution (for you) is not always the satisfying solution, and you base your concept of 'fair' on 'equality', doesn't that mean that what is fair for you is not always what is preferred or satisfying? In a parallel universe, where the version of me agrees that 'fair' can be used objectively, I'm sure he would argue that it is maybe more important to go for the satisfying solution than for the fair solution, rendering the concept of 'fair' useless in a discussion like this .


Well, it's applicable in the sense that it is part of my strategy. I think it is easier to argue about the (sub/ob)jectivity of fair and equal in a less heated context. Also, maybe you're then more relaxed, a little bit off-guard and then in the last paragraph, I apply my carefully made arguments without mercy on the LI situation! Now, the error most people make is that they keep using the same strategy when it is not working. But because I don't think myself to be better than most people ...

I don't know the specifics but if they did exactly the same job I agree with you. If they didn't, the sentence '... doing the same work' is the key because it is based on your point of view. You made the abstraction to conclude that what they do is the 'same' and this is subjective. If fair is based on equal and equal on same, we have a propagation of subjectivity. For the last time I'll use an analogy because if we can't agree on this we will have to agree to disagree on everything.

Lets consider a ... bakery;
Alice 30year (wage a) started working for the backery one year ago and is now responsable for the muffin departement.
Bob 40year (wage started working for the backery one year ago and makes muffins.
Cindy 30year (wage c) started working for the bakery two years ago and makes muffins.
1) (Communist view) work = work -> equal means a=b=c
2) Responsibility  -> equal means b=c and a>b
3) Seniority -> equal means a=b and c>a
4) Age -> equal means a=c and b>a
5) some combination
Based on your own bias you will filter out some of the given information and subsequently apply the definition of equal. It's not hard to acknowledge that other people will use different filters then you do. Saying that equal is objective is saying that all different filters than yours are not valid at all. And that is something I can't do.

Now moving to the muffin that is Merrill, I agree that 'access' is the key for you and I would completely agree with you if 'access' is the only key I can envision. If you use 'access' to make an abstraction of this discussion you get a black and white situation and in that mind frame you are absolutely right. Equal then has only one meaning, yours, and as a result fair only has one meaning, also yours. I have never disputed that. The subjectivity arises from the key you use. Like you said; for you there is no contest between 'access' and 'desire', that is subjective. You can also use 'total happiness' as a key and maybe you come to a different definition of what is fair.

(Also, I my opinion having access to something you don't desire does not count as something positive (nor negative). In DA:I I will have access to the male LIs, but I learned my lesson from playing DAO and DA2, and I'll make sure that I stay away from that kind of content. So if you replace access to something someone desires with access to something he doesn't desire, well the fact that he has still access is not worth anything.)

Saying 'I think it is fair that ... ' follows from 'given the key I use, fair means ...'. You can't drop the 'I think' because your reasoning is conditioned on the subjective key you use (unless there is only one, which is unlikely).

I think that DAO's solution is fair. I think that DA2's solution is fair. I think that DA2's solution is more fair than DAO's solution. At this moment I prefer DA2's implementation but this has nothing to do with the fact that I think it to be more fair than DAO's implementation. As mentioned before, I have my own selfish reasons for that.

[Tarek]

frankly its nice to have guys like steve in DAI who are gay... but in DA:O I was bumbed out when I found out Alisier was not romancable by male wardens.... I don't know

its a game after all and I would love to have a lot of choices in romances but that would sacrifice the depth of the charcater's back story perhaps...I just don't know what to pick

[Eveangaline]

Tarek wrote...

frankly its nice to have guys like steve in DAI who are gay... but in DA:O I was bumbed out when I found out Alisier was not romancable by male wardens.... I don't know

its a game after all and I would love to have a lot of choices in romances but that would sacrifice the depth of the charcater's back story perhaps...I just don't know what to pick

Who exactly is Steve?

[fchopin]

Eveangaline wrote...

Tarek wrote...

frankly its nice to have guys like steve in DAI who are gay... but in DA:O I was bumbed out when I found out Alisier was not romancable by male wardens.... I don't know

its a game after all and I would love to have a lot of choices in romances but that would sacrifice the depth of the charcater's back story perhaps...I just don't know what to pick

Who exactly is Steve?

Steve is a character from ME3.

[Ieldra]

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...
As for the availability problem... The concept of availability here is key.  Take Merrill, for example.  There are people who:

1. Want Merrill to be attracted to one sex only
2. Want Merrill to be available to male and female PCs

If she is attracted to one sex only, players playing PCs of the other sex get no access.  
If she is bi/pan/playersexual, players who wanted her to be attracted to one sex only still have access.  However,their desire that she be attracted to their PC's sex only is not met.  

Given a choice between "I want access to Merrill's content" and "I want access to Merrill's content and I want others to not have access to her content (by locking her to a single-sex orientation)," there is no contest.  Consider the distributions - catering to one group means denying the most fundamental component (access) to the other.  Catering to the other means denying a desire, not access - not only that, but a desire which strips the most basic offering to another group.

Apparently, denying people access based on their PC's class is ok. Why isn't it ok to deny it based on their PC's gender?

P1: "Waah....I want to have Bethany in my party"
P2: "Eh...no problem, don't play a mage."
P1: "But I don't want to play anything else."

P1: "Waah...I want to have Morrigan as my LI."
P2: "Eh...no problem, don't play a female."
P1: "But I don't want to play anything else."

Admittedly, the first example has a significant story rationale, since your sibling is always on the opposite side of the mage/templar divide. I hold, though, that the impression that everyone is bi has significant implications for worldbuilding which are equally important. I think limiting content to specific protagonist traits is a good idea. It adds to the impression that I'm playing my own story. Almost everywhere where it happens, I've always preferred it to the alternative because it makes my protagonist's story more individual. I have to a play a female to romance Alistair? I play a female in my next game, no problem. DAO's origin stories? I loved them and played fulll games with five of them because they made my characters feel different throughout the game.

The only real problem being resources on the developers side. You can't make too much content conditionally unavailable because with limited resources, the game might become too small for any single playthrough. Otherwise, I think it's totally ok to tell the players: "You want X as an LI? Play a different gender" as long as options for all sexual orientations exist. Granted, there were times when I wanted to romance Miranda with a femShep in ME2, but nonetheless I argued against it when it came up in discussion because I really think I shouldn't get what I want in this case.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 juillet 2013 - 10:08 .

[Xilizhra]

Apparently, denying people access based on their PC's class is ok. Why isn't it ok to deny it based on their PC's gender?

I personally did not like it, no, and I don't believe it should be used again. However, it's primarily for mechanical reasons.

The only real problem being resources on the developers side. You can't make too much content conditionally unavailable because with limited resources, the game might become too small for any single playthrough. Otherwise, I think it's totally ok to tell the players: "You want X as an LI? Play a different gender" as long as options for all sexual orientations exist.

That might be nice in theory if all the options are equal... but, given the resource problem, they won't be, so this is the best possible alternative. Also, why must you persist in this fallacy? Not everyone in your party is bisexual, nor are all of them human.

Also, if Thedas does have a higher bisexuality rate than Earth, the effects of that are evident by bisexuality not being societally a big deal. If more people know them, fewer will be afraid, and it would naturally be talked about less.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 02 juillet 2013 - 10:14 .

[Ziggeh]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Admittedly, the first example has a significant story rationale, since your sibling is always on the opposite side of the mage/templar divide.

I think you've mostly answered the question in that. The living sibling exists to provide a context lacking of your class. 

Or rather, mage and non mage is more akin to "race" than "class", with it's significantly difference perspective on events. Gender, in a world largely devoid of gender bias (I can only think of one exception) is more to do with roleplaying cosmetics, more akin to skin tone and hair colour. 

Almost the only thing it impacts is sexuality. There's no real reason why it shouldn't, but you could equally argue that Merrill shouldn't sleep with gingers.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 02 juillet 2013 - 10:25 .

[Ieldra]

As I said before, Xil, that argument is null and void. The companions are all functionally human. The differences are superficial if anything - and if they were different in this, it should have been a topic in the story so we could see we're not to take an implausible reality for granted. Also, this is not about how things are if you look deeper, it's how things appear if you take them at face value. That will shape the emotional reaction. I can always find a rationale for almost anything if I want, but that doesn't mean I feel comfortable having to do so. The impression I get is still "they're all bi, and humans just aren't that way." and no rationalization will ever be able to remove the dissonance resulting from that unless I get an in-world explanation for this implausible state of things - or if the writers reinforce "Each playthrough is an AU" through drastically *more* gender-based differences, making it abundantly clear that the companions are not the same people in different playthroughs.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 juillet 2013 - 10:36 .

[Xilizhra]

Ieldra2 wrote...

As I said before, Xil, that argument is null and void. The companions are all functionally human. The differences are superficial if anything - and if they were different in this, it should have been a topic in the story so we could see we're not to take an implausible reality for granted. Also, this is not about how things are if you look deeper, it's how things appear if you take them at face value. That will shape the emotional reaction. I can always find a rationale for almost anything if I want, but that doesn't mean I feel comfortable having to do so. The impression I get is still "they're all bi, and humans just aren't that way." and no rationalization will ever be able to remove the dissonance resulting from that unless I get an in-world explanation for this implausible state of things - or if the writers reinforce "Each playthrough is an AU" through drastically *more* gender-based differences, making it abundantly clear that the companions are not the same people in different playthroughs.

What were the odds of a possessed mage revolutionary, a Dalish blood mage, a Tevinter ex-slave, and a prince all randomly coming together and never trying to kill each other, for that matter? Statistically speaking, the universe is full of oddities; it's part and parcel of being an adventure game.

And apparently our thought processes work differently here; my reaction to things that may seem outwardly impossible are "that's interesting, I wonder why this is?" Surely, a willingness to think more deeply about it and come up with one's own theories should be rewarded.

[daaaav]

I don't think we're doing a good enough job of articulating just exactly why we have an issue with DA2 style NPC's, but I'm glad that the discussion is moving away from generalisations such that all who dissent merely want to exclude people from game content.

Ziggeh, you are right that Thedas is a world largely devoid of gender bias, but I don't think you can say the same thing for gender as a whole. Nor should it be in my opinion.

[Ziggeh]

daaaav wrote...

Ziggeh, you are right that Thedas is a world largely devoid of gender bias, but I don't think you can say the same thing for gender as a whole. Nor should it be in my opinion.

Definitely not, no. There are dresses, for one. I can only think of one instance where gender is an issue that isn't romantic/sexual. Dudes can't be queens. But that could be taken more as obligation to procreate than sexuality bias.

But that's an aside: What I'm saying is that as an argument is a bit circular. If genders only affect beyond cosmetics is romance, then it's saying that it should affect romance because it should affect romance. Which isn't to say I don't see a value in having such a choice impact the world, I just think there are other options that don't come at the cost of other peoples enjoyment.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 02 juillet 2013 - 11:11 .

[Ziggeh]

Ieldra2 wrote...

The impression I get is still "they're all bi, and humans just aren't that way." and no rationalization will ever be able to remove the dissonance resulting from that unless I get an in-world explanation for this implausible state of things

It's an entirely valid issue, but you've got to recognise that that impression is based on something you are applying. 

It's a society with no gender bias and no issues of enthnicity, leaving aside the whole magic thing. Humans aren't those ways either. They don't need to convey reasons for all of these because we can infer that the society is dramatically different from our own.

No matter what world they present, someone will make that inference selectively. It's a valid and undeniable position, but one that's impractical to design around as there's no telling who, how or why such dissonance will arise.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 02 juillet 2013 - 11:15 .

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

As I said before, Xil, that argument is null and void. The companions are all functionally human. The differences are superficial if anything - and if they were different in this, it should have been a topic in the story so we could see we're not to take an implausible reality for granted. Also, this is not about how things are if you look deeper, it's how things appear if you take them at face value. That will shape the emotional reaction. I can always find a rationale for almost anything if I want, but that doesn't mean I feel comfortable having to do so. The impression I get is still "they're all bi, and humans just aren't that way." and no rationalization will ever be able to remove the dissonance resulting from that unless I get an in-world explanation for this implausible state of things - or if the writers reinforce "Each playthrough is an AU" through drastically *more* gender-based differences, making it abundantly clear that the companions are not the same people in different playthroughs.

What were the odds of a possessed mage revolutionary, a Dalish blood mage, a Tevinter ex-slave, and a prince all randomly coming together and never trying to kill each other, for that matter? Statistically speaking, the universe is full of oddities; it's part and parcel of being an adventure game.

And apparently our thought processes work differently here; my reaction to things that may seem outwardly impossible are "that's interesting, I wonder why this is?" Surely, a willingness to think more deeply about it and come up with one's own theories should be rewarded.

Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote? I'm perfectly fine with things being different - as long as at some time I get an explanation. Instead, DA2 expects me to take things for granted while my reaction is "humans aren't that way". I have a dissonance exactly because I think about this while the game tells me "just accept it."

Also @Ziggeh:

It's the same issue I have with the biological nonsense in ME. You can *add* all sorts of fantastic things to your universe and that's fine, because they have no precedent in the real world, but if you *change* aspects of things we actually know something about then an explanation is required. No rationalization of the asari omnisexuality will ever convince me as long as they look like human women and there isn't an explanantion, not even a discussion, in-world, of this clearly almost impossible state of things. Yeah, artistic license and blue space babes and all, but I'm most emphatically not willing to overlook that. Likewise, people aren't all bi. They have diverse sexual orientations. If I see a civilization where this is different and I'm expected to take this civilization as one of humans, I'd expect this difference to be explored in the story because it's really a major issue. Otherwise, it will come across to me as a civilization of human-like aliens. I will not be able to take it for granted. BTW, this says nothing about whether or not such a civilization would be interesting, in some way better etc.. than the one we have.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 juillet 2013 - 11:25 .

[Xilizhra]

Perhaps you didn't read what I wrote? I'm perfectly fine with things being different - as long as at some time I get an explanation. Instead, DA2 expects me to take things for granted while my reaction is "humans aren't that way". I have a dissonance exactly because I think about this while the game tells me "just accept it."

I've never had a problem just accepting it. I can contemplate it fine, but if that's how it works, that's how it works. There's still no evidence for mechanical differences among the actual humans (as opposed to the elves, for which there is evidence) so much as just a mild coincidence.

And how would you propose to solve this given resource constraints?

Modifié par Xilizhra, 02 juillet 2013 - 11:27 .

[Ieldra]

Xilizhra wrote...
And how would you propose to solve this given resource constraints?

Depends. I would prefer to try to dispense with the impression that everyone is bi by creating more and more significant gender-dependent elements in the interactions of LI companions with the PC *outside* of romance content, reinforcing the idea that "this is a different universe with a different version of this companion". Sure, that takes some resources, but it still leaves everyone available regardless of gender, much easier than to add new LIs.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 juillet 2013 - 11:41 .