333 réponses à ce sujet

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

You guys are just trying to deny BioWare's power over you. Characterisation is key and by besmirching the heroic image of the Warden, you are just proving you have no respect for BioWare's writing. They would never allow the Warden's character and integrity to be compromised in such a manner.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 28 juillet 2013 - 03:01 .

[KENNY4753]

sex sells BioWare...sex sells...

[Ziggeh]

David7204 wrote...

Players should not be punished for romancing who they want to romance.

Because roleplaying doesn't and shouldn't mean you get to be God and have everything go your way, including women falling at your feet?

Modifié par Ziggeh, 28 juillet 2013 - 03:03 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Han Shot First wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

David7204 wrote...

I don't think the player should have the ability to have sex with ten women just because their character is that totally awesome when it just doesn't add much meaningful content to the story.

I do agree with this.

If a player character is going to be able to have flings with NPCs it should serve some purpose in the story, and not just be there for the sake of an achievement or wish fulfillment.

Again why? WHy can't things exsist to establish the character you are playing.

I don't think a fade to black and see ya later really adds much depth to the game.

It doesn't always have to have depth or meaning.

The meaning in that context is the same as the meaning in real life. Sometimes, I just want a good bang, so I go to a bar and find a girl who's acceptable and only looking for the same. We go to a house, a car, a bench, whatever, get it over with, and go our separate ways. 

Why the hell does it have to be any different in a game? If you don't want to partake, then don't. 

If casual flings were in the game I'd rather there were consequences, both good and bad. Say for example an NPC seduces your character, only for it to later be revealed that the character is an enemy agent who ensnared you in a honeytrap.  While your character is sleeping and out of their armor, he/she is ambushed by an assassin sent by the game's Big Bad, and must now fight for survival without armor. Or perhaps your character needs a noble's support for something or other, and that noble isn't inclined to give it, but sex is used as a way of manipulating said noble into giving that support. Or perhaps the NPC is someone you run across on a quest, and the choice to have the fling either inadvertently causes that quest to succeed or fail. Or perhaps pillow talk with the new paramour reveals some crucial bit of intelligence your PC wouldn't have gained otherwise.

That's all well and dandy, and I support it, but I also support the random liaisons with NPC's that don't amount to much more relevance than a fly on the wall.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

I don't think a fade to black and see ya later really adds much depth to the game.

If casual flings were in the game I'd rather there were consequences, both good and bad. Say for example an NPC seduces your character, only for it to later be revealed that the character is an enemy agent who ensnared you in a honeytrap.  While your character is sleeping and out of their armor, he/she is ambushed by an assassin sent by the game's Big Bad, and must now fight for survival without armor. Or perhaps your character needs a noble's support for something or other, and that noble isn't inclined to give it, but sex is used as a way of manipulating said noble into giving that support. Or perhaps the NPC is someone you run across on a quest, and the choice to have the fling either inadvertently causes that quest to succeed or fail. Or perhaps pillow talk with the new paramour reveals some crucial bit of intelligence your PC wouldn't have gained otherwise.

There are a lot of possibilities really. But if casual flings are in the game, it is better that they serve a purpose within the story than having them without a purpose.

I would very, very, very, very heavily frown on all of this.

Players should not be punished for romancing who they want to romance.

Sure they should. 

It's like real life (you should try it).

See that hot redhead in the corner? She's nice, sweet, smart, and is a real minx in bed. You want to romance her.

And you find out in the morning that she has herpes. Or she's pregnant. Or she's one of those stage 5 clinger psycho types that get really obsessed.

All it does is add to the realism factor.

[David7204]

Being 'optional' in a game does not excuse or justify a feature.

For the conflict of romance to be meaningful it needs to be legitimate. Characters in BioWare games do not just sleep with you the day you meet. You have to earn their trust and affection.

Showing that the player character can just smile and wink and have any girl spread her legs compromises that because it makes it seem like the whole thing was a joke. Why bother with all this 'meaningful conflict' crap when we can win any heart because our character is just that awesome?

[David7204]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Sure they should. 

It's like real life (you should try it).

See that hot redhead in the corner? She's nice, sweet, smart, and is a real minx in bed. You want to romance her.

And you find out in the morning that she has herpes. Or she's pregnant. Or she's one of those stage 5 clinger psycho types that get really obsessed.

All it does is add to the realism factor.

Trying to justify anything in a story on the grounds of 'it happens in real life' is ridiculous.

There are so many infinite things that happen all the time in real life that would be utterly crap writing. 'It happens in real life' is not justification for anything.

[wolfhowwl]

Should our Inquisitors get STDs like in Fable?

Obviously there would be some consequences.

You might get banned from the game's brothel.

Party members refuse to romance you.

Your party's healer would mock you mercilessly after you go to them for treatment (DA:A Anders would have been brutal).

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 28 juillet 2013 - 03:09 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Being 'optional' in a game does not excuse or justify a feature.

For the conflict of romance to be meaningful it needs to be legitimate. Characters in BioWare games do not just sleep with you the day you meet. You have to earn their trust and affection.

Showing that the player character can just smile and wink and have any girl spread her legs compromises that because it makes it seem like the whole thing was a joke. Why bother with all this 'meaningful conflict' crap when we can win any heart because our character is just that awesome?

The Consort, Isabella, rring a bell;

[David7204]

Ziggeh wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Players should not be punished for romancing who they want to romance.

Because roleplaying doesn't and shouldn't mean you get to be God and have everything go your way, including women falling at your feet?

Because Narrative Causality dicates that consequences should be a result of meaningful choices. And this isn't.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

David7204 wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Sure they should. 

It's like real life (you should try it).

See that hot redhead in the corner? She's nice, sweet, smart, and is a real minx in bed. You want to romance her.

And you find out in the morning that she has herpes. Or she's pregnant. Or she's one of those stage 5 clinger psycho types that get really obsessed.

All it does is add to the realism factor.

Trying to justify anything in a story on the grounds of 'it happens in real life' is ridiculous.

There are so many infinite things that happen all the time in real life that would be utterly crap writing. 'It happens in real life' is not justification for anything.

Choice and Consequence is a difficult concept to grasp.

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

Trying to justify anything in a story on the grounds of 'it happens in real life' is ridiculous.

There are so many infinite things that happen all the time in real life that would be utterly crap writing. 'It happens in real life' is not justification for anything.

Dude, incorporating concepts from real life makes the material identifiable with the audience.

[dreamgazer]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Okay, I saw this thread taking up pretty much my entire feed.

What's going on in here?

Nothing much. It's really casual. 

[David7204]

dreamgazer wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Trying to justify anything in a story on the grounds of 'it happens in real life' is ridiculous.

There are so many infinite things that happen all the time in real life that would be utterly crap writing. 'It happens in real life' is not justification for anything.

Dude, incorporating concepts from real life makes the material identifiable with the audience.

And? They aren't legitimate solely on the basis of 'this happens in real life.'

[Ziggeh]

David7204 wrote...

Because Narrative Causality dicates that consequences should be a result of meaningful choices. And this isn't.

That's slightly back to front, but I don't see how that changes the double standard?

[Steelcan]

The fact that David ignored my rebuttal proves everything we need to know.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Being 'optional' in a game does not excuse or justify a feature.

For the conflict of romance to be meaningful it needs to be legitimate. Characters in BioWare games do not just sleep with you the day you meet. You have to earn their trust and affection.

You've never played Dragon Age. That's a Bioware game. You can sleep with people the day you meet them, and with no strings attached and without earning their trust or affection. Your point is disproven.

You can do it with Shai'ira in ME1 without any feelings or affection or attachment. Point disproven.

You can do it with Jack in ME2 without any strings attached. Your point is again disproven.

You can do it with Allers in ME3. She flat out tells you that there's nothing real behind it.  Again, your point is disproven.

Not every 'romance' has to be meaningful. It doesn't even have to be romance. It's just sex. A one-night stand. Casual sex.

Showing that the player character can just smile and wink and have any girl spread her legs compromises that because it makes it seem like the whole thing was a joke. Why bother with all this 'meaningful conflict' crap when we can win any heart because our character is just that awesome?

Maybe I roleplay a character that thinks it is all just a joke. Ever think of that? Wouldn't it be perfectly in-character for a character to be like that?

We're not winning hearts, we're fertilizing the flower. 

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 28 juillet 2013 - 03:14 .

[SlottsMachine]

Oh come on David, we all know you like da big butts.

[David7204]

Perhaps I should have been more specific. I meant the actual romances. The actual romances do not sleep with you on day one.

Modifié par David7204, 28 juillet 2013 - 03:15 .

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

Perhaps I should have been more specific. I meant the actual romances. The actual romances do not sleep with you on day one.

http://social.biowar.../index/17048700

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

Perhaps I should have been more specific. I meant the actual romances. The actual romances do not sleep with you on day one.

We arent talking about real romances, we are talking about casual sex like in DA:O or with the Consort, or Allers, orJack.

[David7204]

Ziggeh wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Because Narrative Causality dicates that consequences should be a result of meaningful choices. And this isn't.

That's slightly back to front, but I don't see how that changes the double standard?

There is no double standard at all. The player not being a god doesn't mean the game can have consequences that violate Narrative Causality.

Modifié par David7204, 28 juillet 2013 - 03:16 .

[CitizenThom]

General Distress wrote...

In DA:I you will have the option to masturbate, that's as casual as it gets.

As long as there's that, oh wait, you were joking... ?