252 réponses à ce sujet

[Rawgrim]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

 But its not belivable that character just switch sexualities in order to satisfy Hawke.

It can be argued that the Warden and Hawke are Mary Sues even without taking romances into account.

Even in DA:O with the 2 straight only options-  Morrigan was willing to take up a romance with a male warden no matter what.  Likewise a female could always romace Alistair no matter what.  You could be a saint or a horrible person, as long as you showered them with gifts, they would get in your pants. Is that not the very definition of a romance Mary Sue?

You needed to figure out wich gifts to give to wich character, you also had to talk to the person alot, without making them angry in some way. In DA2 it looks more like everyone just "switches teams" and throws themselves at Hawke. No real effort required. 1-2 gifts is it? The game even tells you who to give it to. The lack of possible interactions with your followers is also a factor, mind you. There is just alot less of it in DA2 than in the first game. Less talk makes it feel abit rushed as well.

[Rawgrim]

devSin wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

But its not belivable that character just switch sexualities in order to satisfy Hawke.

Then you should clearly be assuming that they're bisexual, regardless their lack of desire to express such a thing to you.

There's nothing in the game that will contradict it, either.

I'm not sure why their "believability" hinges on something that's never even covered by the game, but if you see something that prevents you from believing they're straight or gay, why would you keep trying to believe it?

Well Anders seems very straight in DA:A, I didn`t use him that much in that game, though, so i am not the best source for it. But I see others claiming the change was more "visable" in his case.

The flirt icons tells you they are playersexual, in most cases. And Gaider has said they arn`t bisexual, he said player-sexual. Thats different. Means they arn`t set as bisexual, they change sexuality based on the player. For the most part.

[addiction21]

I smell a off topic lock coming.

[billy the squid]

Quota systems are sh*t and should never be used. Its the same mindset as designing by committee, appease everyone and shove some mediocre tripe out.

The DA2 system with its faults is perhaps the better solution, given the finite time and resources available, without the need to lock everything down and box NPC to one group. DA2's problem was the NPC behaviour didn't change in relation to the player's actions. It occurred in what felt like a vaccum. ie: I could be a jerk to Anders, oppose every idea and view he had and he would still want to bonk the player character, that quite frankly, is stupid.

Their behaviour towards the player needs to fit that character's personality, and the behaviour of the player needs to inform the NPC's actions and opinion of the player, determining if that romance option is open. Actually making players work to explore the option, over time and making it more involved, mitigates the ambushing scenario with Anders, where the actions of the player counted for little in the following conversations.

Modifié par billy the squid, 13 août 2013 - 11:55 .

[sandalisthemaker]

Rawgrim wrote...

devSin wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

But its not belivable that character just switch sexualities in order to satisfy Hawke.

Then you should clearly be assuming that they're bisexual, regardless their lack of desire to express such a thing to you.

There's nothing in the game that will contradict it, either.

I'm not sure why their "believability" hinges on something that's never even covered by the game, but if you see something that prevents you from believing they're straight or gay, why would you keep trying to believe it?

Well Anders seems very straight in DA:A, I didn`t use him that much in that game, though, so i am not the best source for it. But I see others claiming the change was more "visable" in his case.

The flirt icons tells you they are playersexual, in most cases. And Gaider has said they arn`t bisexual, he said player-sexual. Thats different. Means they arn`t set as bisexual, they change sexuality based on the player. For the most part.

I think the conflict lies with people wanting to label and categorize the characters into neat little boxes. 

[In Exile]

billy the squid wrote...

Quota systems are sh*t and should never be used. It's the same mindset as designing by committee, appease everyone and shove some mediocre tripe out.  

Not to burst your bubble, but software is totally designed by committee. In fact, pretty much every product we use is designd by commitee. 

[billy the squid]

In Exile wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Quota systems are sh*t and should never be used. It's the same mindset as designing by committee, appease everyone and shove some mediocre tripe out.  

Not to burst your bubble, but software is totally designed by committee. In fact, pretty much every product we use is designd by commitee. 

Fuse, EA's latest flop suffered from exactly what I'm referring to. Appeal to a focus group by focus testing everything, without regard for the inherrent social desirability bias which plagues it and people's actual buying habits. 

Its precisely the reason evey other game needs to be a FPS or copy CoD and WoW "this is what lots of people like, therefore we should make more of it" behaviour. But considering they already have it, it renders the product moot as they fight over the same over saturated market. Its what happend with MoH warfighter it did exactly that, design by committee  to appeal to a cross section or quota of different people and it failed.

Modifié par billy the squid, 14 août 2013 - 12:03 .

[devSin]

billy the squid wrote...

The DA2 system with its faults is perhaps the better solution, given the finite time and resources available, without the need to lock everything down and box NPC to one group. DA2's problem was the NPC behaviour didn't change in relation to the player's actions. It occurred in what felt like a vaccum. ie: I could be a jerk to Anders, oppose every idea and view he had and he would still want to bonk the player character, that quite frankly, is stupid.

Really? The rivalry tracks for the romances should all be different, just as they are for the friendships.

You might desire even more reactivity (who doesn't?), but the game actually respected the particular relationship you had with the character (unlike Origins, where gifting dog bones was the magic cure-all to disapproval).

[Rawgrim]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

devSin wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

But its not belivable that character just switch sexualities in order to satisfy Hawke.

Then you should clearly be assuming that they're bisexual, regardless their lack of desire to express such a thing to you.

There's nothing in the game that will contradict it, either.

I'm not sure why their "believability" hinges on something that's never even covered by the game, but if you see something that prevents you from believing they're straight or gay, why would you keep trying to believe it?

Well Anders seems very straight in DA:A, I didn`t use him that much in that game, though, so i am not the best source for it. But I see others claiming the change was more "visable" in his case.

The flirt icons tells you they are playersexual, in most cases. And Gaider has said they arn`t bisexual, he said player-sexual. Thats different. Means they arn`t set as bisexual, they change sexuality based on the player. For the most part.

I think the conflict lies with people wanting to label and categorize the characters into neat little boxes. 

Naw, it lies with the writing. When a character is established one way, and then completely changes, for no reason, afterwards. In this case its probably a case of DA2 being rushed, though.

[sandalisthemaker]

billy the squid wrote...

In Exile wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Quota systems are sh*t and should never be used. It's the same mindset as designing by committee, appease everyone and shove some mediocre tripe out.  

Not to burst your bubble, but software is totally designed by committee. In fact, pretty much every product we use is designd by commitee. 

Fuse, EA's latest flop suffered from exactly what I'm referring to. Appeal to a focus group by focus testing everything, without regard for the inherrent social desirability bias which plagues it and people's actual buying habits. 

Its precisely the reason evey other game needs to be a FPS or copy CoD and WoW "this is what lots of people like, therefore we should make more of it" behaviour. But considering they already have it, it renders the product moot as they fight over the same over saturated market. Its what happend with MoH warfighter it did exactly that, design by committee  to appeal to a cross section or quota of different people and it failed.

I like how you lump having romance options available to everyone with "what's wrong with games these days."

[Rawgrim]

devSin wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

The DA2 system with its faults is perhaps the better solution, given the finite time and resources available, without the need to lock everything down and box NPC to one group. DA2's problem was the NPC behaviour didn't change in relation to the player's actions. It occurred in what felt like a vaccum. ie: I could be a jerk to Anders, oppose every idea and view he had and he would still want to bonk the player character, that quite frankly, is stupid.

Really? The rivalry tracks for the romances should all be different, just as they are for the friendships.

You might desire even more reactivity (who doesn't?), but the game actually respected the particular relationship you had with the character (unlike Origins, where gifting dog bones was the magic cure-all to disapproval).

That would require ALOT of dog bones though. Since they only gave a +1 on the approval meter. Alot of work to get to bone someone

[Rawgrim]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

In Exile wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Quota systems are sh*t and should never be used. It's the same mindset as designing by committee, appease everyone and shove some mediocre tripe out.  

Not to burst your bubble, but software is totally designed by committee. In fact, pretty much every product we use is designd by commitee. 

Fuse, EA's latest flop suffered from exactly what I'm referring to. Appeal to a focus group by focus testing everything, without regard for the inherrent social desirability bias which plagues it and people's actual buying habits. 

Its precisely the reason evey other game needs to be a FPS or copy CoD and WoW "this is what lots of people like, therefore we should make more of it" behaviour. But considering they already have it, it renders the product moot as they fight over the same over saturated market. Its what happend with MoH warfighter it did exactly that, design by committee  to appeal to a cross section or quota of different people and it failed.

I like how you lump having romance options available to everyone with "what's wrong with games these days."

Its about a game mechanic, and how its implemented. Not about removing romance options from anyone.

[billy the squid]

devSin wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

The DA2 system with its faults is perhaps the better solution, given the finite time and resources available, without the need to lock everything down and box NPC to one group. DA2's problem was the NPC behaviour didn't change in relation to the player's actions. It occurred in what felt like a vaccum. ie: I could be a jerk to Anders, oppose every idea and view he had and he would still want to bonk the player character, that quite frankly, is stupid.

Really? The rivalry tracks for the romances should all be different, just as they are for the friendships.

You might desire even more reactivity (who doesn't?), but the game actually respected the particular relationship you had with the character (unlike Origins, where gifting dog bones was the magic cure-all to disapproval).

No, it uses the same bi polar design of ME3 renegade and paragon where in lies the problem. It still ended with romance, getting your cake and eating it, rather cheap way of doing things when the central tenit of a NPCs belief is a polar opposite to the player's. That is what make charcter's look like walking wish fullfilment and that they appear to bend to the player's will. It's not their player central sexuality that is an issue. Its the fact that they have the resolve of a wet paper bag.

[billy the squid]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

In Exile wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Quota systems are sh*t and should never be used. It's the same mindset as designing by committee, appease everyone and shove some mediocre tripe out.  

Not to burst your bubble, but software is totally designed by committee. In fact, pretty much every product we use is designd by commitee. 

Fuse, EA's latest flop suffered from exactly what I'm referring to. Appeal to a focus group by focus testing everything, without regard for the inherrent social desirability bias which plagues it and people's actual buying habits. 

Its precisely the reason evey other game needs to be a FPS or copy CoD and WoW "this is what lots of people like, therefore we should make more of it" behaviour. But considering they already have it, it renders the product moot as they fight over the same over saturated market. Its what happend with MoH warfighter it did exactly that, design by committee  to appeal to a cross section or quota of different people and it failed.

I like how you lump having romance options available to everyone with "what's wrong with games these days."

Oh, so romance in DA stands apart from game mechanics somehow does it? Pfffft. 

Modifié par billy the squid, 14 août 2013 - 12:15 .

[Ianamus]

billy the squid wrote...

Quota systems are sh*t and should never be used. Its the same mindset as designing by committee, appease everyone and shove some mediocre tripe out.

The DA2 system with its faults is perhaps the better solution, given the finite time and resources available, without the need to lock everything down and box NPC to one group. DA2's problem was the NPC behaviour didn't change in relation to the player's actions. It occurred in what felt like a vaccum. ie: I could be a jerk to Anders, oppose every idea and view he had and he would still want to bonk the player character, that quite frankly, is stupid.

Their behaviour towards the player needs to fit that character's personality, and the behaviour of the player needs to inform the NPC's actions and opinion of the player, determining if that romance option is open. Actually making players work to explore the option, over time and making it more involved, mitigates the ambushing scenario with Anders, where the actions of the player counted for little in the following conversations.

I wouldn't say the rivalry system was bad. In fact when it came to romances I thought it was very interesting.

Some rivalmances were far more believable and engaging than their friendship counterparts. A Hawke who loves Merrill but hates how the mirror is ruining her life works brilliantly. Saving her from herself becuase he/she cares that much. 

The problem comes from lumping downright mean stuff with rivalry. A Hawke who disagrees with Fenris's views on mages and wants him to let go of his anger for his own sake? A brilliant romance path that I found really engaging. A Hawke who condones slavery and says he will take Oranna as his slave? And then Fenris comes and sleeps with them at the same house the slave is being held at! Now that really is a problem. 

It's a shame because the friendship/rivalry system worked well in many ways, particuarly with romances. They just needed to do something with the nasty, insulting and downright evil choices the player could make that wasn't lumping them in with rivalry.

Modifié par EJ107, 14 août 2013 - 12:17 .

[Allan Schumacher]

And Gaider has said they arn`t bisexual, he said player-sexual.

I thought Gaider avoided using either term.

[ManchesterUnitedFan1]

We all need to calm a little I think.

Regardless, this thread is so off topic now (my fault as much as you guys'), so either talk about the panels specifically or don't talk at all maybe creat a separate thread for this? Or take it to PMs.

[Rawgrim]

EJ107 wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Quota systems are sh*t and should never be used. Its the same mindset as designing by committee, appease everyone and shove some mediocre tripe out.

The DA2 system with its faults is perhaps the better solution, given the finite time and resources available, without the need to lock everything down and box NPC to one group. DA2's problem was the NPC behaviour didn't change in relation to the player's actions. It occurred in what felt like a vaccum. ie: I could be a jerk to Anders, oppose every idea and view he had and he would still want to bonk the player character, that quite frankly, is stupid.

Their behaviour towards the player needs to fit that character's personality, and the behaviour of the player needs to inform the NPC's actions and opinion of the player, determining if that romance option is open. Actually making players work to explore the option, over time and making it more involved, mitigates the ambushing scenario with Anders, where the actions of the player counted for little in the following conversations.

I wouldn't say the rivalry system was bad. In fact when it came to romances I thought it was very interesting.

Some rivalmances were far more believable and engaging than their friendship counterparts. A Hawke who loves Merrill but hates how the mirror is ruining her life works brilliantly.

The problem comes from lumping downright mean stuff with rivalry. A Hawke who disagrees with Fenris's views on mages and wants him to let go of his anger for his own sake? A brilliant romance path that I found really engaging. A Hawke who condones slavery and says he will take Oranna as his slave? And then Fenris comes and kisses them at the house where that slave is being held! 

It's a shame because the rivalry system worked well in many ways, particuarly with romances. They just needed to do something else with the nasty, insulting and downright evil choices the player could make rather than lumping them in with rivalry.

It still felt like Hawke could do no wrong at all, and everyone just liked him because he was controlled by the player. You can be downright mean and evil to them for 7 years, and yet they still show up at the final battle, as if you are their best friend in the whole world.

[Rawgrim]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

And Gaider has said they arn`t bisexual, he said player-sexual.

I thought Gaider avoided using either term.

I belive he said it in one of the videos that are linked up on page 1. The romance panel bit.

[Rawgrim]

ManchesterUnitedFan1 wrote...

We all need to calm a little I think.

Regardless, this thread is so off topic now (my fault as much as you guys'), so either talk about the panels specifically or don't talk at all maybe creat a separate thread for this? Or take it to PMs.

Good idea.

[ElitePinecone]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Fairness and equality trumps anyone's sense of realism. This is what the powers that be (David Gaider) have stated.

Nicely succinct way to put it.

[Rawgrim]

ElitePinecone wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Fairness and equality trumps anyone's sense of realism. This is what the powers that be (David Gaider) have stated.

Nicely succinct way to put it.

Yup. But it should be allowed to ask for both fairness and realism\\belivability too.

[Allan Schumacher]

Fuse, EA's latest flop suffered from exactly what I'm referring to. Appeal to a focus group by focus testing everything, without regard for the inherrent social desirability bias which plagues it and people's actual buying habits.

Its precisely the reason evey other game needs to be a FPS or copy CoD and WoW "this is what lots of people like, therefore we should make more of it" behaviour. But considering they already have it, it renders the product moot as they fight over the same over saturated market. Its what happend with MoH warfighter it did exactly that, design by committee to appeal to a cross section or quota of different people and it failed.

Apologize for taking this down a semantics route, but I'm confused because your application of the term "Design by Committee" appears to be very different than mine (Reference), and more akin to something like, metrics driven design (which is all about taking existing data points and feedback and basing your decision making process on that feedback).

I'm not actually 100% certain what your critique is. I agree that there's a bit too much focus on metric driven design (the problem with metric driven design is that you fundamentally will not innovate). Although I can see the two working "together" as different departments have different goals and influence the product in suboptimal ways (Design by Committee) and substantiate their positions with metrics.

[David7204]

Sometimes fairness and equality are mutually exclusive.

Often, in fact.

[In Exile]

Rawgrim wrote...

Yup. But it should be allowed to ask for both fairness and realismbelivability too.

Who gets to decide what's believable? I don't find anything inherently unbelievably about everyone being bi. I find something unbelievably about some random switch that flips around sexuality without changing characters, since the people we're with can change who we are and how we grow.