285 réponses à ce sujet

[thats1evildude]

David Gaider wrote...

Going by the forums, "much of the gamership" would be interested in romancing a mailbox, if the opportunity presented itself.

Well, in fairness, I have a particularly sexy mailbox.

"Oh baby, I love sticking things in your slot. " 

Modifié par thats1evildude, 31 août 2013 - 02:11 .

[Hippiethecat124]

@Cthulhu42 (I apologize for not being able to quote on my device) I know many who go through in this manner too, and even though it makes me sad, I do understand where they come from in "just wanting a game and not a gorram soap opera." However, could this lead to BW eliminating romances and dialogue trees completely in future installments, or is it by now too much of a staple? (I probably should find another thread; I think this might be off-topic.)

[Texhnolyze101]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

101ezylonhxeT wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

Varric cheat on Bianca?...

This is off topic but where exactly is that gif from?

Planet of the Apes.

Thanks. I have been wondering about this gif for like forever.

[Karlone123]

thats1evildude wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Going by the forums, "much of the gamership" would be interested in romancing a mailbox, if the opportunity presented itself.

Well, in fairness, I have a particularly sexy mailbox.

"Oh baby, I love sticking things in your slot. " 

I think a mailbox would prefer a parcel, not a letter. BOOOOM!!!

[Chanda]

thats1evildude wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Going by the forums, "much of the gamership" would be interested in romancing a mailbox, if the opportunity presented itself.

Well, in fairness, I have a particularly sexy mailbox.

"Oh baby, I love sticking things in your slot. " 

Oh yeah, baby, let me lick your postage! 

[Arthur Cousland]

As I'm fond of the dwarves, I'd like for my dwarven Inquisitor to be able to have someone of their own race to flirt with.  It's not fair that they have to stand on something just to be able to make out with their love interest, because they're all human or elf.

Modifié par Arthur Cousland, 31 août 2013 - 04:53 .

[Bhryaen]

David Gaider wrote...
We don't need to justify "why not". Romances don't just spring magically into being unless there's a reason to prevent them from doing so-- they require a lot of content. We're only allowed to have so many, and we only want to write so many.

I get why someone might like a character and think how a romance added onto what's already there would be awesome. Suggesting, however, that we need to justify why we "kept them from you"-- for Selfish Writer Reasons, obviously-- particularly when there's far more to creating one in a game than whipping up some extra words, is exactly what I was talking about in my original post.

I honestly expect no reasonableness to be had on this front, if history is any evidence. People want what they want, and will lament when they don't get it. Nothing wrong with that, so long as they don't start suggesting that they're entitled to romance who and what they want in the game, and that we are bad guys for actively turning off the romance switch for characters who, in their minds, should be sex-able. The idea that not every character in the game will or even should be available to them just doesn't compute, apparently.

These are great points, and I suppose they were purposeful against a particular type of argument (pushy) in favor of game romances, but the thread itself really doesn't really make such an argument. It just asks "please" to give a dwarf LI... which seems like "reasonableness" to me. I recognize that if you create 1 that will likely be 25% of the romances which players will have available and that you're then committed to developing into the plot and encounters, leaving only 3 more. It's like sacrificing 1 of the 4 romanceable characters in DAO to make Oghren (or some other dwarf) an LI, and it would be a tough call as to which and whether it would be worth it. (I'd kill off the Alistair or Leliana one, but that's me... and lots of people like the Alistair and Leliana romances...) Can't say it'd been a good call either. But still, I support the thread's request... 'cause I like the idea. Then again I'm not a big game romance fan, so I can't really argue for it passionately.

I'm mostly just thrilled at the idea of dwarves being brought back to DA in DAI. They were so pivotal in the plot of DAO that their veritable annihilation in DA2 didn't bode well. DAO is the only game I've ever found dwarves so interestingly written and fun to play, and they're my favorite origin to go with. Plus, yes, they're actually very attractive- not looking like IRL human dwarves as some have suggested, just like shorter, larger-boned folks. Blame the designers who did such a damn excellent job on dwarf appearance. Sigrun is totally a knock-out for me- would LOOOVVVVE to have had a romance worked in with her. Gotta love the Duster ladies! (Like Jarvia heh...) So I vote for bringing Sigrun back for DAI and making her romanceable. *grin* Let us really get to know her and see her enduring personality shine. No care whatsoever about the chances you'd ever even want to do it or get the approval to do it or have the logistics to do it... and also no demand that you do. Just a request- and somewhat inevitable as you probably know.

Mostly you just have to recognize that there is an enthusiastic dwarf-interest part of the DA fan base, as odd as somehow you may consider it. It's an inextricable (DAO is what it is) and integral part of the "DA culture" that your own writing team created. As I said, I've never thought of dwarves as much more than heavily-bearded miniature Scotsmen until DAO. Now I've found myself humming the Orzammar theme song and loving to stroll through the beleaguered city as "home," the most touching scene in the game for me being that with Oghren beholding the outside for the first time when I've crowned someone and we're on the front steps looking at the surface world, knowing I may never return to Orzammar with that character again. And that was you and your colleagues who made that experience happen.

It's likely the majority of players will say "ho hum" to Orzammar and the long grind through the Deep Roads, shying away from playing "short people" for one reason or another, but that doesn't make Orzammar and the many memorable dwarven characters and the intricate and involved dwarven storyline any less impressive or enjoyable... just underappreciated. Sometimes if you have a talented staff that wants to do something like what was done with dwarves in DAO, even if it's not going to be the favorite experience of the majority of players, the talent alone that every player encounters when completing the dwarven Treaty quests is still very worth having added to the game. I'm not sure you'd even have me as such a big fan of the franchise if the dwarf content wasn't there. Kids complain about eating veggies too. Should we just feed them only sugary breaded meat and candy all the time like most would ask for?

That said, if the designers are going to do to dwarves in DAI what they did to elves in DA2, all the aforementioned interest will likely go out the window...

[Dabrikishaw]

glenboy24 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

WardenWade wrote...
The popularity of characters like Sigrun and Varric, for example, seem to indicate much of the gamership would be very interested in this.

Going by the forums, "much of the gamership" would be interested in romancing a mailbox, if the opportunity presented itself.

According to this fandom, after all, there needs to be justification as to why a character can't be romanced... otherwise they are being unreasonably and even maliciously kept from the fans. So I'm pretty certain that if Varric is romanceable, there will be people overjoyed to hear it... and if he's not, it will be evidence of an anti-dwarf conspiracy by the racist writers.

I can recognize that some people get...carried away with not being able to romance a particularly beloved character/party member. However, I think there is a difference between non-romances that make sense (Shale, Wynne, and, yes, even Oghren, the later of which was a character clearly designed to be the bungling drunken sad story sidekick) and non-romances that, honestly, appear to be a writer simply saying "I don't want this character to be a romance," without any real justification as to why not.

I'd equate it to "I don't want to share my toys." Best example would be Aveline in Dragon Age 2. Here was this strong, beautiful, complex woman who's life was closely tied to Hawkes' making her, above all else, a companion with whom a romance would make the most sense. And yet? You and Luke decided to give her some throwaway husband character.

And I understand that writers want the characters not to always revolve around the player, and that's fine. If we had passed on Aveline as a romance in the game *then* she went and found a husband, that would make sense. However, you built this amazing character, teased a romance, then pulled it away. I don't feel it's fair to write/design a character in that way then simply turn around and tell the player, "Nope. Can't have her/him."

If you're going to write an exceptional character/companion who's similar in age to the protagonist, isn't related to the protagonist, and has a complex or deep relationship to the protagonist then it's incredibly shortsighted not to at least allow the opportunity for a romance. They can still have their own lives, their own goals, their own choices but let us be a part of that intimately if it makes sense; don't slam the gate closed just because you think a romance would "cheepen" the character you wrote. 

I find this incredibly inane and creepy.

Modifié par Dabrikishaw, 31 août 2013 - 05:41 .

[kinderschlager]

 personally an elf fan, but a fully endorse this. keep it up dwarve fans!

[kinderschlager]

David Gaider wrote...

WardenWade wrote...
The popularity of characters like Sigrun and Varric, for example, seem to indicate much of the gamership would be very interested in this.

Going by the forums, "much of the gamership" would be interested in romancing a mailbox, if the opportunity presented itself.

According to this fandom, after all, there needs to be justification as to why a character can't be romanced... otherwise they are being unreasonably and even maliciously kept from the fans. So I'm pretty certain that if Varric is romanceable, there will be people overjoyed to hear it... and if he's not, it will be evidence of an anti-dwarf conspiracy by the racist writers.

you like making people break out the tinfouil hats, don't you?

[kinderschlager]

there needs to be a popcorn eating smiley.

*eats popcorn*

[Demon Velsper]

David Gaider wrote...

The idea that not every character in the game will or even should be available to them just doesn't compute, apparently.

And this from someone who made a game where every romancable character was gay...? Alrightie then.

[Ravensword]

Dabrikishaw wrote...

glenboy24 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

WardenWade wrote...
The popularity of characters like Sigrun and Varric, for example, seem to indicate much of the gamership would be very interested in this.

Going by the forums, "much of the gamership" would be interested in romancing a mailbox, if the opportunity presented itself. 

According to this fandom, after all, there needs to be justification as to why a character can't be romanced... otherwise they are being unreasonably and even maliciously kept from the fans. So I'm pretty certain that if Varric is romanceable, there will be people overjoyed to hear it... and if he's not, it will be evidence of an anti-dwarf conspiracy by the racist writers.

I can recognize that some people get...carried away with not being able to romance a particularly beloved character/party member. However, I think there is a difference between non-romances that make sense (Shale, Wynne, and, yes, even Oghren, the later of which was a character clearly designed to be the bungling drunken sad story sidekick) and non-romances that, honestly, appear to be a writer simply saying "I don't want this character to be a romance," without any real justification as to why not. 

I'd equate it to "I don't want to share my toys." Best example would be Aveline in Dragon Age 2. Here was this strong, beautiful, complex woman who's life was closely tied to Hawkes' making her, above all else, a companion with whom a romance would make the most sense. And yet? You and Luke decided to give her some throwaway husband character. 

And I understand that writers want the characters not to always revolve around the player, and that's fine. If we had passed on Aveline as a romance in the game *then* she went and found a husband, that would make sense. However, you built this amazing character, teased a romance, then pulled it away. I don't feel it's fair to write/design a character in that way then simply turn around and tell the player, "Nope. Can't have her/him." 

If you're going to write an exceptional character/companion who's similar in age to the protagonist, isn't related to the protagonist, and has a complex or deep relationship to the protagonist then it's incredibly shortsighted not to at least allow the opportunity for a romance. They can still have their own lives, their own goals, their own choices but let us be a part of that intimately if it makes sense; don't slam the gate closed just because you think a romance would "cheepen" the character you wrote. 

I find this incredibly inane and creepy.

Yep. A typical 'mancer. They mostly value a character on whether or not they are romanceable. If they like a character, but that character isn't romanceable, then it's seen as the writers just being mean and stingy for depriving the player of a "great" romance.

Modifié par Ravensword, 31 août 2013 - 09:02 .

[ManchesterUnitedFan1]

Demon Velsper wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

The idea that not every character in the game will or even should be available to them just doesn't compute, apparently.

And this from someone who made a game where every romancable character was gay...? Alrightie then.

Hahahahahahha oh you can't be serious, you really can't....

[Chanda]

ManchesterUnitedFan1 wrote...

Demon Velsper wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

The idea that not every character in the game will or even should be available to them just doesn't compute, apparently.

And this from someone who made a game where every romancable character was gay...? Alrightie then.

Hahahahahahha oh you can't be serious, you really can't....

I think he makes a pretty good point, actually. Unless you're being sarcastic,  in which case,  nevermind.

[Quill74Pen]

Say what you will about Bioware and romances, but no one can deny the fact that they do romances far better than, say, Bethesada and its Elder Scroll games.

[Andraste_Reborn]

And this from someone who made a game where every romancable character was gay...? Alrightie then.

Where is this game, and how can I get it? I love David Gaider's writing, I hate to think that I've apparently missed out on his gay masterpiece!

[ManchesterUnitedFan1]

Chanda, how on earth is what Demon Velsper said a good point? Not all romanceable character is gay. First off, the main 4 are bisexual/player sexual, which isn't the same thing, secondly Sebastian was a straight only romance.

[Examurai]

Demon Velsper wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

The idea that not every character in the game will or even should be available to them just doesn't compute, apparently.

And this from someone who made a game where every romancable character was gay...? Alrightie then.

If everything went David Gaider's way, I doubt there would be any in-game romance at all.

[MstrJedi Kyle]

David Gaider wrote...
Going by the forums, "much of the gamership" would be interested in romancing a mailbox, if the opportunity presented itself.

Mountain Dew all out my nose... Thanks for that!

[Karlone123]

ManchesterUnitedFan1 wrote...

Demon Velsper wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

The idea that not every character in the game will or even should be available to them just doesn't compute, apparently.

And this from someone who made a game where every romancable character was gay...? Alrightie then.

Hahahahahahha oh you can't be serious, you really can't....

I think he is. A bit tragic, really.

[Karlone123]

ManchesterUnitedFan1 wrote...

Chanda, how on earth is what Demon Velsper said a good point? Not all romanceable character is gay. First off, the main 4 are bisexual/player sexual, which isn't the same thing, secondly Sebastian was a straight only romance.

^I approve

People know so little about bisexuality and homosexuality and think themselves experts in knowing them..

[Reever]

Cylanthegreat wrote...

I just want a dwarf romance so my character doesn't have to be in the 'female' position in the poorly animated romance scenes, I always got the impression that Leliana was pegging my dwarf or something.

I had to laugh out loud at this

And Mr. Gaider is right! I also had to suffer a bit that Samara wasn't romanceable throughout ME2 & ME3, but then came Citadel around, at least (though I haven't gotten to seeing that scene).

[The Hierophant]

DarthKilby wrote...

Mountain Dew all out my nose... Thanks for that!

lol

101ezylonhxeT wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Planet of the Apes.

Thanks. I have been wondering about this gif for like forever.

Charlton Heston R.l.P