285 réponses à ce sujet

[ShadyKat]

Angrywolves wrote...

Supposedly Gaider was bothered by the short dwarves having romances with taller races.
And was looking for a solution .
I've also thought the female dwarves looked young and someone ignorant of the game might mistake them for children which would create more problems for Bioware.
I doubt we'll see another dwarf party member.
Of course another way of dealing with this would be to allow romances with certain npcs but with Bioware wanting to deemphasize and cut back on romances I don't think we'll see that either.
shrugs.

Merrill looked and acted very young in DA2. Didn't stop her from being a romance option. 

[Sylvianus]

People are unreasonable with Varric. " The story, the lore, I don't care. I want to bang. He's hot. How about Bianca ? Buuut there will be rage if I we can't have his pants ! Just don't give a **** about Bianca, and the fanbase will be happy. "

This is where I begin to worry about romance being implemented into the story while before I was really a fan. I still like romance though. But less than before.

At least the writers are aware that sometimes this is really too mad.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 30 août 2013 - 09:44 .

[daveliam]

Thanks for the direction, peeps. I'm off to look at the latest GI updates.

[Ravensword]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

I hope Varric isn't romanceable. Not everything w/ a goddamn pulse needs to be boneable.

I'd gladly throw Anders, Fenris and Cullen to the fire if it meant one of my characters could romance Varric.

I'd gladly throw those characters to the fire for no reward at all.

That would make the game so much more awesome.

[AresKeith]

Sylvianus wrote...

People are unreasonable with Varric. " The story, the lore, I don't care. I want to bang. He's hot. How about Bianca ? Buuut there will be rage if I we can't have his pants ! Just don't give a **** about Bianca, and the fanbase will be happy. "

This is where I begin to worry about romance being implemented into the story while before I was really a fan. I still like romance though. But less than before.

At least the writers are aware that sometimes this is really too mad.

Especially when talking about killing Bianca behind Varric's back just to romance him

Um yea, good luck with that when he finds out and leaves or try to kill you 

[billy the squid]

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. 

Yeah, I want to bang the Desire Demon too!

Gaider why are you so cruel writing the titilating desire demon and not letting me have a deep complex romance with the purple lady! 

[Cainhurst Crow]

AresKeith wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

People are unreasonable with Varric. " The story, the lore, I don't care. I want to bang. He's hot. How about Bianca ? Buuut there will be rage if I we can't have his pants ! Just don't give a **** about Bianca, and the fanbase will be happy. "

This is where I begin to worry about romance being implemented into the story while before I was really a fan. I still like romance though. But less than before.

At least the writers are aware that sometimes this is really too mad.

Especially when talking about killing Bianca behind Varric's back just to romance him

Um yea, good luck with that when he finds out and leaves or try to kill you 

and people thought wrex coming after you in ME3 was bad, Oh boy.

[Twilight_Princess]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

I hope Varric isn't romanceable. Not everything w/ a goddamn pulse needs to be boneable.

I'd gladly throw Anders, Fenris and Cullen to the fire if it meant one of my characters could romance Varric.

I'd gladly throw those characters to the fire for no reward at all.

 Oh god...ROFL it would be the most angsty fire ever

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

I hope Varric isn't romanceable. Not everything w/ a goddamn pulse needs to be boneable.

I'd gladly throw Anders, Fenris and Cullen to the fire if it meant one of my characters could romance Varric.

I'd gladly throw those characters to the fire for no reward at all.

I know but if you're good at something, never do it for free.

[Ravensword]

Varric is too cool to have some random, assbag inquisitor romance him.

[David Gaider]

glenboy24 wrote...
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.

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.

[Steelcan]

David Gaider wrote...

glenboy24 wrote...
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.

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.

Well said

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Ravensword wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

I hope Varric isn't romanceable. Not everything w/ a goddamn pulse needs to be boneable.

HOW CAN YOU LIVE WITH YOUR BIGOTRY

It's his privilege, he's too God damn privileged.

I have more goddamn privelege than God Herself.

Needs moar strongly characterized heroic privelege.

[Cainhurst Crow]

David Gaider wrote...

glenboy24 wrote...
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.

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.

A breath of fresh air and reason in the forums. Thank you for this good post.

[Potato Cat]

I don't understand the argument. To my mind, all the characters wo SHOULD be romanceable ARE romanceable. Other than the obvious sibling companions, only Aveline and Varric weren't romanceale in DA2, and both of them have 'romance arcs' of their own. And the age/lore appropriate DAO companions were all romanceable. Selfish Writer is total foolishness.

[dreamgazer]

David Gaider wrote...

glenboy24 wrote...
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.

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.

Perfectly put.

[Ravensword]

David Gaider wrote...

glenboy24 wrote...
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.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Gaider. You make too much sense in such a senseless area.

[Potato Cat]

Faerunner wrote...

Angrywolves wrote...

Supposedly Gaider was bothered by the short dwarves having romances with taller races.
And was looking for a solution .

WTF? Many players don't care about that. For some, that IS the appeal. (See: aimo).

I'm kind of of the opinion that height should not matter that much when you're in love.

EDIT: Though I suppose if height matters to some people, having a dwarven option for dwarven PC's is in order, isn't it?

I think there is a point where cute height differences, (Christa and Omid anyone?), just become awkward to animate. Not that a qunari picking up her dwarf LI to kiss isn't adorable.

[fiveforchaos]

Marten Stroud wrote...

Give us Dagna!

Agreed, I want to romance the dwarven mage!

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

There's a Dwarf Qunari Mailbox romance.

Semi-confirmed rumor.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Elfman wrote...

I don't understand the argument. To my mind, all the characters wo SHOULD be romanceable ARE romanceable. Other than the obvious sibling companions, only Aveline and Varric weren't romanceale in DA2, and both of them have 'romance arcs' of their own. And the age/lore appropriate DAO companions were all romanceable. Selfish Writer is total foolishness.

Logic and reason is wasted on the obsessed, it seems.

[Ravensword]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

I hope Varric isn't romanceable. Not everything w/ a goddamn pulse needs to be boneable.

HOW CAN YOU LIVE WITH YOUR BIGOTRY

It's his privilege, he's too God damn privileged.

I have more goddamn privelege than God Herself.

Needs moar strongly characterized heroic privelege.

She's hardly wearing any clothes and is an all-powerful deity.

[Seboist]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

I hope Varric isn't romanceable. Not everything w/ a goddamn pulse needs to be boneable.

I'd gladly throw Anders, Fenris and Cullen to the fire if it meant one of my characters could romance Varric.

I'd gladly throw those characters to the fire for no reward at all.

KIlling them IS the reward.