130 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

misoretu9 wrote...

Hope it won't be wasted RPG opportunity like in City Elf origin in DAO, where you couldn't adress that maybe you just don't want to get married with a guy because you're lesbian (or however they call it in game world, since I'm sure there are words for it, again, which we never heard of), in a culture that supposedly (according to devs) has no problems with that.

The DA term for lesbian is "poetess", it comes up in a couple of bits of dialogue in DA:O.

And people in Thedas don't have a problem with homosexuality, but City Elves and Nobles are still expected to marry and have children.  So it's not quite the perfect haven of tolerance that some people make it out to be in that respect.

[Cainhurst Crow]

If none of the romances are interesting, and all of them rather bland like DA2, I'd rather lock myself out of the content by trying to create a 5-way.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 09 septembre 2013 - 11:00 .

[filetemo]

In Exile wrote...

I happen to think an entirely self-contained area that then leads to almost identical content for the remainder of the game is not really reactive. 

We could call siding with Iorveth or Roche in the Witcher 2 "an entirely self-contained area that then leads to almost identical content". I'll call it branching narrative. Origins are branching narrative too, they just happen to be at the start.

So the definition of self contained area and branching narrative is blurry, and seems to depend on how much content is considered enough to call it a branching path instead of self contained content.

Aside that, in my personal opinion, playing a Qunari in a dragon age game is a bigger deal than playing an elf or dwarf for the upteenth time in a WRPG

[In Exile]

filetemo wrote...
We could call siding with Iorveth or Roche in the Witcher 2 "an entirely self-contained area that then leads to almost identical content".

We could but we would be wrong, because that's 33% of the game's content in any one playthrough and almost entirely different. And that's ignoring how Act I itself varies with your choice of supporting Roche vs. Iorveth.

Origins are branching narrative too, they just happen to be at the start.

They are branching. But they're not reactive. There's nothing in them to react to other than your CC choice, and then they're not featured at all again until certain dialogues in very limited areas. 

Aside that, in my personal opinion, playing a Qunari in a dragon age game is a bigger deal than playing an elf or dwarf for the upteenth time in a WRPG

I'm totally with you here. We just seem to have different standards about what would satisfy us. I didn't think DA:O had branching or reactive content, so if DAI is similar I think it will fail to address the impact of the qunari. You might differ. 

[Dycho]

Oh for the love of...

Your Qunari inquisitor WILL NOT be of the qun. You will have access to romance as nothing has been stated to prevent this. The only thing that would prevent this such as the qun is NOT in the picture so you will get to choose for yourself. A dev Allen said it in another topic which was locked out but still there if you look. People QUIT IGNORING these posts if your wandering why and if there will be romance for Qunari!

[Thiefy]

Former_Fiend wrote...

Thief-of-Hearts wrote...

Former_Fiend wrote...

Romance doesn't necessarily need to be sexual.

 
This, but tbh i don't think they should limit the romances like that. it's suppposed to be there for everyone to enjoy, not something everyone can enjoy only if they pick the "right" playthrough.

Oh, I absolutely agree. Was just pointing that out.

You know i just reread my post and realized it was confusing.
I actually agree with your post entirely.
The rest of the my post, about players picking the "right" playthrough regarding content and that a qunari player maybe locked out of some is what i disagreed with. The way I wrote it didn't clarify that so my bad.