3 réponses à ce sujet

[AmRMa]

There seems to be some factions that are split on availability of romance LI's. Some want all races available to all other races- some want restrictions and the same with sexuality. I get both of the arguments.

For restrictions-(race)
- makes LI's choices more realistic and based on their own agency -rather than revolving around player's choices
           -also some pairing seem to be a little ridiculous to some ex. dwarf/qunari
              -ex. in DA:O only a female human noble could marry Alistair and become queen- I thought it enhanced the realism (although first playthrough as a female city elf I was a bit peeved at him)
              -ex. in DA2 Varric not being a romance option and not into humans- totally respected that

For restriction-(sexuality)- again LI's have more agency rather than player sexual
                                                 -ex. Sebastian, Alistair, Morrigan- all straight
                                   -may go against the character's personality or it's not as believable that they would go bisexual
                                                     -ex. more believable for Isabella than Fenris (at least for me)

Against restriction-(race)
             -sense of punishment or unfairness based on favorite race selection or a sense of preference on behalf of another race ex. Human have more options than Dwarves
             -players play in different ways and should have the option

Against restriction-(sexuality)
               -people have different sexualities and should be able to express their choices in a game that allows for gamers choices be they straight, gay, or bisexual
               -again players play different ways and should have the option and shouldn't be limited due to their sexuality not being the "mainstream"

Again I get both arguments but my opinion is that people should have options in the game. I personally think that a dwarf and qunari romance is weird and won't ever do one in the game but if Bioware makes it possible I won't complain- I just won't do it. I am straight and play my characters straight but if they want to make someone bi- even if I don't think it suits the character- I just won't play it that way. If it bothers you just don't play that way but don't hate on someone else's choices or Bioware's inclusive stance because you don't agree with them.

Anyway that's my spiel what are your opinions and please be respectful.

Also love the realism that they are injecting into romance by making your actions effect the relationships of companions or LI's. I think it's better than DA:O here's a present please love me and never mind that thing I did which you hated. 

[Allan Schumacher]

If you're not interested in a particular thread.  Please feel free to opt out of these threads.  If I feel I need to use the banhammer, it actually kind puts me in a sour mood.  I shouldn't have to.


By posting in them, there's a far greater chance that I'm going to come down on those entering these threads in an attempt to silence them (since the act of creating this topic is not breaking a forum rule, but coming in to derail threads could be construed as a violation).  You also bump the thread to the top, keeping it relevant for longer.


And if I come down on people not liking these types of threads, it means more free reign for those that DO want to discuss this topic, which runs counter to your goals of minimizing them!

In any case, as someone that actually isn't (personally) big on romances in games (mostly indifferent to them.  I like them, but others like them more), I have no real issue if someone wants to discuss it.  Just remember to be respectful of other people having different opinions.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 01 octobre 2013 - 11:01 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Things to consider, however.

For all the times YOU get annoyed at this thread, people seem to overlook that THEY get annoyed at all the same pot shots. So while you may think that you're being funny by stating a very obvious joke, to them it's "Oh god, THIS joke again."


Here's an anecdote as an analogy: I worked at a liquor store a little over 10 years ago. It was a small one, and when it was beer deliver day, the palette was right outside the door since we didn't have a loading dock. Guaranteed, no less than a dozen people making the joke: "If you run out of space, you can always put it in my cab/car/backseat/truck/trunk etc." While a feigned a "hah hah" frankly it wasn't funny to me, and it helped cement that "trying to be funny by simply stating the obvious kind of undermines the effect."

As for stuff like this: "will it ever be more than a "circle jerk" or people ****ing at one another? As far as that goes, poking fun is probably the least disruptive, although it doesn't seem that way round here with regards to moderation."

First, I loathe the term "circle jerk." If I see it again, I'll be angry. It's frankly immature and dismissive. I literally hate the term. Second of all, if "poking fun" is the least disruptive, you wouldn't get so many people getting pissed about it.

There's poking fun, and then there's "making the same joke that everyone else always makes."

I agree that people shouldn't get their knickers in a twist over differing views, but coming in to go "not this thread again" is as uninspired as the thread itself.


I haven't even gotten into the perspective of those that literally hadn't seen the previous threads and then end up creating it, only to have all the baggage and arguments from that thread come over and they just end up going D: in response.

[Allan Schumacher]

Thank you for keeping the thread civil everyone.