289 réponses à ce sujet

[Blackrising]

At this point I think that maybe we SHOULD have a seperate forum for romances.
If only so I can get to the juicy bits faster.

(What can I say, romance threads are the little flame of joy in my cold, dreary life. Who needs TV when I can get my fix of drama right here?)

[Shadow Fox]

Blackrising wrote...

At this point I think that maybe we SHOULD have a seperate forum for romances.
If only so I can get to the juicy bits faster.

(What can I say, romance threads are the little flame of joy in my cold, dreary life. Who needs TV when I can get my fix of drama right here?)

And depravity.

[Blackrising]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Blackrising wrote...

At this point I think that maybe we SHOULD have a seperate forum for romances.
If only so I can get to the juicy bits faster.

(What can I say, romance threads are the little flame of joy in my cold, dreary life. Who needs TV when I can get my fix of drama right here?)

And depravity.

You say depravity, I say endless fun.

[Shadow Fox]

Blackrising wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Blackrising wrote...

At this point I think that maybe we SHOULD have a seperate forum for romances.
If only so I can get to the juicy bits faster.

(What can I say, romance threads are the little flame of joy in my cold, dreary life. Who needs TV when I can get my fix of drama right here?)

And depravity.

You say depravity, I say endless fun.

So true:wizard:

[Br3admax]

greengoron89 wrote...

Bioware really needs to make a separate forum for this rubbish. I grow tired of seeing it plastered all over the first page of this one.

It'll just comeback here. Calm down and watch the implosion, friend. 

[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 .

[Billy-the-Squid]

Derail deliberately? No. Poking fun of some of the ridiculous circular conversations, that are repeated over and over again because they're so inane? Definately.

It's a mentality of "stop not liking what I like" Romance threads, along with Mage and Templar polarisation threads; it's where reason and sanity goes to die.

It's unfortunate that it bumps it to the top of the page, but if the thread can't survive a little ribbing and posters get their knickers in a twist over any differing view, 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.

Modifié par Tequila Cat, 01 octobre 2013 - 11:20 .

[AlexanderCousland]

Tequila Cat wrote...
It's a mentality of "stop not liking what I like" Romance threads, along with Mage and Templar polarisation threads; it's where reason and sanity goes to die.

Ah yes,  The BSN the place where you get equality,freedom, and banned for having the "wrong" opinion. 

[Angrywolves]

I think I see a scared gordon.
One way to deal with multiple threads on the same topic is thread consolidation , which I discuss in JMs off topic thread.
Like I said interviewers from the online gaming sites keep asking about the romances.
Maybe if they stopped.....
Supposedly we aren't suppose to get the details about the romances until sometime in February.
Wonder if still true.
Of course Schumacher could tell us.
rotfl.

[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.

[sandalisthemaker]

While I am a fan of the DA2 "playersexual" approach, and would like to see it happen again in DA:I, I have recently developed a gut feeling that the LI's are going to have set sexualities again.

It has been said that if they do go back to this, the options per sexuality/gender would be equal in number (as opposed to the unequal DAO), and so long as this is the case, I'd be okay with it.

Still, the DA2 method is preferrable.

Modifié par sandalisthemaker, 01 octobre 2013 - 11:40 .

[Hellion Rex]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Thank you for being a voice of reason.

[ParkBom]

eluvianix wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Thank you for being a voice of reason.

[Hellion Rex]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

While I am a fan of the DA2 "playersexual" approach, and would like to see it happen again in DA:I, I have recently developed a gut feeling that the LI's are going to have set sexualities again.

It has been said that if they do go back to this, the options per sexuality/gender would be equal in number (as opposed to the unequal DAO), and so long as this is the case, I'd be okay with it.

Still, the DA2 method is preferrable.

I agree. I personally prefer the playersexual approach as well. But if we go the set sexualities route, as long as everyone can have a more equal number of LI options, then I will be more than happy with that.

[Thrillian]

Tequila Cat wrote...

Derail deliberately? No. Poking fun of some of the ridiculous circular conversations, that are repeated over and over again because they're so inane? Definately.

It's a mentality of "stop not liking what I like" Romance threads, along with Mage and Templar polarisation threads; it's where reason and sanity goes to die.

It's unfortunate that it bumps it to the top of the page, but if the thread can't survive a little ribbing and posters get their knickers in a twist over any differing view, 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.

Really?  How does that even make sense?  Also, you coming into threads that you dislike just to try to stop the discussion is basically saying "stop liking what I dislike."  If you don't like what a thread is about, don't enter it.  I've gone into many threads that disolve into a mage vs. templar war, or Dalish vs. Human, but I don't make snide remarks about wanting to derail the thread.  If people like debating the same thing over and over and making the same arguments over and over, all the power to them... who am I to decide what other people discuss?  If I don't like the discussion, I stay out of it, not difficult.

[Billy-the-Squid]

I don't get annoyed at the existence of the thread. I get annoyed at the same tired arguments and disagreements being regurgitated ad nauseum in different threads over, and over by the same posters, with the same issues and the same intransigent, obstinate, obtuse behaviour with a willful desire to disregard anything which doesn't mesh with their view or simply reinforce it. And they bring it in to another thread which had nothing to do with it, but was on the same broad topic, at that point the thread is already on borrowed time and nothing productive will come of it.

Oh and the joke is not meant to be funny for those who actually are the regular posters in those threads and will absolutely go off on a rant if you criticise their beloved romance, faction, race, nugs, whatever. It's designed specifically to mock them because they've managed to work themselves up to such a degree that criticism is considered a direct affront to them.

Or haven't you noticed the ones who complain the most are the most fanatical and die hard fans who are out of all proportion invested in the romance, race etc. positions? Is it so many, or is it that you have a significant number which circle around those kind of threads specifically.

Notice, that similar joking around and silliness goes on in other threads, and nothing really happens. What does it say about that group who take affront to particular topics and seem obsessed with projecting their own issues into those topics?

[Angrywolves]

Liquor store.
Guffaw.
From clerk at a liquor store to Bioware QA.
Most of us would luv to have that job.
Getting back to the romance, dividing the BSN into separate sections .
Like romances ?
You have to join the romance section.
Otherwise you don't see the thread.
Anyone who joined just to trash romances, or whatever else that specialty section was about , would get perm banned.
Maybe a suggestion for JM.

[Thrillian]

Tequila Cat wrote...

I don't get annoyed at the existence of the thread. I get annoyed at the same tired arguments and disagreements being regurgitated ad nauseum in different threads over, and over by the same posters, with the same issues and the same intransigent, obstinate, obtuse behaviour with a willful desire to disregard anything which doesn't mesh with their view or simply reinforce it. And they bring it in to another thread which had nothing to do with it, but was on the same broad topic, at that point the thread is already on borrowed time and nothing productive will come of it.

Oh and the joke is not meant to be funny for those who actually are the regular posters in those threads and will absolutely go off on a rant if you criticise their beloved romance, faction, race, nugs, whatever. It's designed specifically to mock them because they've managed to work themselves up to such a degree that criticism is considered a direct affront to them.

Or haven't you noticed the ones who complain the most are the most fanatical and die hard fans who are out of all proportion invested in the romance, race etc. positions? Is it so many, or is it that you have a significant number which circle around those kind of threads specifically.

Notice, that similar joking around and silliness goes on in other threads, and nothing really happens. What does it say about that group who take affront to particular topics and seem obsessed with projecting their own issues into those topics?

This is laugh worthy, pot meet kettle.

[Billy-the-Squid]

Thrillho_82 wrote...

Tequila Cat wrote...

Derail deliberately? No. Poking fun of some of the ridiculous circular conversations, that are repeated over and over again because they're so inane? Definately.

It's a mentality of "stop not liking what I like" Romance threads, along with Mage and Templar polarisation threads; it's where reason and sanity goes to die.

It's unfortunate that it bumps it to the top of the page, but if the thread can't survive a little ribbing and posters get their knickers in a twist over any differing view, 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.

Really?  How does that even make sense?  Also, you coming into threads that you dislike just to try to stop the discussion is basically saying "stop liking what I dislike."  If you don't like what a thread is about, don't enter it.  I've gone into many threads that disolve into a mage vs. templar war, or Dalish vs. Human, but I don't make snide remarks about wanting to derail the thread.  If people like debating the same thing over and over and making the same arguments over and over, all the power to them... who am I to decide what other people discuss?  If I don't like the discussion, I stay out of it, not difficult.

Yeah,  because threads which are on a topic of Templars, Mages, Romance etc and have nothing to do with the same tired points don't get derailed into the same point which makes you want to smash your head against a brick wall. 

I'm so glad that never happens round here, imagine if almost every thread on one topic became the same ridiculous argument, that'd be really tiring wouldn't it, when the bulk of the threads derail like that. 

Modifié par Tequila Cat, 02 octobre 2013 - 12:07 .

[Billy-the-Squid]

Thrillho_82 wrote...

Tequila Cat wrote...

I don't get annoyed at the existence of the thread. I get annoyed at the same tired arguments and disagreements being regurgitated ad nauseum in different threads over, and over by the same posters, with the same issues and the same intransigent, obstinate, obtuse behaviour with a willful desire to disregard anything which doesn't mesh with their view or simply reinforce it. And they bring it in to another thread which had nothing to do with it, but was on the same broad topic, at that point the thread is already on borrowed time and nothing productive will come of it.

Oh and the joke is not meant to be funny for those who actually are the regular posters in those threads and will absolutely go off on a rant if you criticise their beloved romance, faction, race, nugs, whatever. It's designed specifically to mock them because they've managed to work themselves up to such a degree that criticism is considered a direct affront to them.

Or haven't you noticed the ones who complain the most are the most fanatical and die hard fans who are out of all proportion invested in the romance, race etc. positions? Is it so many, or is it that you have a significant number which circle around those kind of threads specifically.

Notice, that similar joking around and silliness goes on in other threads, and nothing really happens. What does it say about that group who take affront to particular topics and seem obsessed with projecting their own issues into those topics?

This is laugh worthy, pot meet kettle.

Awww did I hurt your feels by criticising what you like? Let me get a wambulance for you.

[Blackrising]

eluvianix wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

While I am a fan of the DA2 "playersexual" approach, and would like to see it happen again in DA:I, I have recently developed a gut feeling that the LI's are going to have set sexualities again.

It has been said that if they do go back to this, the options per sexuality/gender would be equal in number (as opposed to the unequal DAO), and so long as this is the case, I'd be okay with it.

Still, the DA2 method is preferrable.

I agree. I personally prefer the playersexual approach as well. But if we go the set sexualities route, as long as everyone can have a more equal number of LI options, then I will be more than happy with that.

I probably wouldn't be completely happy with it, but content enough.
Wanting playersexuality to return has nothing to do with equal representation for me (if I were out for equal representation, I'd advertise the 2x2x2 approach). It's all about the fun. Not getting the LI I want for my character will make the game less fun and ultimately unsatisfying for me. Therefore, I prefer playersexuality.
The 2x2x2 approach would be in second place. (I'd be disappointed and, to be frank, kinda pissed off that a lot of the people who were beyond rude in demanding set sexualities got their way in the end, thus endorsing their behaviour. Strictly game-wise, however, I could learn to live with it.) *
The way Origins and Mass Effect did it should be completely out of the question in my opinion. If you want to include romance and give the player a choice, make sure they actually get one, regardless of what sexuality their main character has. I'd rather they remove romance completely than once again having to feel punished for wanting to play a gay hero.

*Note that I am only talking about those who stated their opinion in a rude and/or offending manner. Other people have presented their preference for set sexualities in a clear and polite manner, which is absolutely fine.

[Thrillian]

Tequila Cat wrote...

Thrillho_82 wrote...

Tequila Cat wrote...

I don't get annoyed at the existence of the thread. I get annoyed at the same tired arguments and disagreements being regurgitated ad nauseum in different threads over, and over by the same posters, with the same issues and the same intransigent, obstinate, obtuse behaviour with a willful desire to disregard anything which doesn't mesh with their view or simply reinforce it. And they bring it in to another thread which had nothing to do with it, but was on the same broad topic, at that point the thread is already on borrowed time and nothing productive will come of it.

Oh and the joke is not meant to be funny for those who actually are the regular posters in those threads and will absolutely go off on a rant if you criticise their beloved romance, faction, race, nugs, whatever. It's designed specifically to mock them because they've managed to work themselves up to such a degree that criticism is considered a direct affront to them.

Or haven't you noticed the ones who complain the most are the most fanatical and die hard fans who are out of all proportion invested in the romance, race etc. positions? Is it so many, or is it that you have a significant number which circle around those kind of threads specifically.

Notice, that similar joking around and silliness goes on in other threads, and nothing really happens. What does it say about that group who take affront to particular topics and seem obsessed with projecting their own issues into those topics?

This is laugh worthy, pot meet kettle.

Awww did I hurt your feels by criticising what you like? Let me get a wambulance for you.

Uh, no?   I don't have any particular investment in the romance aspect of the game,  I just don't mind that other people do.  It's really quite simple, I am able to accept the fact that other people have a different opinion than me.  Also, I really dislike bullies, and someone who enters a thread with the intent to belittle and make fun of those that enjoy the subject is a bully.

[Heidenreich]

Offtopic: I love you Allen.

On topic:

The only romance block I want to see, is for Varric. And not because of any other reason then Character consistency. IF they make him a LI at all, I would really like him not to romance a Human Inquisitor. His "Human's just don't do it for me" Is awesome, and I whole heartedly believe that, again IF they make him a LI at all, he wouldn't be into Humans (Or Qunari, but that's debatable.)

As for anything else, I would hate for there to be gender OR race limitations. I'd rather their LI status be tied to choices we make then by what's in our characters pants or what size pants they have to wear.

What I WOULD like to see, is a Templar LI having issues romancing a Magequisitor. Or a Lawful Good type having issues romancing a Jerkquisitor. Our choices, or backrounds having more weight for some characters, not entering into a romance lightly with someone who they disagree with.

Player-sexual is GOOD. More weight behind the characters and their reactions to player choices or having a difficult time with "morals" when it comes to entering INTO a romance with the inquisitor is even better.

[Billy-the-Squid]

Thrillho_82 wrote...

Tequila Cat wrote...

Thrillho_82 wrote...

Tequila Cat wrote...

I don't get annoyed at the existence of the thread. I get annoyed at the same tired arguments and disagreements being regurgitated ad nauseum in different threads over, and over by the same posters, with the same issues and the same intransigent, obstinate, obtuse behaviour with a willful desire to disregard anything which doesn't mesh with their view or simply reinforce it. And they bring it in to another thread which had nothing to do with it, but was on the same broad topic, at that point the thread is already on borrowed time and nothing productive will come of it.

Oh and the joke is not meant to be funny for those who actually are the regular posters in those threads and will absolutely go off on a rant if you criticise their beloved romance, faction, race, nugs, whatever. It's designed specifically to mock them because they've managed to work themselves up to such a degree that criticism is considered a direct affront to them.

Or haven't you noticed the ones who complain the most are the most fanatical and die hard fans who are out of all proportion invested in the romance, race etc. positions? Is it so many, or is it that you have a significant number which circle around those kind of threads specifically.

Notice, that similar joking around and silliness goes on in other threads, and nothing really happens. What does it say about that group who take affront to particular topics and seem obsessed with projecting their own issues into those topics?

This is laugh worthy, pot meet kettle.

Awww did I hurt your feels by criticising what you like? Let me get a wambulance for you.

Uh, no?   I don't have any particular investment in the romance aspect of the game,  I just don't mind that other people do.  It's really quite simple, I am able to accept the fact that other people have a different opinion than me.  Also, I really dislike bullies, and someone who enters a thread with the intent to belittle and make fun of those that enjoy the subject is a bully.

Oh Lordy, Lordy I'll never sin again! 

You've done exactly what I said always happens. Critisism leads to someone taking affront, which leads to the derailment. Thank you for making my point for me.

Opinions are not sacrosanct, if you don't like the criticism fine, don't let the door hit you on the way out. My reply was to Allan, I disagree with how he looks at it, and if you handn't taken affront to what I said. This would have ended on the previous page as we got bored an wandered off.

You started things off again, and here we are.