17 réponses à ce sujet

[Chaos Hammer]

Am I the only one who doesn't understand Bioware's new "romance's are annoying and suckish" stance? There are a few interviews where Gaider says something to effect of "We don't want to put that much effort into something that is ultimately optional."

This is an RPG isn't the majority of the game "optional"? And being a Bioware RPG isn't it about choice? I'm not saying romances are absolutely needed, or that it makes or breaks the game.... just seems like an odd choice considering they made sex into one of the bigger decisions in the game (DR and OGB).

Again, this is not so much about the merit, or lack there of, of romances. Just the oddity of Bioware's decisions.

Modifié par Chaos Hammer, 03 octobre 2013 - 11:20 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I'm currently reading this thread (just hit the second page), but if your sole contribution was to counter with snark at someone for starting a thread, I may not be the happiest dev in the world.

Note, at this point in the project there isn't a whole heck of a lot to talk about. Some light general plot points, some snippets of gameplay, and some speculation about companions. Romances are an easy enough topic and for some it's what they really like about our games, and that's fine too.

Now you could say that we should release information, but that is our fault, not someone that starts this thread. If the thread topic bothers you, please feel free to skip it.


In the mean time, I'm going to lock this thread. Once I am done cleaning it up, I'll reopen it. If you've posted snark and have been generally ****y to each other, this is your opportunity to make sure I don't see it.

[Allan Schumacher]

Unlocking thread to allow people to edit (thanks filament).... I am now on page 3.... >.>

[Allan Schumacher]

Death threats are harassment, obviously, but not every romance enthusiast make death threats. In fact, I don't think I've seen any romance enthusiast make any threats ever. Can you show me a thread that says "Tell me what Tali's sweat tastes like or I'll come to your place of work and murder you"?

NOTE: I am speaking on my behalf here:

Not every romance enthusiast is going to frustrate me as well. But I'm human, and to be a part of something that has a lot of aspects to it, if a part of it that I don't care as much for (note: I don't hate romances, and I think that for a lot of people they are very important to them) as other aspects, if it was really overrepresented in what people talked to me about, it would still get frustrating. Especially if there are other things that I want to talk about.

Yes, I probably *shouldn't* let myself get frustrated, but it's important to remember that I am still human, I will make mistakes. I will have pissy days where I crashed my car and the work I did was a waste of time because it got cut and I'll just be like RAWR.

For SOME of the topics, such as the necessity of nudity, I get frustrated because I can find a fundamental disconnect between whether or not that is necessity (nevermind the professional considerations about whether or not it's the best place to have our Cindesigners and modelers spend their time).


Do you ever find that there are perspectives on this board that come up so frequently that they tend to grate on you? Even if what the other person is saying isn't really inherently wrong?

Now, it's pretty fair to suggest that I probably should be held to a higher standard than you, since it comes with my job. Although, contrary to popular belief, I haven't really been given any formal "interacting with fans" training. I trial by fire and hooooo boy have I been burned by not properly appreciating a particular perspective. So yeah, sometimes I'll make mistakes. I have been pretty harsh to some that in retrospect may not have deserved it because I read something the wrong way and felt offended. I try to do better, and I try to not let the more obvious low hanging fruit potshots get to me.


What I find most frustrating about this topic (and some other topics as well), is that it solicits a lot of fighting. I find a lot of it, on both sides, to be VERY hostile. I have to play moderator a lot, and I hate playing moderator. There's very little "Well, I disagree with your perspective" and leaving it at that. It escalates like mad. On the one hand, it's a reflection of the passion levels of the fandom, which is a very good thing (yay people like our stuff this much). On the other hand, both sides get VERY hostile and I don't feel comfortable letting either side straight up say hurtful and sometimes even threatening things to each other.


Having said that, I have zero problems with this thread (and will eventually answer the OP the best I can). I can fully recognize "This is content that some people like." I loved the Jaheira romance in BG2 and it was a big part of the game which made me go "HOLY CRAP I LOVE THESE GAMES." The other romances didn't really hit me as much, but I know what it's like to go "That was well done."

But if the topic becomes a lot of people taking each other's bait and engaging in hostility, it's unpleasant for me.

[Allan Schumacher]

Miscellaneous Mind wrote...

Chari wrote...

Romances with companions are one of the things that do make Bioware's games unique. No other wRPg company makes romances like them. I can tell for sure, based on players I know, that without romances lots of fans wouldn't give a flying damn about Bioware

Which is a sad statement.

I don't think that this is a fair statement.  If people can enjoy something because it offers content to them, then more power to them.  I think a lot of people like our games because they enjoy our stories.  Some like them because they like the combats, or they like the exploration of a new setting, or what have you.

Some people will have varying amounts of interest in each of these, and if someone is all "I love this game because of the characters and the romance arcs" then more power to them.  Hopefully they got value out of the game and ultimately enjoyed themselves.


I feel this is an appropriate place to link this comic:
http://www.viruscomix.com/page500.html

[Allan Schumacher]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

No David's right on this one, having the protagonist be the ubergod who can do anything and have characters break their own character for them and their magic fixing junk is a bad idea.

To be fair, the author of that example did admit that the example was a poor one (probably due to it being hastily written, I assume).

I don't think that there's anything fundamentally wrong with romances affecting things.  I'm actually a fan of mutual exclusion, though perhaps there are better ways to do so.

[Allan Schumacher]

Well i'd think the protagonist cna have an effect on those who follow him. Not anything radically changing, no turning Isabela into a good Chantry-going girl (outside of RP)

I think this is an interesting point. I'm not a fan of the player having huge impacts on how the other characters behave, because I think it takes away from the NPCs. I like that we have interesting characters, and I'd probably rate characters as the thing I love most about BioWare games, and why I gravitated towards the studio (on top of living in Edmonton already >.>).

Having said that, well written points of challenge are VERY interesting to me, whether they happen to other characters or to mine (probably why I like Isabella so much). If it leads to interesting choices and decisions and I like being challenged, and seeing how others are challenged. I feel I can get a real sense of their character.

[Allan Schumacher]

Chaos Hammer wrote...

Am I the only one who doesn't understand Bioware's new "romance's are annoying and suckish" stance? There are a few interviews where Gaider says something to effect of "We don't want to put that much effort into something that is ultimately optional."

This is an RPG isn't the majority of the game "optional"? And being a Bioware RPG isn't it about choice? I'm not saying romances are absolutely needed, or that it makes or breaks the game.... just seems like an odd choice considering they made sex into one of the bigger decisions in the game (DR and OGB).

So I briefly touched on some parts of this, and I did say I'd respond so here goes! :happy:

In many ways, a lot of the game IS optional.  I don't know if I could say if the "majority" of the game is or not.  DAO requires you to do quite a bit as part of the crit path, and if DA2 requires you to get money to proceed, how much of the "optional" content is optional?  (waxing philosophical)

Having said that, because a lot of the game is optional, it means that there's a division on where to spend all of our time.  Romances have dependencies on writing (and VO, which is related), Cinematic Design/Animation.  By spending more time on romances, means that we'd have to spend less time on other things.  Sometimes the dependencies are not super easy to realize either.

For example, we want to do more interesting crafting, and if aspects of that involve creating new animations for some weapons, or writing descriptions in some way, that comes with an opportunity cost.  So it's trying to find the right balance that allows those features to be interesting.  Those that love both are probably happy regardless, but those that love only one or the other will not see as much gain in something else.


As for Gaider's snark, I suspect on some level the topic comes up disproportionately.  There's probably also some level of spillover, because while someone may love Romances, I know (SPEAKING FOR MYSELF TIME HERE) it can feel disconcerting when I get the impression (whether it's there or just in my head) that someone will, for example, see Frostbite's Morrigan and conclude "If she looked like that in DAO I wouldn't have romanced her."

Again, elaborating on this being a perspective for myself, the disconcertion comes from my own personal disconnect.  I don't feel romances are necessary although given I like the characters in our games, I'd probably say that I like them well enough.  I know that people will take the announcement of party members and immediately start speculating, which in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing.  But I do see a lot of "Can't be a romance, not hot enough" type of things which makes me feel.... "confused" (for complete lack of a better term... sorry).

Now, my reaction isn't entirely fair.  I definitely feel this way more now that I work at BioWare, and it's because I know a LOT more about the characters than you guys do, and I definitely have my favourites (favourites both in terms of physical attractiveness, as well as character).  So it's kind of a bummer to see a character that I like, think is interesting, and is also attractive, get dismissed as simply being ugly and not worth romancing.  And I'm not actually the writer of said character!

Like I said though, this isn't really the fairest thing for me.  It's more a reflection of me being human and having those faults.  It can be a challenge, and sometimes fingers start typing and while that's not good, the judgment of "don't hit submit" may not come in time.  I have definitely written up some responses and I was just like "I am a bit angry... I should cool off" and I deleted them.  But sometimes that filter doesn't function properly.


Hopefully that helps a bit, even if it's my perspective and not David's (I can't speak for him, obviously).  BioWare continues to write romances, and on some level that gives the implication that we don't really hate it.  I know I don't, and in fact literally read up on them earlier this week durin a lunch.


Cheers.

Allan

[Allan Schumacher]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Why? Because other than the ME3 ending, the romances have caused Bioware the most trouble and negative press, that's why.

The concerns over Fox News' influence over our decision making is overstated.

[Allan Schumacher]

[Allan Schumacher]

General Slotts wrote...

spirosz wrote...

There was no hostility from us Jack fans.  

Ironically. 

We be hella chill for the most part. 

The monocle helps.


As a general comment, I think it's important to remember that for every "I don't understand how person X feels this way," there's a counterpoint of "That may not be the other person's fault."


You may find it weird that someone is expressive towards the emotional attachment they have had in a character (I know I often am surprised), but it can be hasty to conclude (something that I am that it must be some sort of disorder without knowing the person in general.  Especially on the internet where people can take on personas, and they may just find it fun to overanalyze certain things because of their own reasons.  And that is okay.

Likewise, you may find it surprising that someone is surprised by the level of detail you put into your own emotional attachments, and may even be hasty to conclude things about those people because on the surface they share an outward trait of others who may more holistically bother you.



Never mind incidents of a troll that is great at passing Poe's Law!


So someone has expressed a great level of detail in an emotional attachment in a character.  Can you understand a perspective where someone doing that is still well adjusted in reality?  If not, how much of that lack of understanding is internal rather than external?  Counterperspective: so someone feels that the level of detail that some romance fans post in their threads makes them uncomfortable.  Are you able to understand why they may have that perspective and how it may mean that a harsh judgment is not applicable?  If not, how much of that lack of understanding is internal rather than external?


You can disagree with each other because we all are human and have our perceptions and ethical compasses and so forth.  I just ask that you remain civil and if you find yourself locked in a heated discussion with someone that holds a counter position to yours as adamantly as you old your own, to disengage and acknowledge that you don't see things the same way on that particular topic.

It's when it starts to turn into "arguing to win" internet argumenting that I don the robe and moderator hat, which is when I get frustrated (and when I'm frustrated, I am also more prone to making mistakes and my filter breaks down).

[Allan Schumacher]

Sylvianus wrote...

greengoron89 wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Nothing wrong with fanfiction and fanart.

You just keep telling yourself that, and we'll keep on laughing.

And I'll keep laughing at you too. You seem ridiculous since several pages with your hyperboles, playing the "serious gamers. "

This type of exchange is not productive.  You can both be laughing at each other, while I don the robe and moderator hat, if you prefer...

Well, that's all for the best, because arguments about relationships and emotions can very easily blow up faster and harder than ones about politics, and most especially more personally. Keeping threads of that nature for supporters alone, or at least polite skeptics (which I've been on more than one thread without getting hounds after me) is just good sense.

It does bias the sample, however.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 04 octobre 2013 - 05:14 .

[Allan Schumacher]

You have a different definiton of what a causal gamer is. Doesn't really change my point in the slightest. If they finished DA, they weren't casual about it, even if they are usually more causal about gaming in general.

Then this is turning into a semantics argument, and I think that that does undermine your point somewhat because, as you point out, evidently you are using different definitions of casual.

Now that that's been established, however, we can choose to come to an understanding and disengage from a more adversarial perspective.

[Allan Schumacher]

Going against what the mod said to do, heavy risk, but the prize...

Hehe. Well your restraint is appreciated. Though call me "dev"


As for the percentage (I actually don't know them), Chris' language was pretty ambiguous. It's "relatively small?" Relative to what? The only real assessment I can make is that it's probably a "minority" but a minority could still be a million people.

[David Gaider]

Chaos Hammer wrote...
Am I the only one who doesn't understand Bioware's new "romance's are annoying and suckish" stance? There are a few interviews where Gaider says something to effect of "We don't want to put that much effort into something that is ultimately optional."

This is an RPG isn't the majority of the game "optional"? And being a Bioware RPG isn't it about choice? I'm not saying romances are absolutely needed, or that it makes or breaks the game.... just seems like an odd choice considering they made sex into one of the bigger decisions in the game (DR and OGB).

Again, this is not so much about the merit, or lack there of, of romances. Just the oddity of Bioware's decisions.

If you're interpreting my statements as my thinking "romances are annoying and suckish", you probably need to read what I said again and parse the statements a little more carefully.

As for how much effort we're putting into romances, you'll have to see that for yourselves once we actually talk about what we're doing for romances in DAI. If the idea is "we're not putting much effort into it", I'd say once again that it's a poor interpretation of whatever I said. It's not true. Romances are optional, so the amount of effort is small only in comparison to the rest of the game-- and that contrasts only to the amount of attention that content receives from invested fans (both those rabidly in favor as well as those rabidly opposed).

There are people who like romances, and for whom they're the most important element in our game. There are also people who don't use the romance content at all. We know this. The fact that these fans like to take pot-shots at each other is irrelevant to us-- the romance content is not going anywhere and we will keep working to improve it even if it's not the dominant feature in the game... despite how annoying both those groups can sometimes be about it. That is our stance.

Modifié par David Gaider, 04 octobre 2013 - 07:01 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Br3ad wrote...

As for the percentage (I actually don't know them), Chris' language was pretty ambiguous. It's "relatively small?" Relative to what? The only real assessment I can make is that it's probably a "minority" but a minority could still be a million people.

Hmmm, maybe,but that's kind of large, though in no way unbelievable, just in the way that he worded it.

I could certainly understand that.  The challenge here is deciphering how much Chris' mindset views the phrase compared to us.


I think at this point, a million people for DAO is probably somewhere between 20% - 25%.  It's a tricky thing because our brain won't ignore the absolute numbers.

If 1 person out of 4 didn't like something, I think it's easier to say "a relatively small amount" didn't like something.  1 million out of 4 million though, and we start to get influenced by the larger numbers, I think.

[David Gaider]

Right. Enough of this.

The games are designed to be perfectly playable, and the story still completely relevant, even if you don't indulge in the romances.

For those who do, that story now encompasses the romances. They are the same thing.

Romances do not dominate BioWare's outlook no matter how many posts get made, even if they dominate the thoughts of some of the fans. Any post that states a liking for romance does not have to be swatted down lest us feeble developers suddenly become convinced to make the entire game revolve around romance.

And if, in your opinion, it already does-- an optional part of the game you don't have to use-- then you probably shouldn't play, as the amount of content is proportionally no greater than before.

Any more of the accusations, insults, or other such nonsense will earn people bans next time. I suggest people avoid such topics if they really don't like them, rather than get sucked into arguments, or leave the forums.

[Allan Schumacher]

EDIT: I didn't realize David closed the topic. I figure I'll keep this here in general because I (arrogantly ) think it's some good food for thought, but yeah, I agree with David's assessment that insults just don't help.

This is just disturbing, Xil. The fact that you indulge disturbs me.

I don't think this is entirely fair.

One thing I like about video games (especially RPGs) is that I can explore decisions that maybe I'd be less inclined to do in real life.

On some level, I can understand your trepidation (I'm not entirely comfortable with doing some things that I, personally, have strong reservations for... I also don't think I'd be the best candidate for creating that content), but looking at it at its most basic, I kill a lot more people in video game land than in real life.

Though I think rationalizations and justifications can exist for stuff like that. Taking ME3, for example, I totally punch that Quarian in the kidneys for trying to blow me up.... put Allan Schumacher in that exact situation and I'm probably not quite so forth coming. Even going further, it can be interesting (even just on a period of self-reflection) to play an evil character. I find it fascinating when I can still conclude "What I did was a pretty dastardly thing to do!!"

Now granted, on some level you can argue I'm probably not genuinely playing an evil character. After all, Allan Schumacher (who is generally a "good guy" >.> Right? right?....) is simply playing what he thinks would be appropriately evil, and probably isn't truly feeling what an evil person would feel doing those choices. But it's still interesting.


It gets tricky though with increasingly taboo subjects. Things like gay relationships are becoming increasingly accepted. As a result, our own comfort level in enabling those sort of things increases, and that's mostly a reflection of our own perspectives and how those perspectives aren't static, and how they're influenced by society around us. Taking something more extreme, you'll find innate resistance simply within the studio because some of those walls are still going to be up. Maybe some of those walls should remain up, although maybe some of the perceptions we have aren't entirely fair. But things like the inclusion of homosexual relationships is as much a reflection of the studio going "You know, we're much more open to this sort of stuff as a group." Some of this because new people come in, and some of it because we grow and evolve as human beings.


Though, as a counter point (since I tried to point this out earlier):

it seems like the problem is on your end.

People are very quick to assume the problem is on the end of the other person. To be frank, the conclusion I came to reading this is that you're being just as indicting towards EntropicAngel as he is being towards other people.

In this sense, I think it's a situation of both parties being different human beings who have different concerns about different things and the influence that it has.


More generally, it's also important to remember that because a person identifies with a part of a group, when someone makes a comment about a trait of that group, an anecdote of "I do not display that trait" can also mean "then the original complaint doesn't apply to you" and not necessarily "therefore the original complaint is invalid since I am a counterexample." I can see this all the time where someone will lambast someone for an extreme take on a position, and a more moderate on that position will feel as though the critique is against the position, rather than the extreme take.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 04 octobre 2013 - 09:20 .