543 réponses à ce sujet

[Sherbet Lemon]

Kallimachus wrote...

Village Idiot wrote...

Kallimachus wrote...

As a final note, I would add that I never understood the distinction some people make between "romance" and "story". In the context of fiction (including video games) romance IS a story. A story that is an integral part of the plot in any form of narrative art, for as long as there has been art (be it literature, poetry, painting, music, theatre or cinema), except, for some reason, video games. And because video games are such an exception, all that remains to say is - if you do not like romance stories, make use of the fact that in this one and only narrative art form, romance is optional, and skip it. Stop hating on those who like those stories.

Well--you see it's all about genre.  I know this is going engender some sort of snarky response, but romance on its own as a whole is typically devalued when it comes to fiction.  This is also true for scifi/fantasy although the magical realists get acclaim while dodging the unholy mantle of genre, but as far as fiction works things these categories are considered genre are not considered important writing.  Neil Gaiman while acclaimed and worthy of not will never receive the esteem that Phillip Roth has achieved.  There is a reason for that and that is the Academy.  The science fiction/fantasy genre divide doesn't quite follow into video game (because they are not books) but also because there are people who deny that they are still forms of art.  When it comes to romance, I'm going to say that has always been devalued.  It's considered Women's "stuff."  When you isolate the concept of romance writing from the source, you will see its place in modern society as that of being deemed "gendered" storytelling.  It's the rule that "masculinity" as a concept is deserving of serious treatment and all other "woman's stuff" is not worthy of serious treatment. 

That is not what I was referring to. I was not talking about romance literature. I was talking about romance IN literature. Philip Roth, while not writing romance novels, has romance in his novels. Jane Austen, the Bronte sisters,  Shakespeare, and Cervantes have all written masterpieces centred around romance (or at least prominently featuring romance) no academic would dare scoff at.

I disagree. Plenty of academics scoff at Jane Austen and the Bronte Sisters in way that Cervantes and Shakespeare are not.  While yes, Roth's novels do contain romance and many other "well-received" novels do have romance in them, I'm still going to say that the long view of how romance in literature is seen reflects a very gendered divide. These authors are given serious treatment in spite of the romantic content.   I'm not saying Harlequin romance novels or paranormal YA romance are worthy of study on par with the discussion of great authors, but I am saying that the derision that accompanies those works represent a gendered divide.  I would also argue that yes, Tristan and Isolde is about romance, but the focus of the poem when is taught is on language and for good reason.    But that is off-topic and I don't want to argue.  In essence, I was agreeing with you.

On topic:  I really enjoy Bioware's romances and I look forward to finding out what happens in them when DA:I comes out.

[schalafi]

I've been playing Bioware games for years...the first one was MDK2, and I've played every one since then. I like romance in the games, but not to the point where it becomes more important than the story as a whole. There's a place for battle, a place for making friends with npcs, and a place for romance. Leaving out one is, IMO, like leaving out a chapter of a book.

I hope Bioware keeps all the elements of their games, and continues to do them as well as they always do.

[leaguer of one]

The Six Path of Pain wrote...

zMataxa wrote...

The Six Path of Pain wrote...

Oh, forget the romances! Bioware needs to focus on more important stuff. Like the gameplay and the story.

______________

That's the point we romancers are making.
The gameplay and story is richer because of the chemistry because of the romances.
There is a incredibly pasionate group that absolutely loves this.
THere is NO ONE that has done it like Bioware.
And no dating sims don't count.  They don't inlcude action, fanstay, conlfict, blood, elves etc.

Meh, you don't need romances to have a rich story or even make a story richer. Especially in a game where it is optional. I'm not saying that romances suck, in fact I Ioved the Morrigan romance in Origins. I'm just saying that at this point, and considering the quality of games that Bioware has put out recently, they should just focus on making a game with fun gameplay and a good story.

Let's stop right here before the mud slinging comes around. The romance even on it's planning stage takes nothing from the quality of the plot.

[leaguer of one]

schalafi wrote...

I've been playing Bioware games for years...the first one was MDK2, and I've played every one since then. I like romance in the games, but not to the point where it becomes more important than the story as a whole. There's a place for battle, a place for making friends with npcs, and a place for romance. Leaving out one is, IMO, like leaving out a chapter of a book.

I hope Bioware keeps all the elements of their games, and continues to do them as well as they always do.

When has it even been more important that the story? This is not final fatasy 8.

[zMataxa]

The Six Path of Pain wrote...

zMataxa wrote...

The Six Path of Pain wrote...

Oh, forget the romances! Bioware needs to focus on more important stuff. Like the gameplay and the story.

______________

That's the point we romancers are making.
The gameplay and story is richer because of the chemistry because of the romances.
There is a incredibly pasionate group that absolutely loves this.
THere is NO ONE that has done it like Bioware.
And no dating sims don't count.  They don't inlcude action, fanstay, conlfict, blood, elves etc.

Meh, you don't need romances to have a rich story or even make a story richer. Especially in a game where it is optional. I'm not saying that romances suck, in fact I Ioved the Morrigan romance in Origins. I'm just saying that at this point, and considering the quality of games that Bioware has put out recently, they should just focus on making a game with fun gameplay and a good story.

_______________

Glad to hear you don't need it to make a story richer.
It'll make it easier for you to enjoy more games.

For me, it simply adds a huge new layer of flavors that I enjoy.
That's why romancers defend the idea of preserving romances in the D&D type setting.
No other studio does it to this extent - not even close.
To me Bioware is a leader in immersive "educational" enteratinment.

Modifié par zMataxa, 04 octobre 2013 - 07:45 .

[zMataxa]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Luckily, interactive fiction allows many actions to be restricted to nonphysical realms.

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

__________________

I think you don't get/understand or appreciate certain innovator type mindsets.
They are very different from system adherents mindsets.
One of the underlying reasons for individual mages vs templars/chantry vs circle.

Modifié par zMataxa, 04 octobre 2013 - 07:54 .

[Xilizhra]

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

The fact that you pay homage to a celestial tyrant who'd imprison me and my loved ones in eternal torment if he existed would disturb me if I thought about it for too long, but I try not to do so. I might recommend you do the same.

It's not a slippery slope at all. The action is evaluated based on the action primarily, then on context secondarily. The action is unhealthy, thus whatever thought spawned it was unhealthy.

The action being... an Internet forum post. Ooh, scary.

[schalafi]

leaguer of one wrote...

schalafi wrote...

I've been playing Bioware games for years...the first one was MDK2, and I've played every one since then. I like romance in the games, but not to the point where it becomes more important than the story as a whole. There's a place for battle, a place for making friends with npcs, and a place for romance. Leaving out one is, IMO, like leaving out a chapter of a book.

I hope Bioware keeps all the elements of their games, and continues to do them as well as they always do.

When has it even been more important that the story? This is not final fatasy 8.

I consider romances *are* part of the story.

[zMataxa]

Filament wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

It's not a slippery slope at all. The action is evaluated based on the action primarily, then on context secondarily. The action is unhealthy, thus whatever thought spawned it was unhealthy.

And if it happens often, one can extrapolate that the individual is unhealthy.

It is a slippery slope, and pretty damn patronizing too. No one asked for your opinion about their mental health.

_______________

You're evaluating from your value system.  Evaluation assumes "Black and white universal truths" and a correct judgement.
Try it in a muslim country and they'll likely say you're wrong about many things.

Modifié par zMataxa, 04 octobre 2013 - 08:04 .

[zMataxa]

schalafi wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

schalafi wrote...

I've been playing Bioware games for years...the first one was MDK2, and I've played every one since then. I like romance in the games, but not to the point where it becomes more important than the story as a whole. There's a place for battle, a place for making friends with npcs, and a place for romance. Leaving out one is, IMO, like leaving out a chapter of a book.

I hope Bioware keeps all the elements of their games, and continues to do them as well as they always do.

When has it even been more important that the story? This is not final fatasy 8.

I consider romances *are* part of the story.

____________

I think most of us romancers would phrase it that way.

[Xilizhra]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Filament wrote...

It is a slippery slope, and pretty damn patronizing too. No one asked for your opinion about their mental health.

No it is not. A slippery slope, according to Wikipedia, is an argument that a small thing will lead to a big thing.

The "thing" we're discussing is fundamentally the same. Whether it's real or virtual doesn't affect that.

This is untrue unless you consider fictional and real objects to be the same, in which case... well, it seems like the problem is on your end.

[zMataxa]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Filament wrote...

It is a slippery slope, and pretty damn patronizing too. No one asked for your opinion about their mental health.

No it is not. A slippery slope, according to Wikipedia, is an argument that a small thing will lead to a big thing.

The "thing" we're discussing is fundamentally the same. Whether it's real or virtual doesn't affect that.

______________

The slippery slope is "your opinion as to what is normal".
At first glance this is a small thing.
If a more ambitious idealistic entity takes that idea and starts to purge or limit those who are abnormal or beyond mildly odd - then we have a slippery slope.
Or if a group makes that it's mantra - it also could lead to a slippery slope.
I'm pretty sure you would not do that.
But your idelology is part of the web of ideas of how society should run.
So in that sense there is a potential for a slippery slope.

Modifié par zMataxa, 04 octobre 2013 - 07:59 .

[The Hierophant]

Village Idiot wrote...

Kallimachus wrote...

Village Idiot wrote...

Kallimachus wrote...

As a final note, I would add that I never understood the distinction some people make between "romance" and "story". In the context of fiction (including video games) romance IS a story. A story that is an integral part of the plot in any form of narrative art, for as long as there has been art (be it literature, poetry, painting, music, theatre or cinema), except, for some reason, video games. And because video games are such an exception, all that remains to say is - if you do not like romance stories, make use of the fact that in this one and only narrative art form, romance is optional, and skip it. Stop hating on those who like those stories.

Well--you see it's all about genre.  I know this is going engender some sort of snarky response, but romance on its own as a whole is typically devalued when it comes to fiction.  This is also true for scifi/fantasy although the magical realists get acclaim while dodging the unholy mantle of genre, but as far as fiction works things these categories are considered genre are not considered important writing.  Neil Gaiman while acclaimed and worthy of not will never receive the esteem that Phillip Roth has achieved.  There is a reason for that and that is the Academy.  The science fiction/fantasy genre divide doesn't quite follow into video game (because they are not books) but also because there are people who deny that they are still forms of art.  When it comes to romance, I'm going to say that has always been devalued.  It's considered Women's "stuff."  When you isolate the concept of romance writing from the source, you will see its place in modern society as that of being deemed "gendered" storytelling.  It's the rule that "masculinity" as a concept is deserving of serious treatment and all other "woman's stuff" is not worthy of serious treatment. 

That is not what I was referring to. I was not talking about romance literature. I was talking about romance IN literature. Philip Roth, while not writing romance novels, has romance in his novels. Jane Austen, the Bronte sisters,  Shakespeare, and Cervantes have all written masterpieces centred around romance (or at least prominently featuring romance) no academic would dare scoff at.

I disagree. Plenty of academics scoff at Jane Austen and the Bronte Sisters in way that Cervantes and Shakespeare are not.  While yes, Roth's novels do contain romance and many other "well-received" novels do have romance in them, I'm still going to say that the long view of how romance in literature is seen reflects a very gendered divide. These authors are given serious treatment in spite of the romantic content.   I'm not saying Harlequin romance novels or paranormal YA romance are worthy of study on par with the discussion of great authors, but I am saying that the derision that accompanies those works represent a gendered divide.  I would also argue that yes, Tristan and Isolde is about romance, but the focus of the poem when is taught is on language and for good reason.    But that is off-topic and I don't want to argue.  In essence, I was agreeing with you.

On topic:  I really enjoy Bioware's romances and I look forward to finding out what happens in them when DA:I comes out.

IIRC the criticism towards Emily Bronte was mostly directed towards what the critics of the time perceived as a disjointed writting style while the upperclass characters's portrayal weren't romanticized/idealized like the rest of the literary works of that time. Also what about Anne Rice as i don't remember her catching the business like with Meyer?

[Xilizhra]

You
don't have a clue what I'm talking about there. That's not an
insult--you really don't. I'm talking about something very specific to
Xil.

I think you're badly confusing everyone by taking a personal beef into an open forum discussion, and doubt it'll be productive.

No, the action being tasting the sweat of another person.

Wait. The hell? That's what you're afraid of? How is that in the least bit intimidating? What, do you think the guy'd go around just licking random women and then explaining he was just testing his chemistry formulas?

I consider the action first, remember. The action is the action regardless of the medium.

This is like me saying "people who Annul the Circle are potentially mass murderers in the making, put them on a watch list."

Modifié par Xilizhra, 04 octobre 2013 - 08:02 .

[zMataxa]

EntropicAngel wrote...

zMataxa wrote...
__________________

I think you don't get/understand or appreciate certain innovator type mindsets.
They are very different from system adherents mindsets.

You don't have a clue what I'm talking about there. That's not an
insult--you really don't. I'm talking about something very specific to
Xil.

____________

I totally know what you are talking about.
You wrote yourself that your morals were clashing.
It's actually your mindsets that made up those morals and make them seem as your eternal truths.

I'm just asking you to consider seeing that she has a different mindset than you.
And it's valid, even if you don't think like that.

Modifié par zMataxa, 04 octobre 2013 - 08:03 .

[Br3admax]

Oh we talking 'bout religion now? Dis gon be good.

[leaguer of one]

schalafi wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

schalafi wrote...

I've been playing Bioware games for years...the first one was MDK2, and I've played every one since then. I like romance in the games, but not to the point where it becomes more important than the story as a whole. There's a place for battle, a place for making friends with npcs, and a place for romance. Leaving out one is, IMO, like leaving out a chapter of a book.

I hope Bioware keeps all the elements of their games, and continues to do them as well as they always do.

When has it even been more important that the story? This is not final fatasy 8.

I consider romances *are* part of the story.

Nothing I said contest that. I just said it's not or ever was the most important part.

[AlanC9]

zMataxa wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...


Completion of romances shows in the tracking data. I suppose he could be lying about what the data shows, but to what end?

It's only tracking if you go online.
Wouldn't surprise me in the least that those who enjoy romances are least likely to go "register achievements" and get the latest DLC.

My understanding is that data collection happens whether you're logged in or not, unless you've explicitly opted out of data collection. Logging in only syncs stuff to your profile. I could be wrong, though.

Edit: can someone tell me what this thread's about now? 

Modifié par AlanC9, 04 octobre 2013 - 08:07 .