504 réponses à ce sujet

[Angrywolves]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

David7204 wrote...

This is a really bad idea.

If there were 50 romances, yeah, I could definitely see some of them being constricted to race.

But there ain't. I doubt they'll be more than a half dozen. Perhaps three for each gender. As it should be. I have little interest for what passes for romance in Skyrim.

How many options would this cut things down to for some players? One? Even zero?

No. That's ridiculous. Gaider said, point blank, that characters were all made bisexual to increase the amount of romance options available. Simple as that. And all this does is cut those options back down.

As for the characters being open minded to accept romance from any race? It's justified by Narrative Causality.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but...



With only 10 companions (and the likelihood of them all being romanceable being slim to none), this is simply a pretty tall order, given the romance-centrism that has manifested itself in the fanbase. This concept could be applied out to non-companion LIs, if they exist. But for companions, it becomes an issue of resources devoted such that only a small number of people even see it.

If there is going to be a digital romp in the hay, make four of them, make them omnisexual, and wash your hands of it. If you start making exclusive romances based on race, the only discourse you may have is to have LIs EVERYWHERE, which turns those cutscene romps into an even bigger ballooning of resources. Which means romances get an even bigger slice of the resource pie, not less.

Yes I know you think romances take too much of the resource pie, kinda like I feel about certain cough cough faces.Can't stop talking about it can you ?
I guess at some point it's like beating a dead horse. I do believe, if DAI is a big success, that Bioware will cut back on the romances at some point. I don't see them ever having 50 romances. Or more than the usual number they've been having. Obviously someone at Bioware likes having romances in the games, whether than attitude will continue remains to be seen, especially if their competitors in the rpg field continue to be successful without them.
So you need not worry about too many resources being devoted to romances. <_<

[Medhia Nox]

I think all the NPCs should only be interested in other NPCs and totally ignore the advances of the PC.

[AresKeith]

Medhia Nox wrote...

I think all the NPCs should only be interested in other NPCs and totally ignore the advances of the PC.

But then the PC will be forever alone

[Battlebloodmage]

AresKeith wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

I think all the NPCs should only be interested in other NPCs and totally ignore the advances of the PC.

But then the PC will be forever alone

Well, I like games that mirror life. 

[Ravensword]

AresKeith wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

I think all the NPCs should only be interested in other NPCs and totally ignore the advances of the PC.

But then the PC will be forever alone

Such is the life of an Inquisitor.

[AresKeith]

Ravensword wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

I think all the NPCs should only be interested in other NPCs and totally ignore the advances of the PC.

But then the PC will be forever alone

Such is the life of an Inquisitor.

*Vader voice* NOOOOOOOOooooooo

[Rebel Wolf]

I want to roleplay a saarebas with a thing for elves 
The cutscenes would be epic.

Modifié par Rebel Wolf, 20 décembre 2013 - 03:19 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 I don't see any need for outright restrictions (excepting sexual-orientation, but even that is not as rigid as many would have you believe), just for mention from the LI (and, optionally, the player) on the circumstances of their romance.

Sexual orientation is part of character, really. I don't think the approach of making everyone bi and having the player decide their orientation is a good one (I don't mind it in DA2, though, because I can buy it for all four of them).

As for species... beauty (or lack thereof) can be found in any race, as can a liking for someone's character, so this is easier to deal with than orientation. However, I really think pairings of two different races should get some sort of mention by the LI, and perhaps optional dialogue for the player. It's kind of an elephant in the room -- you really can't ignore it.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 20 décembre 2013 - 03:07 .

[Fredward]

Has anyone forwarded a serious reason for why romances should be racially restricted? I'm curious. I mean this thread has over a dozen pages so I assume some debate has been going on and not everyone has just been telling the OP what an awful idea this is. That seems like a bit much. Even for the BSN.

[Ryzaki]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The racial thing kinda ticked me off, case in point with Alistair. My elf romanced him and it was great ... until I made him king then it was all like "Oh snap girlfriend, you got pointy ears and stuff. We can't have you as a queen no way no how!"

Yeah ... NO.

Having an Elven queen in human lands in a world like Dragon Age would've been unrealistic and would've broken the verisimilitude.

This.

Besides marrying Alistair is not at all necessary for romancing him. I'd loved a bi Alistair. Alistair being able to marry  any origin or gender would've been a "dude what?" scenario. Just...no.

I don't even really like it with Fem Cousland but I can understand the political implications any other origin though? Not really.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 20 décembre 2013 - 06:49 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

A proverb says:
"Pigeon with pigeon, falcon with falcon."

[Cainhurst Crow]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Lack of omniromancability wouldn't really kill replayability

I imagine it would reinforce it and promote more class/race experimentation.

Small consolation to those who refuse to roleplay different characters but absolutely insist on having their pick of LI's.

There's a word describing that.

Spoiled, or alternatively, greedy.

[Fredward]

Kaiser Arian wrote...

A proverb says:
"Pigeon with pigeon, falcon with falcon."

I know an ancient Chinese proverb that goes thusly: Eat me, I **** who I want. :happy:

Modifié par Foopydoopydoo, 20 décembre 2013 - 07:40 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

daveliam wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

And it's people who will be playing the minority species that will be the most restricted. Chances are the devs aren't gonna go "LOL let's lock 75% of our players out of a romance." that's just...huh. (and if they did would said romance be less content loaded than the ones exclusive to humans?). And yeah it'll almost certainly be dwarves/qunari for reasons. Elf might skirt by because it's the second highest played species.

And it sucks to hear that it's people who are planning on playing as humans that are the ones who are in favor of restrictions.  I change my vote:  I'd like to have restrictions but only against humans.  I'd also like to go to the DA: O way of doing romances but instead have 1 lesbian and 1 bisexual option as female LIs.  I mean Traynor was just so popular, it makes sense to make a similar lady in DA: I, right? Oh, and the bisexual option is a human hating elf.  I mean, she's such a deeper character since she won't romance humans, right?  Then we'll see how many people are still in favor of it.

I find this generalization insulting. I plan to play a qunari mage in my first playthrough. I'll be surprised if I am able to romance anyone who would be comfortable with the idea of a horned magic using zealot as their bed buddy. I would probably even play a asexual character because hes just not into short weaklings. Not his fetish.

Why shouldn't an elf not want to be with a human? Or a dwarf? Why should a qunari have to be attracted to every female character regardless of race or gender? Why should a elf whose all about keeping the elf race alive want to have human babies with a human? Why should a dwarf who wants to better his or her caste shack up with a human casteless whose rank means nothing to the shapers? 

You think making the restrictions to those who play human characters will deter my beliefs or the beliefs of those who agree with me in wanting more independant and alive characters? **** please, you underestimate my resolve on this issue. 

[Cainhurst Crow]

daveliam wrote...

jaza wrote...

Id still be in favor of it. Romanes, even egen done well, are hardly important to me and dont add all that much. 

So if it's content that you don't access, why are you looking to restrict it for those who do?

I don't play as a renegade in ME ever, so I wouldn't be in favor of restricting the content and I wouldn't be in favor of expanding the content.  That's content that I'm not interested in playing so I don't have an opinion on it.  Particularly an opinion that would cut out options for other players.

HAHAHAAHHHAHAHAH XD OH man that is funny. :O:O:O:O:O

You don't realize it sugar, but renegades already have had their choices restricted, retconned, and outright overriden by the game, in favor of paragon being the canon for shepard.

Want to play a heartless sadistic badass who only cares about themselves? Too bad, heres a kid, now your character has nightmares about them and cries about them. 

One of many numerous examples of paragon favoritism and renegade discrimination.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 20 décembre 2013 - 07:53 .

[Br3admax]

I was with you until you started talking about a casteless surface dwarf caring about caste.

[Ryzaki]

Darth Brotarian wrote...
I find this generalization insulting. I plan to play a qunari mage in my first playthrough. I'll be surprised if I am able to romance anyone who would be comfortable with the idea of a horned magic using zealot as their bed buddy. I would probably even play a asexual character because hes just not into short weaklings. Not his fetish.

Why shouldn't an elf not want to be with a human? Or a dwarf? Why should a qunari have to be attracted to every female character regardless of race or gender? Why should a elf whose all about keeping the elf race alive want to have human babies with a human? Why should a dwarf who wants to better his or her caste shack up with a human casteless whose rank means nothing to the shapers? 

You think making the restrictions to those who play human characters will deter my beliefs or the beliefs of those who agree with me in wanting more independant and alive characters? **** please, you underestimate my resolve on this issue. 

They don't.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with having those characters not be LIs though and having the LIs provide most bang for buck.

You can get what you want varied sexualities and preferences without having to restrict LIs. They're not mutually exclusive. Ra forbid someone want to have more than one crappy option.

Also as for being greedy I'm greedy because I simply can not tolerate FemShep's voice acting and would've preferred her LIs be romanceable with a character's who VA I can tolerate? so be it. I have absolutely no problems being greedy. As I said I'll be damned if I go through 40+ hours of VA I can't stand for about 20 minutes of content. No way in hell.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 20 décembre 2013 - 08:02 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Sure go for it, it's not like this is something Bioware has never done before.

Oh Viconia you were so right to look down on that filthy Elf male Bhaalspawn! His replacement Half-Elf was much more suitable!

[Cainhurst Crow]

Br3ad wrote...

I was with you until you started talking about a casteless surface dwarf caring about caste.

We don't know if what we might end up getting, or what kind of exceptions might be made. Surely all the dwarves who went to fight the blight didn't become casteless when they did so? I am sure there are exceptions to that rule that could be found. So it is possible we might get another dwarf in the party whose not a commoner but has a house and place in that house to worry about. 

Frankly I wish they would just release the information on the companions already. It's not like they won't become obvious the second they get dedicated cutscene animations and such.

[Br3admax]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

I was with you until you started talking about a casteless surface dwarf caring about caste.

We don't know if what we might end up getting, or what kind of exceptions might be made. Surely all the dwarves who went to fight the blight didn't become casteless when they did so? I am sure there are exceptions to that rule that could be found. So it is possible we might get another dwarf in the party whose not a commoner but has a house and place in that house to worry about. 

Frankly I wish they would just release the information on the companions already. It's not like they won't become obvious the second they get dedicated cutscene animations and such.

Any dwarf that joins a human organization, at least at first, will probably be casteless. Orzammar is probably the safest place in Thedas right now, and they are under no obligation to help the surface dwellers. 

[Cainhurst Crow]

Ryzaki wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...
I find this generalization insulting. I plan to play a qunari mage in my first playthrough. I'll be surprised if I am able to romance anyone who would be comfortable with the idea of a horned magic using zealot as their bed buddy. I would probably even play a asexual character because hes just not into short weaklings. Not his fetish.

Why shouldn't an elf not want to be with a human? Or a dwarf? Why should a qunari have to be attracted to every female character regardless of race or gender? Why should a elf whose all about keeping the elf race alive want to have human babies with a human? Why should a dwarf who wants to better his or her caste shack up with a human casteless whose rank means nothing to the shapers? 

You think making the restrictions to those who play human characters will deter my beliefs or the beliefs of those who agree with me in wanting more independant and alive characters? **** please, you underestimate my resolve on this issue. 

They don't.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with having those characters not be LIs though and having the LIs provide most bang for buck.

You can get what you want varied sexualities and preferences without having to restrict LIs. They're not mutually exclusive. Ra forbid someone want to have more than one crappy option.

Also as for being greedy I'm greedy because I simply can not tolerate FemShep's voice acting and would've preferred her LIs be romanceable with a character's who VA I can tolerate? so be it. I have absolutely no problems being greedy. As I said I'll be damned if I go through 40+ hours of VA I can't stand for about 20 minutes of content. No way in hell.

Is jennifer hale going to be in this game? If not, then why does bringing her up even matter in this discussion?

Also, so we're pretty much restricting the amount of romances to a small group of bland personalities who have no likes or preferences as to allow them to able to be used as holes for sexual depositing and not have it violate character? Alright, if that's what you really want.

I would have prefered to just have all the characters be interesting and some of them not into you, then have some of them be interesting and others be cardboard characters with special underware models. But tha'ts just me and my priorities. 

[Ryzaki]

Br3ad wrote...

Any dwarf that joins a human organization, at least at first, will probably be casteless. Orzammar is probably the safest place in Thedas right now, and they are under no obligation to help the surface dwellers. 

Wasn't the dwarf's last name Cadesh? I recall reading that though I'm not certain.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Br3ad wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

I was with you until you started talking about a casteless surface dwarf caring about caste.

We don't know if what we might end up getting, or what kind of exceptions might be made. Surely all the dwarves who went to fight the blight didn't become casteless when they did so? I am sure there are exceptions to that rule that could be found. So it is possible we might get another dwarf in the party whose not a commoner but has a house and place in that house to worry about. 

Frankly I wish they would just release the information on the companions already. It's not like they won't become obvious the second they get dedicated cutscene animations and such.

Any dwarf that joins a human organization, at least at first, will probably be casteless. Orzammar is probably the safest place in Thedas right now, and they are under no obligation to help the surface dwellers. 

Assuming, of course, no fade tears occur near them in the deep roads, or god forbid, atop their mountain.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Ryzaki wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Any dwarf that joins a human organization, at least at first, will probably be casteless. Orzammar is probably the safest place in Thedas right now, and they are under no obligation to help the surface dwellers. 

Wasn't the dwarf's last name Cadesh? I recall reading that though I'm not certain.

Cadesh or Cadash?