504 réponses à ce sujet

[Bayonet Hipshot]

I have no problem with restrictions like this but I would like the game to inform me early on. ME3 did this quite well with Samantha Traynor & Steve Cortez. I knew after a couple of dialogues that they are homosexuals so I if I am to romance them it depends on my Shepard's gender.

Unlike Aveline. I thought she was romance-able all along until the Donnic thing happened when I first played DA2.

That is something I do not want to see. Characters being show that they might be available and then turns out they are not. I prefer forthcoming characters no matter their inclinations and preferences.

[daveliam]

eluvianix wrote...

Trust me, I don't get it either.

Okay.  Glad I'm not the only guy who doesn't get it.  Thanks.

[Cainhurst Crow]

In Exile wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...
Dragon age had a good system in origins, characters stuck to their beliefs and didn't compromise themselves unless highly convinced to do so, and even then didn't do stuff they didn't want to without being forced or coerced. In dragon age 2 all that went out the window, both because there was only a human protagonist and also because none of the characters had defined stories to work with. 

Except for the part where I can do every single thing contrary to Morrigan's moral compass and get her romance, or the opposite with Leliana if I tell her to be cool with killing Marjolane. And ditto with Alistair and just plain executing Connor or using BM to save his life.

DA:O wasn't different from DA2, even if we exclude giving gifts to fix approval changes. 

At least they had something to say about it afterwards, or even during the event in question. I can sell out every mage to the templars and anders doesn't even bring it up once. Same with fenris and sparing/aiding mages.

Broken character reactivity due to the romance coming before the character arc.

[draken-heart]

I would rather simply have some dialogue that talk about your race/gender. Unless they do something akin to ME 3 with some straight, some gay/lesbian, and some bi (With some NPCs thrown in for the option of having that 'army wife/husband' feel (The non-soldier variety)

[slimgrin]

Plaintiff wrote...

CannotCompute wrote...
Would you like certain romantic opportunities to be limited to the race of the PC? - Think Baldur's Gate II: Viconia could only be wooed by a half-elf or human character.

No. Restrictions should be based on choices the player makes in-game.

Or do you want no restrictions whatsoever?

No. I want restrictions based on in-game choices.

Imagine a scene in which a bulky Qunari warrior is making love to a female dwarf, for example, and contemplate if you would like to be able to see this.

I don't care even slightly. People should be able to see it if they want to, and I should be able to avoid it because I want to.

Eggplant is disgusting, but that doesn't give me the right to stop others from eating it.

Based purely on this post, I say yes - romance can and should be based on character and race. Like real life, not some fantasy power trip. I hadn't really made my mind up on the topic till read what Plaintif had to say.

Modifié par slimgrin, 22 décembre 2013 - 05:42 .

[SirGladiator]

Restrictions on romances are always a bad idea, that's why they're pretty rare these days. It's easy to see in game after game (DA2 being the most relevant example here) that when you can choose for yourself, rather than having your choices artificially limited due to race, gender, or class, that it's just plain more fun, a lot more fun. Trying to romance your favorite character and essentially being told 'sorry, you picked the wrong race/gender/class/whatever' is quite the opposite of fun . More options means exactly that, more options to play the game the way you want. If you feel a given character 'should' only be romancable by a given class, or race, or gender, then you can play the game that way. No forcing your choices on anyone else, or having their choices forced on you. Maximum choice and freedom, which is the very reason you play RPGs in the first place. DA2 did it right, most every other recent RPG has followed that same model, and hopefully DAI will continue with that.

[daveliam]

SirGladiator wrote...

If you feel a given character 'should' only be romancable by a given class, or race, or gender, then you can play the game that way. No forcing your choices on anyone else, or having their choices forced on you. .

This is a good point.  If it ruins your immersion to romance a dwarf with a qunari, then don't do it.  If it ruins your immersion to pursue s/s romances, don't do it.  If it ruins your immersion to romance Anders with an anti-mage Hawke or to romance Leliana with a warden who desecrates the ashes, then don't do it.  But I will never understand why people feel the need to advocate for restricting how other people play their game.

[Nightdragon8]

daveliam wrote...

SirGladiator wrote...

If you feel a given character 'should' only be romancable by a given class, or race, or gender, then you can play the game that way. No forcing your choices on anyone else, or having their choices forced on you. .

This is a good point.  If it ruins your immersion to romance a dwarf with a qunari, then don't do it.  If it ruins your immersion to pursue s/s romances, don't do it.  If it ruins your immersion to romance Anders with an anti-mage Hawke or to romance Leliana with a warden who desecrates the ashes, then don't do it.  But I will never understand why people feel the need to advocate for restricting how other people play their game.

sigh that word again... its become some stupid banner of some sort as a way to defend something.

Find I'm gong to say it, I think it was Immersion breaking that I couldn't hook up with Avilene, got lead on thinking I could but ended up screwed. So your whole "let us do what we want" arugment is down the drain. As BW will do what they want and can and will deny us.

Honestly after the first letdown on Avilene got over it moved on.

The game doesn't need to be relationship porn. And someone somewhere will make headcannon of the relationships you want.

I find it gives characters and stories more substance when people have there own prefernces. Like with Tryanor and Cortez I was purfectly fine with them and didn't feel let down because of it.

[Toasted Llama]

eluvianix wrote...

Restrictions don't always add replay value. It can just as easily discourage people from replaying. And stop comparing it to real life, please. It's a fantasy game, for goodness sakes, filled with darkspawn, blood magic, and dragons. But having a party of bisexuals is where you draw the line for realism?

How does it discourage you from replaying?  "I can't do everything I want, this game sucks!" seems a bit shallow if you ask me.

Believe it or not, but every fantasy setting has a set of rules and some of them follow realism. Just because there are dragons, blood magic and darkspawn in a game, doesn't justify everyone being bisexual (bioware has shown with other/earlier games that certain characters are either straight or homosexual, not bisexual, despite all the other unrealistic things happening).

daveliam wrote...
In
fact, there is a game mechanism that actively blocks the pursuit of
multiple romances in a single playthrough (the dreaded "me or them"
confrontation). So having restrictions won't encourage replay any more
than not having restrictions would when it comes to romances.

I
could only complete the romance with Anders OR Fenris in DA2 (a game
with no romance restrictions), so if I wanted to romance both of them, I
had to reroll a new Hawke and choose the other option.

I could
only complete the romance with Kaiden OR Cortez in ME3 (a game WITH
romance restrictions), so if I wanted to romance both of them, I had to
reroll a new Shephard and choose the other option.

How are these different? And how, exactly, does having romance restrictions encourage or add to the replay value?

Not being able to have polyamorous relationships is a restriction... You basically explained how a restriction has caused you to play a game more.

I want to romance x and y, but I can't, so I romance x on one playthrough and y on the other. Had I been able to romance them both in one playthrough, it would've resulted in just 1 playthrough.

I want to romance x, but I can't, so for now I romance someone else and roll another character to romance x. Had I been able to romance x on my first playthrough, it would've resulted in just 1 playthrough.

They both do the same and I don't see how people can make such a big fuss about not being able to romance a character because of race/gender/preference restrictions, considering not being able to have a polyamorous relationship does essentially the same thing lol.

The difference between gender/race/preference restrictions and polyamorous restrictions is that you'll try a different gender/race/playstyle. That adds replay value as well, believe it or not

[BobZilla84]

I hated the fact that Aveline wasn't a romance option in DA2 she was my favorite character from that whole game even more than Varric.I played and beat DA2 only twice first as a Warrior then as a Mage on my first playthrough I was so excited to romance Aveline with my Diplomatic Warrior Hawke only to be crushed I kid you not when the whole Donnic thing happened I quit playing DA2 for a good long time.

I eventually came back to it and romanced Isabella and while I like Isabella she wasn't Aveline and don't get me wrong Isabellas Friendmance was good but as I said she isn't Aveline so I then beat that Save I then thought to myself "well that wasn't that fun I am going to play Origins again".

I did eventually play DA2 again but my first playthrough really tarnished the game alot for me but I decided that I wanted at least one more playthrough and then I got to it making my character and all that thus my Sarcastic Mage Hawke was born and I am glad I did it because Sarcastic Hawke was the best but when it came to the LI/Romance situation I decided that if I can't be with Aveline my Hawke would remain Single and thats exactly what I did oh yeah and I flatout refused to do the Aveline/Donnic Marriage crap period and thats how the tale of that Hawke Ended.

I hope Bioware doesn't pull another Kasumi/Aveline in Inquistion seriously don't introduce us to amazing Female characters that we can't Romance and another thing I would love some decent Traynor esq NPC Romances.

Modifié par BobZilla 2k10, 22 décembre 2013 - 01:38 .

[Magdalena11]

I think racially restricting romances is going to work about as well as restricting companions' gender preferences. There are only going to be a few romance options and saying that one of them will only be interested in a certain race is like saying there isn't one for a large percentage of players who don't choose that race.

To me, it would make sense to have certain LIs more approachable to a certain race, perhaps starting out with an initial approval bump or something. Prejudices aside, it's easier relating to someone who has a background similar to your own. Many epic romances feature people who come from different backgrounds and make it work anyway. So there would be a choice, perhaps, of going with the tried and true or of defeating adversity and love conquers all. The first is more practical but the second is more romantic.

[jncicesp]

Any random character in the world I wouldnt mind haveing restrictions based on anything, but in DAO, DA2, ME1 and ME2 you could influence Tons of stuff about most party members, and those are about big things not small pointless ones like what race or gender they wanna be with.

I tried playing as the opposite gender in Origins(race didnt bother me) da2 and me2 and I couldnt get into any of them just cause that fact, I know thats my fault but i tried not letting it take me out of the game cause lack of interest but it does everytime taking away replays..

If you could romance someone with any race an gender the differences would be reallly cool to see if you go out of your way to see them and odds are if you find whoever you romance that interesting and cool you should Want that cause its a slightly different romance story everytimes you make a differnet playthough..so you end up with more. I know Dragon Age 2 was kinda different playing as a man or woman, it annoyed how different it was in Origins

Modifié par jncicesp, 22 décembre 2013 - 02:53 .

[KC_Prototype]

Well, it sounds like a cool concept but no. I would like it if it was harder to romance certain characters because of conflicting interests or if they were racist, etc. But to totally restrict players from a possible LI? No.

[Secretlyapotato]

Toasted Llama wrote...

How does it discourage you from replaying?  "I can't do everything I want, this game sucks!" seems a bit shallow if you ask me.

So is "That person can't have this video game option because I think it's unrealistic!"

Toasted Llama wrote...

Believe it or not, but every fantasy setting has a set of rules and some of them follow realism. Just because there are dragons, blood magic and darkspawn in a game, doesn't justify everyone being bisexual (bioware has shown with other/earlier games that certain characters are either straight or homosexual, not bisexual, despite all the other unrealistic things happening).

There was like two out of four straight options in DAO, and one out of five in DA2. And then there's Antiva where everyone is encouraged to sleep with everyone. For all we know, the lore is that everyone is bisexual but some don't explore into it as much as others.

Modifié par Secretlyapotato, 22 décembre 2013 - 05:48 .

[Angrywolves]

BobZilla 2k10 wrote...

I hated the fact that Aveline wasn't a romance option in DA2 she was my favorite character from that whole game even more than Varric.I played and beat DA2 only twice first as a Warrior then as a Mage on my first playthrough I was so excited to romance Aveline with my Diplomatic Warrior Hawke only to be crushed I kid you not when the whole Donnic thing happened I quit playing DA2 for a good long time.

I eventually came back to it and romanced Isabella and while I like Isabella she wasn't Aveline and don't get me wrong Isabellas Friendmance was good but as I said she isn't Aveline so I then beat that Save I then thought to myself "well that wasn't that fun I am going to play Origins again".

I did eventually play DA2 again but my first playthrough really tarnished the game alot for me but I decided that I wanted at least one more playthrough and then I got to it making my character and all that thus my Sarcastic Mage Hawke was born and I am glad I did it because Sarcastic Hawke was the best but when it came to the LI/Romance situation I decided that if I can't be with Aveline my Hawke would remain Single and thats exactly what I did oh yeah and I flatout refused to do the Aveline/Donnic Marriage crap period and thats how the tale of that Hawke Ended.

I hope Bioware doesn't pull another Kasumi/Aveline in Inquistion seriously don't introduce us to amazing Female characters that we can't Romance and another thing I would love some decent Traynor esq NPC Romances.

For some weird reason the writing team thought Aveline was ugly, or wanted her to be ugly, at least that's the rumor. A preposterous notion.
Yes we should have been allowed to romance her.
I've only played DA2 twice and only completed it once. I've completed DAO at least 15 times.
Supposedly the romancible characters will have preferences, aka some won't be romancible to certain inquisitors.:whistle:

[Afro_Explosion]

Things should only be restricted by straight/gay/bi, by make making racial restrictions you're severely limmiting options, everything doesn't have to be realistic.

[daveliam]

Angrywolves wrote...

Supposedly the romancible characters will have preferences, aka some won't be romancible to certain inquisitors.:whistle:

I haven't seen this stated anywhere.  Can you provide a link?

[Giant ambush beetle]

I've never liked restrictions in anything.

[Angrywolves]

Fandango9641 wrote...

The Sin wrote...

Unlike Aveline. I thought she was romance-able all along until the Donnic thing happened when I first played DA2.

That is something I do not want to see. Characters being show that they might be available and then turns out they are not. I prefer forthcoming characters no matter their inclinations and preferences.

It's my view that the strength of Varric and Aveline's characterisation in DA2 had a lot to do with them not being romantic 'bait' for Hawke!

uh no.
Aveline should have been romancible.<_<

daveliam said:

Angrywolves wrote...

Supposedly the romancible characters will have preferences, aka some won't be romancible to certain inquisitors.

I haven't seen this stated anywhere.  Can you provide a link?

I hate links because I don't like being asked to provide them.
No one should have to remember where they have read months of posts and online mag articles to pick out and provide a link for anybody.
But I will look and try to find where I read that.But I don't promise anything.

Modifié par Angrywolves, 23 décembre 2013 - 02:47 .

[Toasted Llama]

Secretlyapotato wrote...


So is "That person can't have this video game option because I think it's unrealistic!"

Except they can still have the video game option in another playthrough.

Secretlyapotato wrote...

There was like two out of four straight options in DAO, and one out of five in DA2. And then there's Antiva where everyone is encouraged to sleep with everyone. For all we know, the lore is that everyone is bisexual but some don't explore into it as much as others.

It wouldn't surprise me that the one out of five romances is straight in DA2 because of people complaining that they couldn't romance Alistair as a guy or Morrigan as a girl.
And being encouraged to sleep with everyone doesn't make you bisexual.



Pfffsh. This is getting ridiculous. On BSN everything can be restricted in one way or another but if you touch the romances, ho boy.

[daveliam]

Angrywolves wrote...

I hate links because I don't like being asked to provide them.
No one should have to remember where they have read months of posts and online mag articles to pick out and provide a link for anybody.
But I will look and try to find where I read that.But I don't promise anything.

Thanks for looking.  I haven't seen this written anywhere, so I'm curious about the source because it means that I missed  something somewhere and would like to read it.  No worries if you can't find it.

[daveliam]

Toasted Llama wrote...

Pfffsh. This is getting ridiculous. On BSN everything can be restricted in one way or another but if you touch the romances, ho boy.

I think it's ridiculous because the only reasons why people list for restricting are:

because they think it's more realistic, which some people value and others don't, making it subjective
or
because they think it adds replay value, which no one has been able to explain exactly why they think that restricting romances adds any more replay value than not restricting romances. 

For me, it boils down to this:  If you want to restrict the content for yourself, you can choose to do that, but I don't see why you should restrict it for people who don't want that.  I don't care about realism in this instance, so your preferences shouldn't be forced on other people.  Not restricting it allows everyone to get what they want but restricting it only allows it for some people.

[Thrillian]

daveliam wrote...

Toasted Llama wrote...

Pfffsh. This is getting ridiculous. On BSN everything can be restricted in one way or another but if you touch the romances, ho boy.

I think it's ridiculous because the only reasons why people list for restricting are:

because they think it's more realistic, which some people value and others don't, making it subjective
or
because they think it adds replay value, which no one has been able to explain exactly why they think that restricting romances adds any more replay value than not restricting romances. 

For me, it boils down to this:  If you want to restrict the content for yourself, you can choose to do that, but I don't see why you should restrict it for people who don't want that.  I don't care about realism in this instance, so your preferences shouldn't be forced on other people.  Not restricting it allows everyone to get what they want but restricting it only allows it for some people.

As for the bolded, I entirely agree with you but some people seem to be incapable of playing their own game entirely as their own game, and not letting what someone else that they don't even know is doing in their game, ruin their Immersion or whatever.  That is what I find ridiculous.