504 réponses à ce sujet

[Zerker]

Thomas Andresen wrote...

Gosh you people are really used to having serious discussions over fantasy sex aren't you?

Chill and talk about Qunari with erectile dsyfunction or something, I mean really.

If you didn't want a discussion, then why'd you bring it up in the first place?

Qunari are big correct? And Dwarves are small? The image of a giant f-king the hell out of a dwarf is fun to talk about. Unless you are so used to discussing ridiculously funny acts of sex in fantasy genre like you discuss a proper arguement that is worth to argue about, which goes on a lot in here apparently.

Modifié par Maddok900, 23 décembre 2013 - 06:00 .

[StarLitStranger]

I think this idea is great if you look at a game like Baldurs Gate. You had so many companions and so many interesting story lines...

But when you have only a few companions (Max 10) I don't think its necessary. I think it limits your replay value, like the Straight/bisexuality issue.

With side characters like Anora... I don't think its a big deal to do those kinds of restrictions but otherwise I think less restrictions are they way to go.

[jncicesp]

Toasted Llama wrote...

IF it's going to be "more difficult" and not "impossible" then I certainly hope it's NOT going to be that you just need a bit more approval points. Like oh, I just need to pop in a few more gifts and sweet talk and I'm done.

Yeah they have a new Approval system anyway.
and in DA2 if you had more of a Rivalry  points the gifts got you more of those, that was kinda cool that they had two(or four with romance and friendship. ME2 didnt have a friendship relationship) Relationships per character.

[daveliam]

Toasted Llama wrote...

IF it's going to be "more difficult" and not "impossible" then I certainly hope it's NOT going to be that you just need a bit more approval points. Like oh, I just need to pop in a few more gifts and sweet talk and I'm done.

Though I'd also like to argue that some actions might result into them becoming no longer available like halfway through the game because you, blah, don't know, kill x or y.
(I believe they did this with Tali in ME3. If you side with the geth, she commits suicide)

They could've done that in DA:O already. Kill Connor in cold blood and Alistair is no longer available, keep Flemeth alive and side with her and Morrigan is no longer available, side with the cult and pour dragon blood in the urn of Andraste and Leliana is no longer available and if you keep mistrusting Zevran he'll become unavailable (is there anything you can do to ****** that guy off anyway? lol). They still follow because you haven't driven them insane yet, but they no longer romance you because what you did was so not done for them.

I can totally get behind this idea.  I am perfectly fine with romances being restricted because of choices that you make in the game.  The examples that you gave are great.  I just don't like the idea of limiting the options based on just race and gender.  I get why people say that it's realistic to have characters fleshed out like that, but with such limited options, I think it just takes more away that it adds.  And for someone who chooses the play the less popular options (such as m/m or dwarf characters), I just don't want to constantly have my choices restricted for other players to find the game more realistic.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Oh dear this thread steered into the crazy.

[Silfren]

Maddok900 wrote...

Thomas Andresen wrote...

Gosh you people are really used to having serious discussions over fantasy sex aren't you?

Chill and talk about Qunari with erectile dsyfunction or something, I mean really.

If you didn't want a discussion, then why'd you bring it up in the first place?

Qunari are big correct? And Dwarves are small? The image of a giant f-king the hell out of a dwarf is fun to talk about. Unless you are so used to discussing ridiculously funny acts of sex in fantasy genre like you discuss a proper arguement that is worth to argue about, which goes on a lot in here apparently.

It could be that some of us have friends wherein one partner is short enough to qualify as a Little Person (used because both dwarf and midget are considered offensive), and the other person is ginormous.  One of my friends is four foot six, and her husband is six foot three, with the build of a football player.  She's had three children by him and never needed medical attention post-coitus.  Considering that you seemed to be seriously suggesting that sex between dwarf and a qunari was medically impossible or at least medically dangerous, I find it a silly thing to be worried about.

[daveliam]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Sorry Dave, but if anyone is missing the point its you. First off, its my view that restricting romance options for reasons of story, characterisation and the like is less 'artificial' than it is authentic. Indeed, that's kind of the point! Secondly, its a simple matter of fact that there are a great many fans who would like nothing more than to be able to woo every companion with a single protagonist, regardless of how they chose to play. That's fair enough I suppose, but I'd (as I've already stated) rather see my companions as real people than vehicles for the romantic advances of players who refuse to role-play different characters.

I'm talking about this thread, though.  I haven't seen that argument (saying that "every companion" should be romanceable.  Yeah, I've seen other people saying that in other threads, but I'm talking specifically about what people are saying here in this thread. 

And, I understand that you think that characters are better if they express preferences.  I'm not arguing with you in theory, but in practice, I think that restricting romances based on race takes more away than it adds. 

Plus, you can always choose to restrict romance on your own, if you think it adds to the character.  If Velanna was romanceable, you could choose to not romance her with a human or dwarf and it plays out as if it could be because of her racism.  However, I don't think that restricting how other people play the game adds value.  That's my opinion.  You don't have to agree, but it doesn't devalue my opinion.

[jncicesp]

Fandango9641 wrote...

daveliam wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

What's ridiculous to me is the expectation of some that every companion should be sexually available to the player. YMMV.

True.  Except I don't see people saying this.  No one is saying that "every companion should be sexually available to the player."  People are saying that LI's (who are available to the player) shouldn't have artificial restrictions placed on them because there will probably be only 2 males and 2 females to begin with.  Most people are saying that they are in favor of some of the characters, such as the list that Toasted Llama listed a few posts down from you, being more difficult to romance based on personality and race, but not restricted.  I don't see anyone stating that all of the companions should be LI's.  That's different than the sweeping overexaggeration that you stated.

Sorry Dave, but if anyone is missing the point its you. First off, its my view that restricting romance options for reasons of story, characterisation and the like is less 'artificial' than it is authentic. Indeed, that's kind of the point! Secondly, its a simple matter of fact that there are a great many fans who would like nothing more than to be able to woo every companion with a single protagonist, regardless of how they chose to play. That's fair enough I suppose, but (as I've already stated) I'd rather see my companions as real people than vehicles for the romantic advances of players who refuse to role-play different characters.

It wont feel any worse then only having one posiblity as a romance as opposed to ones that can change on race gender and personailty If the writing is just good enough.
The 2nd game felt like that but Im assuming theve gotten way better.

Any romance I did play always felt tacked on anway.
And you dont have to romance anyone if you think that characters shouldnt be used like that

the more Restricted someone is the less I feel like i should romance them cause it just feels Added on After all the normal stuff with them, Bothers me so much that you can romance someone that feels like youre not aloud too, They can be with someone else in the plot if its that important Not your Character 

Modifié par jncicesp, 23 décembre 2013 - 07:18 .

[daveliam]

Fandango9641 wrote...

You missed the posts in this thread about how Aveline should have been romancable? And if you don't see how making every companion sexually available to a single protagonist damages characterisationverisimilitude, I don't know what to tell you.

No, I saw it, but wanting to romance Aveline =/= wanting "every companion" to be romanceable.  I didn't see anyone asking for a Wynne romance.  Or a Shale romance.  Or an Oghren romance.  Etc.

You are free to use sweeping generalizations all you want, but then you can't be surprised when I point out that they aren't true.

And, I understand your point about "verismilitude".  In fact, I've acknowledged that if there were more LI's, I would actually be okay with it.  You are the one who doesn't see my point that I don't think that, given that there will likely only be two male and two female LI's, that restricting romance based on race is a value add for the game.

[BouncyFrag]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Oh dear this thread steered into the crazy.

destiny

[daveliam]

Fandango9641 wrote...

That you fail to understand that the disappointments and demands of some with regards Aveline are applicable to all those companions who were not romancable is entirely on you Dave, not me. Sweeping generalisations indeed!

If you are going to continue to ignore my actual point, then, much like racially restricted romances, I don't see much value being added by this conversation.  And, unlike other people, I can choose to simply not engage in interactions that I don't enjoy.  I think I'm done engaging with you.

[CuriousArtemis]

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.

I think if a character were racist I wouldn't be too attracted to that character anyway. I've met people IRL who said they wouldn't date a member of a certain race, and it's really just repulsive. So no, I would not want this. 

Plus I am a romantic I love stories where true love blooms in the most unlikely of places. Character A falls for Character B even against his/her better judgment. Think Fenris with a mage Hawke (though that's not my canon).

Don't we all think to ourselves, "I'd NEVER date that kind of person," etc. But there's always that possibility that love could happen when least expected.

CannotCompute wrote...Or do you want no restrictions whatsoever? - 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'm not a pervert, so I don't really feel the need to see any of my/BW's characters getting it on, regardless of race. Can a qunari and dwarf find intimacy with one another, sure. Use your imagination.

[Afro_Explosion]

A dwarf and qunari can find love, everyone is the same size lying down.

[Spectre slayer]

Angrywolves wrote...

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.

Yes this has been said by some of the devs including Jonathan Perry the cinematic director of DAI and I have posted it before along with stuff on the approval system, romance, etc on this thread here.


social.bioware.com/%20http:/social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/371/index/17572518/1#17573080


There's slightly more info in the podcasts about some romance options including NPC's which was talked about in the making your mark one since someone asked them about that and they mentioned Bella and other things aswell, i'll post where exactly later but they did confirm npc romances even though if I remember correctly some said otherwise in other threads.

Not sure if it's race restricted by the LI's do have preferences and types and from what I see not romanceable to everyone no matter what, so I'm thinking they have enough resources to give varied sexualitys and a good number of total LI's even though probably only 4 companions will be li's.

Modifié par Spectre slayer, 23 décembre 2013 - 08:52 .

[Mad Cassidy]

Eh. It's a fantasy game. Emphasis on 'Fantasy', and also 'Game'. I play games to have fun. Gritty 'realism'* comes secondary, and should not come at the expense of enjoyability.

There are few enough romance options to go around. I don't want them further restricted in a game that's supposed to be about *player* agency. And honestly, I don't care that much for replayability. I don't want to have to play a game several times over because I was locked out of a bunch of cool content the first time 'round simply because of the sex/race I chose - it makes me feel as though I'm being punished for a decision I made at the character creation screen. To me that's not fun, and I honestly don't have the time for it.

I want to have one enjoyable run and not feel like I missed out on anything. And if there's some content that becomes gated due to decision my character made, that's fine. That's the game responding to my character's decisions, and that's on me. But to automatically lock a character out of a non-insignificant amount of content simply for being that character... that I don't like. Not when you're given no alternative, no substitute. That's simply a net loss for the player.




* Not really realism. Realism by the numbers would have your character dying of dyssentary or cholera shortly after childbirth, or of a stab wound after their first combat, but that would certainly not be fun for anybody, and I doubt it would make a very appealing game. But we're playing the protagonist, who is special by default and who is surrounded special people. I think some allowances can be made. Besides, if Cassandra can fall for the ugliest Human the character creator can churn out, why can't she fall for the prettiest Qunari or Elf it can produce?

Modifié par Mad Cass, 23 décembre 2013 - 09:18 .

[Toasted Llama]

Mad Cass wrote...
I don't want to have to play a game several times over because I was locked out of a bunch of cool content the first time 'round simply because of the sex/race I chose - it makes me feel as though I'm being punished for a decision I made at the character creation screen. To me that's not fun, and I honestly don't have the time for it.

Fair point.


Anyway... I'd be baffled if bioware stuck to only like 4 romances. And I'll be honest; I do get the point that it's impractical if restrictions would be applied to 4 romance options. No more than 1 restriction at the ultimate maximum.

So that made me think...

If the were more romance options (10-ish), would you (as in, everyone on this thread, the last part of my comment isnt really directed at Mad Cass) accept restrictions to a certain degree?

[daveliam]

Toasted Llama wrote...

If the were more romance options (10-ish), would you (as in, everyone on this thread, the last part of my comment isnt really directed at Mad Cass) accept restrictions to a certain degree?

Yes.  I would be totally fine with restrictions if there were a dozen LI's.  If there were that many LI's then there could be more than 1 option for m/f, m/m, and f/f along gender, but still have some characters that are exclusive to each orientation.  There could also be restrictions with race, like an elven LI who will only romance elves, LI's who will not romance qunari or dwarves or humans.  I also strongly support LI's who are reactionary to the actions that your character takes, like those listed earlier in the thread.

However, this would take more resources than they currently use on romance and would enrage the anti-romance brigrade who seem to think that expanding the romances in the game equates to turning the series into a dating sim.  While I'd be in favor of it (I'd much rather resources allocated to expanding the romance dynamics than, say, mounted combat or mulitplayer), I can see why Bioware is choosing to spend their time and energy on creating a more well-rounded game experience overall.  That's why I'm against restricting romances.  Not because I think it's paramount that I have access to any and all companions for immediate and unrestricted sexy-time, but because I would rather have four LI's that are unrestricted than have four LI's with restrictions (ultimately meaning that I will probably lose out on options) given that they are putting resources elsewhere.  In a perfect world, I would much rather have expanded LI's, but I don't think it's going to happen.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't see the advantage of the restrictions, regardless of how many options there are.

Yes, having more options means the cost of the restrictions is lower, but unless someone can show some actual benefit of the restrictions then any cost is too high.

[Angrywolves]

Spectre slayer wrote...

Angrywolves wrote...

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.

Yes this has been said by some of the devs including Jonathan Perry the cinematic director of DAI and I have posted it before along with stuff on the approval system, romance, etc on this thread here.


social.bioware.com/%20http:/social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/371/index/17572518/1#17573080


There's slightly more info in the podcasts about some romance options including NPC's which was talked about in the making your mark one since someone asked them about that and they mentioned Bella and other things aswell, i'll post where exactly later but they did confirm npc romances even though if I remember correctly some said otherwise in other threads.

Not sure if it's race restricted by the LI's do have preferences and types and from what I see not romanceable to everyone no matter what, so I'm thinking they have enough resources to give varied sexualitys and a good number of total LI's even though probably only 4 companions will be li's.

That's the second time if I recall you've helped me out with a quote.Thanks.

[Gwydden]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't see the advantage of the restrictions, regardless of how many options there are.

Yes, having more options means the cost of the restrictions is lower, but unless someone can show some actual benefit of the restrictions then any cost is too high.

True that. Especially considering it is very unlikely there will ever be more than 4-6 options in any game.

[BobZilla84]

I would be ok with restrictions as well if there was a larger number of Li's but as many people have said I believe there will most likely only be 4 or 6 options and while that sounds like alot it's not if they are all restricted to certain Races or Sexs but if Bioware adds full NPC Romances then I am good but if there is only 4 or 6 leave out the restrictions.