504 réponses à ce sujet

[AresKeith]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

3. That's...kinda sad really. If I liked a game for just one reason I would question playing it. Same reason I gave up dynasty warriors really. I liked being able to kill everyone on the map with ease, but everything else was such a drag I couldn't play them and enjoy them anymore.

I missed when they weren't so easy to kill, I heard they slightly fixed that in the newest one

[Thomas Andresen]

ignoreality wrote...



(Source)

Just got to love Aimo.

Modifié par Thomas Andresen, 19 décembre 2013 - 08:03 .

[Chrom72]

Plaintiff wrote...

But we're not talking about reality, we're talking about fiction. And the point of an RPG is to give the player some modicum of control over how the story unfolds, isn't it?

Besides, who said anything about trying to convert every racist? Or even that the party needs more than one racist in it?

This is just my opinion, but I like my RPG's to reflect reality until/unless they give a reason for why it's different, and then not breaking their established new rules for said differences. For example, magic and dwarves/elves are all good to me. But would their inclusion change something about humanity in general to where everybody can be convinced against their prejudice? Is there any particular reason humans (and by extension dwarves, quanari, and elves) in Thedas would all be capable of changing deep rooted convictions? I haven't seen any evidence or explanation in game for why that would be. 

Don't get me wrong, some people should be able to be convinced to change their minds about their stereotypes and preconceived notions about others. Others should remain stuck in their ways regardless of how much you try to get them to see otherwise. As far as the party members themselves go, I don't particularly mind what their opinions are as long as they have valid reasons for why they believe that way. Anders hated Templars and he had some very valid reasons for it. Fenris didn't like mages, and he also had some valid reasons for doing so. Would Anders be a better character if he could be convinced that Templars aren't all that bad and shouldn't be rebelled against? Would Fenris be better if he could be talked into letting go of all his prejudice against the Tevinter mages? I would argue no in both cases. 

[razmatazz]

I'm inclined to side with Brotarian. I really don't wanna be the Maker's gift to everything with a pulse. The concept hurts my head. But I suppose we're already gonna be rather limited in number of LI options. Any more restrictions, and there won't be enough to fit everyone's preferences. This is the only reason why I accepted how romances were handled in DAII. But I didn't like it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cylanthegreat wrote...

I've lurked the BSN and the forum Bioware hosted before it since before the original Dragon Age was released and in that time, I've gathered character generation is an important part of the game to Sylvius and in that regard he isn't alone.

Selecting their gender and race, thinking about how the world will react to them and how they'll react to the world, what kind of weapons they'll use, where to allocate their points, the story behind why the points are allocated the way they are...it's a lot more fun than 'sorting socks'.

Agreed.

In these modern games, character creation is probably the part of the game with the strongest roleplaying component.

That's a bit sad, but it doesn't make character creation any less fun.

Regarding sorting socks, I did once build a relational database to track merchant inventories in EVE Online.  That was pretty fun.

[Mad Cassidy]

Absolutely. I would love to be restricted in terms of the content I might enjoy so that someone else far away might be able to remark in passing that arbitrarily gated content is 'realistic'. There are far too many romance options available already - that we must endure the insult of choice is an outrage. Certainly a character possesses greater depth and holds more interest if they do not romance certain races/genders/hair colours/nose presets. However, they surely should be able to romance psychopaths and those with whom they have no common ground. This adds flavour to the romance and totally does not break character.

There is nothing I prefer more than not being able to fully enjoy my game so that it might appease someone who doesn't like the idea of a Qunari/Dwarf romance because 'reasons'. That they might be spared the burden of discovering such options exist as a possibility in someone else's game is paramount.

Modifié par Mad Cass, 19 décembre 2013 - 08:26 .

[SilkieBantam]

Thomas Andresen wrote...

ignoreality wrote...



(Source)

Just got to love Aimo.

Oh I love this so much. <3
No to race restricted romance. 

[Ryzaki]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

So why are race romance restrictons a bad thing again?

Because it's silly when an overwhelming amount of players play human. More people play human than every other class put together. 

How do you think the racial restrictions are gonna occur? It's going to blantantly favor those who play human characters in the name of resource conservation while screwing over those who play lesser played species. (I believe human was the most, elf was a faction of that and dwarves were played by like...5 or 10% of players).

Modifié par Ryzaki, 19 décembre 2013 - 09:05 .

[Enigmatick]

Ryzaki wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

So why are race romance restrictons a bad thing again?

Because it's silly when an overwhelming amount of players play human. More people play human than every other class put together. 

How do you think the racial restrictions are gonna occur? It's going to blantantly favor those who play human characters in the name of resource conservation while screwing over those who play lesser played species. (I believe human was the most, elf was a faction of that and dwarves were played by like...5 or 10% of players).

Not to mention every single species looks pretty damn humanoid. This isn't Mass Effect were the species don't look remotely like each other.

Why do people on this forum hate replay value?

[Ryzaki]

Enigmatick wrote...

 Why do people on this forum hate replay value?

Probably because I don't need artifical restrictions for me to replay a game and feel sorry for those who do.

You want to know what adds replay value? Diverging plot lines. Choices and consequences in the main plot. Vastly diifferent gameplay between main classes like mage/rogue/warrior. I'd much rather those rescources go there instead of "Oh X doesn't romance dwarves cause reasons."  Meanwhile they're only 2 stupid ways to solve the main quest when any body who thought for 3 minutes could've found another.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 19 décembre 2013 - 09:10 .

[Steelcan]

Lack of omniromancability wouldn't really kill replayability

[Enigmatick]

Ryzaki wrote...

Enigmatick wrote...

 Why do people on this forum hate replay value?

Probably because I don't need artifical restrictions for me to replay a game and feel sorry for those who do.

You want to know what adds replay value? Diverging plot lines. Choices and consequences in the main plot. I'd much rather those rescources go there instead of "Oh X doesn't romance dwarves cause reasons."  Meanwhile they're only 2 stupid ways to solve the main quest when any body who thought for 3 minutes could've found another.

Aren't the romances considered sub plots? How many resources does it really take to have a character say "Yeah you're a nice guy but I'm not attracted to horned grey giants."

Modifié par Enigmatick, 19 décembre 2013 - 09:11 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

Steelcan wrote...

Lack of omniromancability wouldn't really kill replayability

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

[Cainhurst Crow]

I don't understand how one thing in a game can be more artificial then another, when both are already artificial constructs of the games developers manipulating coding in a processor.

Also how making characters say "I'm not sexually attracted to you/Want to be in a romantic relationship with you" counts as an artificial barrier when it seems more closer to how things work in the real world.

[Dave of Canada]

Restrict all romances to dwarves. The superior race must get all the women. And men.

[AresKeith]

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.

And it would make characters feel more alive, imho

[daveliam]

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.

Huh?  Why though?  I would assume that most romancers play out a single romance through to completion, particularly because the game dynamics often shut you out of multiple romances with the "choose me or her/him" moment.  Therefore, anybody who wants to compelte a romance with more than one character would have to role a new game anyway.  So why do I need to have romance restrictions in order to do this? 

[Ryzaki]

Enigmatick wrote...

Aren't the romances considered sub plots?

They are. Note my usage of main plot. I don't expect that many differences in side missions cause side missions gonna side mission. But Linear on rail plot stupidity is starting to ****** me the hell off.

Edit: re your edit Sure they could put it in and that now shuts off that Li to < than 10% of players.

is there some reason that person can not take up a LI slot? It's not like there's that many LIs per game. There's usually 4 at most (unless it's ME with it's 6+ LIs) Seb was a rare fifth.

Steelcan wrote...

Lack of omniromancability wouldn't really kill replayability

Didn't say it would? (Though for me at least I wouldn't have played DA2 as much without Fenris and Anders both being bi LIs. I did not like the female voice and I can't play that character without wanting to shove a fist threw my screen when she speaks so instead of two playthroughs I'd gotten one.) So said "replayability" is really a YMMV situation and more than just the romance influences it.

Everyone doesn't play both genders and there's usually other reasons for it (don't like the voice, don't feel as close to the character, yadda yadda).

Garrus being restricted to FemShep never enticed me to play FemShep. I'd love to do a Garrus Romance! I'd be damned if I endure 40+ hours of Hale's VA as Shep to get to it. Hell no.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 19 décembre 2013 - 09:20 .

[Steelcan]

I've played DA:O and ME numerous times, and I have yet to feel like I'm missing out on content since I can't romance Traynor as MaleShep or Morrigan ad a female warden

[DRTJR]

Ryzaki wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

So why are race romance restrictons a bad thing again?

Because it's silly when an overwhelming amount of players play human. More people play human than every other class put together. 

How do you think the racial restrictions are gonna occur? It's going to blantantly favor those who play human characters in the name of resource conservation while screwing over those who play lesser played species. (I believe human was the most, elf was a faction of that and dwarves were played by like...5 or 10% of players).

I demand proof! Because that sounds ridiculous. 

[Steelcan]

Good, I'm not the only person who can't stand FemHawke's voice

[Dave of Canada]

DRTJR wrote...

I demand proof! Because that sounds ridiculous. 

It's been brought up by developers over the years since DA:O. I think the stats were like 20-30% for elves, 2-3% for dwarves.

Only 3-4% have good taste. Dwarves and King Couslands.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 19 décembre 2013 - 09:20 .

[Veruin]

Steelcan wrote...

Good, I'm not the only person who can't stand FemHawke's voice

I can't stand either of them.

Dave of Canada wrote...
It's been brought up by developers over the years since DA:O. I think the stats were like 20-30% for elves, 2-3% for dwarves.

Only 3-4% have good taste. Dwarves and King Couslands.

Weren't a lot of the male humans simply the default one?  I wonder how different the stats would be if it was random.

Cthulhu42 wrote...

If all the characters are willing to romance you if your Inquisitor is horrendously ugly, I don't know why they'd refuse just because you're short or have pointy ears. Unless being a racist is part of their character, I guess.
.

They only romance you if you make an ugly character because there's no way for the game to make checks for that.

Modifié par Veruin, 19 décembre 2013 - 09:22 .