155 réponses à ce sujet

[Hellion Rex]

Zeleen wrote...
Now, some one like this


with a story line to "die" for and epic and fun romance....  yeah... this would be nice

Gimme!!!!

[Augustei]

Hmm idk...Alistair is kind of dead in my game, someone made the mistake of trying to put this alleged "Theirin" on my wife and my throne, not to mention he wanted me to kill Loghain tsk tsk.. Now if I could romance Loghain in DA3 or someone like him then hell yes I support that

[Angrywolves]

uh he is a Therin.

I really don't know what being a Therin means.I hope Gaider explains it in DAI.

[Grieving Natashina]

slimgrin wrote...

What made Alistair great is that he wasn't written just for romance.

Such a simple and eloquent way of putting it.  I agree.

I will admit, I have a thing for Fenris' VA as well.  He's one of those "phone book" voices for me.  In other words, he could be doing a slow reading of a phone book and I'd still find that voice hot.  Sad but true. :innocent:

[Aggie Punbot]

Han Shot First wrote...

You will have Sandal and only Sandal.

Prepare for Enchantment!

So, only one Sandal? Not a pair of Sandals?

[Ailith Tycane]

Considering Bioware has only managed to write one single male romance I enjoyed (Valen Shadowbreath) I don't have a lot of hope for male characters, I just hope they keep up with the trend of playersexual female companions so I actually have some choices as a lady.

[Augustei]

Angrywolves wrote...

uh he is a Therin.

I really don't know what being a Therin means.I hope Gaider explains it in DAI.

Was as far as my game is concerned =P But nah me or my Warden dont doubt his legitimacy, but he was never legitimized or acknowledged so its easy to cause the nobles to doubt

[esper]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

esper wrote...

But in real life I bloody know if I am flirting with someone, so if the computer has decided that this line means that my character is flirting with another character, I as a player need to know that. The writers can decide if the NPC's understand/misunderstand some of my other lines or even the flirt lines, but I as a player need to know that the computer doesn't flag 'I like pretty shoes too' as the PC being interested in the NPC.

You might know when you are flirting IRL, but the object of your desire might not - and vice-versa (they think you're flirting when you're not).  I find dialogue without the symbols to be a much better model of real life conversations.

At least, it would be if the player could choose the actual content of what the protag will say...

Sigh. You are still not understanding what I am saying. The heart icon measuares/flags the PC's interest/flirtation towards the npc not the other way around.

I don't care what how they measure the NPC's affection towards the PC (Well, I do care, but that is not for this discussion), but I don't want the computer to flag my PC, the character I am in control of, as interested in someone they are not interested in. There were plenty of times in da2 where the heart icon did not work.

It goes completely over Merrill's head the first time, Aveline doesn't seem to get it (or she does and pretend otherwise), Varric takes it as a joke...

On the other hand, Isabella will always wink suggestively at Hawke in her intro. Anders hit on anyne that is nice to him at a certain point and get jealous of Merrill/Fenris in act 3 no matter how.

The heart icon is there to show the intent of the PC. It is not hand holding it is to signal to the computer that it can say PC=interested in x companion. And I want that rather than the computer making weird assumptions about my character. And of course it is logical that somewhere along the line for the romance to continue the computer needs to know that the PC is interested.

How it handle the NPC's affection towards the PC is another matter entirely.

[Giant ambush beetle]

I'm just waiting for a Dev to chime in and respond with a ''No'' to the op's question.

[esper]

CybAnt1 wrote...

No it is not. The heart Icon was not an 'i win bottom'. It existed with Aveline and Varric and didn't let you "win" there. 

You couldn't 'win' because they were not meant to be romanceable. 

But in real life I bloody know if I am flirting with someone, so if the computer has decided that this line means that my character is flirting with another character, I as a player need to know that. The writers can decide if the NPC's understand/misunderstand some of my other lines or even the flirt lines, but I as a player need to know that the computer doesn't flag 'I like pretty shoes too' as the PC being interested in the NPC.

It's amazing, people don't want their hands held by the game went it comes to combat, but they sure want their hands held by the game when it comes to social interaction.

Ambiguity's part of life, especially when it comes to romance, this may be the one place where I like least seeing it removed. 

What can I say, I will live with the dialogue wheel, just don't ask me to love it. 

Right then. Then I say that when the combat should stop hand-holding me. Sometimes when I pick fire ball in combat, my mage should cast cone of cold, because obviosly pressing the fireball icon on the talent menu shouldn't allow my character to win and cast a fire ball every single time.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Zeleen wrote...

I admit I am a HUGE fan of Alistair...  he is one of the most rememerable (don't think that's a word) character I have played...   and I don't think I am his only fan

I am female and my characters are all female...  and since this is a Fantasy game..  it would be nice to have the romance like we had in DA:O  ...  a character we can really care about ..  Alistair was that for me in all the different ways I played him
So I am looking forward to great characters and a great romance as well

While I like Allistair and did romance him on occasion I found his romance at times kind of annoying in not getting the message that my female Warden wasn't interested in him as a romance. I actually had a female dwarf sleep with him then dumped him for Leliana just to shut him up. Honestly I like Leliana and Isabela romances in the first two games better. But since I'm hetrosexaul a man maybe that is why.

[CybAnt1]

Right then. Then I say that when the combat should stop hand-holding me. Sometimes when I pick fire ball in combat, my mage should cast cone of cold, because obviosly pressing the fireball icon on the talent menu shouldn't allow my character to win and cast a fire ball every single time.

Let me repeat one more time, so the point is understood.

I understand the problem with "ninjamancing" and I have no problem with having the initial decision to romance made to the player as clear as possible so you aren't taken to be a love machine by accident. Forget the yellow heart. Have a giant chocolate heart with Valentine's Day music playing in the background. Whatever floats your boat.

But then having anything after that point have to be pointed out to the player as being a romantic overture by that heart assumes players are too stupid to know when flirting is flirting just by reading dialogue, (*) throughout the entire romance. 

And yes, trust me, you can "win" with every romanceable character throughout the game by picking every heart-marked mini-choice. OK. And making sure that if you flirt with somebody else, you eventually stop. Compare this to the at least slightly more well-thought-out 'romance paths' in BG2, and tell me which is more dumbed down. 

Sure, the Isabela romance runs into the biggest potential obstacles, but those appear whether she's your friend/rival or romancee. 

The problem with the DA2 romances is that they faced no (romance-specific) obstacles. The Aragorn-Arwen romance in Lord of the Rings is powerful because there are forces that represent obstacles. There's even something close to a love triangle.

I guess the reason I fixate on this point is Bioware used to know how to write this. I see hints they'll be doing it again in DAI. Hopefully. 

(*) Of course, this is getting to "heart" of my problem with the dialogue wheel in general. 

Oh, and one more thing, though a side point. There are many games with magic where you can sometimes either fail at casting a spell, or cast the wrong spell by accident, at least some of the time. I don't mind them, and find it an interesting element. Makes magic less of a "WInning!" sure thing. 

As always, tastes differ. 

Modifié par CybAnt1, 18 janvier 2014 - 06:17 .

[In Exile]

CybAnt1 wrote...
But then having anything after that point have to be pointed out to the player as being a romantic overture by that heart assumes players are too stupid to know when flirting is flirting just by reading dialogue, (*) throughout the entire romance.

No. Flirting, like sarcasm, can be 100% about the delivery, body language and gestures when saying something. The same thing can be entirely innocuous or exceedingly sarcasitc. 

The only reason to believe otherwise is a misunderstanding of how language works. 

[CybAnt1]

That's cool. Then change the interface to let me know my body language as well as what I'm saying.

I'd rather have that than the heart indicator.

Because, by the way, yes, I agree flirting involves nonverbal aspects of communication, but those too can be misunderstood. Or mis "broadcast".

I think people are missing my problem with the tone indication system. I don't think it's necessarily bad that the player knows exactly what tone they're supposed to be conveying.

It's more a matter of, as I keep repeating, the game has reached the point where all you have to do is always pick the right tone-indicated line, and you're "Winning!" at romance.

Think of all the great romance stories in history (within this 'genre') ... Tristan and Iseult, another great one. They suck without obstacles, and the DA2 romance ones had none. This is the core of my problem. 

Not that tone is indicated, but how tone indication is used. 

Modifié par CybAnt1, 18 janvier 2014 - 06:25 .

[AutumnWitch]

I agree Alistair was really "dishy" even tho my character didn't romance him she loved him like a brother. I hope that there is one female LI who is pretty, sweet and someone my Inquisitor could safely take home to mum. Not that I mind naughty ones like Isabela at all ;-P

[CybAnt1]

Compare the romance page of DA: Origins with the romance page of DAII.

http://dragonage.wik...omance_(Origins)
http://dragonage.wik..._(Dragon_Age_II)

One is detailed, the other is almost perfunctorily short. Kind of like the romances themselves.

If you want autopilot without hitch or complexity, I suppose you can argue the DA2 romances are "better" than Origins.

The ones in Origins are far more thought-out, complex, rich, and nuanced. That, to me, means "better" but once again I know taste is not universal.

[In Exile]

CybAnt1 wrote...

That's cool. Then change the interface to let me know my body language as well as what I'm saying.  

That would be silly. Picking up on 'flirty' demeanour involves a lot of cues. Having a complicated series of descriptions about tones, gestures, pitch, confidence, etc. still wouldn't get across the intent of the line.

Because, by the way, yes, I agree flirting involves nonverbal aspects of communication, but those too can be misunderstood. Or mis "broadcast".  

To others. Not to you, the actor. [i]You]/i] know what you mean. More impotantly, IRL we can tell (a) whether other picking are picking up on these cues and ( correct our approach if we think they're not. Since misunderstandings are impossible in games, we need to use more artificial methods. 

It's more a matter of, as I keep repeating, the game has reached the point where all you have to do is always pick the right tone-indicated line, and you're "Winning!" at romance.  

But that's obviously false. Picking it won't let you win with Aveline, for example. Or with that one woman in the Dalish camp, who tells you she likes elves. 

Think of all the great romance stories in history (within this 'genre') ... Tristan and Iseult, another great one. They suck without obstacles, and the DA2 romance ones had none. This is the core of my problem.  

Those obstacles aren't social incompetence. Those stories don't go "and Tristan sucked at communication, but verely, which much assistance from his loyal retainer Sigfried, he learned that when Isolde playeth with her hair, it suggesth interest in his person."

[CybAnt1]

Avelline and random elves are not MEANT to be romance-able in the game -- I'm only talking about the companions that are.

OK, look. I think the problem is I'm waging one 'battle' when the other is really more important to me, at least here.

By that, I mean, yes, I still find it odd that every dialogue exchange requires tone indicators (as opposed to some, which I have always agreed with), let alone the same three constant tone possibilities. That's kind of a diffferent problem I'm conflating with this one, somewhat. 

Perhaps a better example, closer to DA than an old-tyme Medieval Romance like Tristan & Iseult, might be a modern version like The Knight's Tale (the movie with Heath Ledger, based on Chaucer's Tale)....

Note how William struggles to say the right thing to Joscelyn throughout the film. (I personally would have gone after the blacksmith, as she was both hotter and had a better personality, but anyway, Joscelyn was his North Star because she was noble and he wanted to be 'Sir Ulrich'.)

Let me put it this way - the "romances" would feel more real - to me, anyway - if there were three dialogue options - AND FINE, mark all three with hearts so we know they are all attempts at being romantic - but perhaps some options are not well received. Not "we're breaking up" or "go take a hike" poorly received, but more like Joscelyn's "try harder/better" response. Perhaps moving an index of "romantic feelings" in one direction or another, kind of like friendship/rivalry. 

But you're also missing my main point if you think I'm arguing that figuring out the right things to say to your beloved are the only adversities/obstacles romance should face.

My biggest problem is the DA2 romances didn't face any - let alone that specific one. 

Modifié par CybAnt1, 18 janvier 2014 - 11:33 .

[In Exile]

CybAnt1 wrote...

Avelline and random elves are not MEANT to be romance-able in the game -- I'm only talking about the companions that are.  

That's just beggining the question. You can try to romance then. You can fail. You can suceed in romancing other characters without ever picking a "<3" option, with the rare exception of when the romance culminates and you have a yes/no to proceed choice that's indicated with the heart and no heart icon to remove any/all ambiguity. 

Let me put it this way - the "romances" would feel more real - to me, anyway - if there were three dialogue options - AND FINE, mark all three with hearts so we know they are all attempts at being romantic - but perhaps some options are not well received. Not "we're breaking up" or "go take a hike" poorly received, but more like Joscelyn's "try harder/better" response. Perhaps moving an index of "romantic feelings" in one direction or another, kind of like friendship/rivalry.  

Personally, I think that's giving way to much resources to what's basically a side-plot in the game. I'm all for doing romances on the cheap as a yes/no and saving resources on complex conversations for more neutral character developing moments re: their beliefs.

My biggest problem is the DA2 romances didn't face any - let alone that specific one.  

The DA2 romances were specifically designed to have adversity: (i) Merril's singleminded obsession with the mirror and her inability to integrate into Hawke's life; (ii) Isabella's commitment issues and inability, at first, to be honest with Hawke; (iii) Anders being absolutely bonkers; (iv) Fenris being emotionally damaged from all of his abuse... 

There were lots of obstacles.There just weren't dialogue obstacles. 

[Rotward]

Nope. Everyone will find the Inquisitor to be socially inept, ugly, and generally undesirable. The Inquisitor dies alone.

[Hellion Rex]

Rotward wrote...

Nope. Everyone will find the Inquisitor to be socially inept, ugly, and generally undesirable. The Inquisitor dies alone.

[CybAnt1]

Personally, I think that's giving way to much resources to what's basically a side-plot in the game. I'm all for doing romances on the cheap as a yes/no and saving resources on complex conversations for more neutral character developing moments re: their beliefs.

Again, I repeat my point that yes, while romances are often side plots in fantasy tales, they are only good aspects of those tales if they face adversity and obstacles. 

Arwen & Aragorn have a lot of things going against them; her father being against it, and him worrying about still being accepted as king if he doesn't have a human queen. Let alone both of them worrying about her long outliving him and watching him die. Plus of course Eowyn falls in love with him, but he remains true to her. 

Take all that stuff out, and it shouldn't have been in the story period. Only with those elements, does it then fit with the general overcoming of challenges that constitutes the overall story. 

The DA2 romances were specifically designed to have adversity: (i) Merril's singleminded obsession with the mirror and her inability to integrate into Hawke's life; (ii) Isabella's commitment issues and inability, at first, to be honest with Hawke; (iii) Anders being absolutely bonkers; (iv) Fenris being emotionally damaged from all of his abuse... 

There were lots of obstacles.There just weren't dialogue obstacles. 

(i) You have to deal with her obsession with the mirror whether you romance her or not. 
(ii) You have to deal with Isabela's theft of the artefact and the fact that she is the cause of the Qunari invasion whether you romance her or not. You face the choice of her going away permanently, or coming back after Act 2, regardless of whther there is romance with her. 
(iii) Anders will blow up the Chantry whether you romance him or not, so you always face the dilemma at the end. 
(iv) Yes, Fenris will break up with you in Act 2, but pick when the heart appears! and he's back with you in Act 3.

The closest thing to "romantic adversity" - challenges facing the romance, not the companion themselves - is (iv) and is easily resolved, as I said, by picking the heart when it appears. That's all you have to do. 

Again, I suggest to you, compare the DAO and DA2 romance pages to even see the difference between the two games. I think you're correct that DA2 treats it more or less as a very under-resourced afterthought. 

That's why the DAO romances were better - I guess our taste difference being over giving a **** as to whether that's important or not. 

Modifié par CybAnt1, 19 janvier 2014 - 01:16 .

[KC_Prototype]

Alistair was my homie! Best friend in DA:O. Too bad he had heat wirh my lover Morrigan.

[byeshoe]

i would like more interesting people to get to know instead of just "flirt with them or you'll miss your chance" heart thing :0 guise. I...feel as though bioware has done right with this inquistion. I looked back at the dragonage2 forums when the game was being released, and they kept very quiet about it. probably because they knew the fans would'nt like half the things they removed and did..but here we're getting, or I'm getting, very good and high vibes frum it x3

Fenris was a good character though *rubs chin* i don't know alot about him as I did zevran..but its forgiving. More girls like lelianna for me x] she was my best girl friend, girl as in friend! morrigan was as well but me and lelianna could talk about shoooes~ heheh. alistar was my hombre. I would like the characters to be as fleshed out as orgins were

[In Exile]

[quote]CybAnt1 wrote...
Arwen & Aragorn have a lot of things going against them; her father being against it, and him worrying about still being accepted as king if he doesn't have a human queen. Let alone both of them worrying about her long outliving him and watching him die. Plus of course Eowyn falls in love with him, but he remains true to her. [/quote]

Let's avoid a discussion of Tolkien. I can't speak about LoTR without engaging in a very lengthy criticism of the work. 

[quote](i) You have to deal with her obsession with the mirror whether you romance her or not. 
(ii) You have to deal with Isabela's theft of the artefact and the fact that she is the cause of the Qunari invasion whether you romance her or not. You face the choice of her going away permanently, or coming back after Act 2, regardless of whther there is romance with her. 
(iii) Anders will blow up the Chantry whether you romance him or not, so you always face the dilemma at the end. 
(iv) Yes, Fenris will break up with you in Act 2, but pick when the heart appears! and he's back with you in Act 3. [/quote]

(i) But not with her distance from you romantically. Not to mention the human-elf divide, which Merril brings up in the friendship romance. 
(ii) But her chasitty is irrelevant unless you're romancing her, cf. the scene with Zevran. 
(iii) Anders carrying a +1 in his head has distinct and unique challenges for a romance that has nothing to do with him being a terrorist. 
(iv) No, that's not it. Fenris being a rape victim is a distinct obstacle.

[quote]Again, I suggest to you, compare the DAO and DA2 romance pages to even see the difference between the two games. I think you're correct that DA2 treats it more or less as a very under-resourced afterthought.  [/quote]

There's nothing in DA:O that I can't characterize as being about the NPCs character arc, like you did in DA2. It's all about conserving resources. 

[quote]That's why the DAO romances were better - I guess our taste difference being over giving a **** as to whether that's important or not.  [/quote]

No, because you're wrong about DA:O being differenet. 










[/quote]