92 réponses à ce sujet

[DeinonSlayer]

Was this kind of thing even remotely considered an issue with DA:O? There are benefits to a silent protagonist.

[RZIBARA]

Thats all unnecessary, all there needs to be is an option for when you create your character as into whether you're straight, homosexual, or bi

Modifié par RZIBARA, 29 janvier 2014 - 03:34 .

[Nightwriter]

Rodus Maxumus wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Why do you feel this way about gay ninjamancing instead of just like ninjamancing in general. To me the problem is ambiguous romance triggers, period.

I was talking about both, you have a three or four word ambiguous explanation that sometimes has little to do with the next few minutes’ conversation. That is why I’m asking for the context to be given.
The reason I pointed out the Cortez interactions was I felt they did not work. They tried to mash together a gay romance and a gay/straight friendship and they failed. That is why I suggested the “gay” option so they can block off and/or change some dialog options so the interactions feel more real instead of what it really was, was that Cortez was the token gay love interest that was poorly written.

But you're asking for a sexual orientation parameter in character creation. How will that screen out unwelcome heterosexual romance triggers along with homosexual ones?

[Dominus]

I would like to see sexuality in character creation as that is a major part of who you are and the way some people will treat you (both good and bad).

I'm not exactly opposed to it, but it seems unnecessary. RPGs can offer you a wide variety of options, which may or may not apply to you. Well, if we're adding that, would the Dragon Age developers go back to adding D&D Alignments?

As far as context, I agree that on the writing side a great deal of attention should be paid there.

[Grizzly46]

ElitePinecone wrote...
When you establish (let's say via a character creator checkbox) that your Shepard is straight, does it immediately flash up in bright lights above their head so that every single person they meet for the next ten hours knows it? Does Shepard make a point of announcing his heterosexuality when they encounter someone new? If one dialogue reply is enough to cement that status among your entire crew, should we imagine everyone Shepard knows is secretly gossiping behind their back? If literally every person we meet knows whether they'll have a shot at seducing Shepard or not, should we assume that the sexuality of the player character, this military space marine/galactic hero person, is basically known across the entire galaxy? Isn't that both obtrusive and unnecessary? 

Considering that homosexuality is apparently a non-issue in the future, no lights needs to flash if Shepard is gay or not, but there IS something called gaydar known (mental note: I have to ask my gay brother about that to get a first-hand explanation of it), which should make certain gay characters more aware of if Shepard/the player character is gay or not.

I think you are trying to paint homosexuality in worse colors than it is, especially for a future sci-fi world were this doesn't matter. Ok, Shepard is gay - who gives a ****? Except of course the people interested but not in Shep's interest range, but that's not worse than men interested in the openly lesbian Ellen for example. Some things are simply out of our reach, including the romantic interest of some people.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The toggle is not happening. Deal with it.

[The Night Mammoth]

Can I have a toggle to turn off dwarves? They make me uncomfortable.

[IoCaster]

I don't see the problem. If it makes you uncomfortable then don't talk to the NPC. If you want to explore the dialogue options you'll just have to deal with the stupid romance crap. I hardly ever went down to the shuttle bay anyway and I certainly didn't bother to talk to either of them (James, Cortez) cause they're sh!tty characters. *shrug*

I know it's a different team, but as far as Gaider...

We don’t allow the player to de-select other sorts of content.

...that's pretty funny considering that ME3 has an "Action Mode" which essentially allows the player to de-select content. 

[Ajensis]

I wouldn't want any kind of toggle at the beginning of the game. What if you toggled off being, say, anti-Alliance and then the story takes you places where you really want to express anti-Alliance sentiments after all?
Maybe you put a lot more thought into your character during character creation, but with a new game I personally tend to develop my character's personality during the first hour or so, maybe more. Any kind of restriction toggles before I even begin the game seems a hindrance more than a bonus.

Also, +1 to ElitePinecone's posts.

Grizzly46 wrote...
Considering that homosexuality is apparently a non-issue in the future, no lights needs to flash if Shepard is gay or not, but there IS something called gaydar known (mental note: I have to ask my gay brother about that to get a first-hand explanation of it), which should make certain gay characters more aware of if Shepard/the player character is gay or not.

I think you are trying to paint homosexuality in worse colors than it is, especially for a future sci-fi world were this doesn't matter. Ok, Shepard is gay - who gives a ****? Except of course the people interested but not in Shep's interest range, but that's not worse than men interested in the openly lesbian Ellen for example. Some things are
simply out of our reach, including the romantic interest of some people.

By lights flashing, I think he simply means that everyone magically knows the PC's sexuality. Not the warning kind

Modifié par Ajensis, 29 janvier 2014 - 10:45 .

[ElitePinecone]

Grizzly46 wrote...

Considering that homosexuality is apparently a non-issue in the future, no lights needs to flash if Shepard is gay or not, but there IS something called gaydar known (mental note: I have to ask my gay brother about that to get a first-hand explanation of it), which should make certain gay characters more aware of if Shepard/the player character is gay or not.

I think you are trying to paint homosexuality in worse colors than it is, especially for a future sci-fi world were this doesn't matter. Ok, Shepard is gay - who gives a ****? Except of course the people interested but not in Shep's interest range, but that's not worse than men interested in the openly lesbian Ellen for example. Some things are simply out of our reach, including the romantic interest of some people.

I know you mean well here, but a magical gaydar is ridiculous and potentially offensive. As soon as you start defining typical traits or mannerisms it leads to pretty bad places. Worse, it feeds into a bunch of stereotypes about how gay people act, look or behave - the vast majority of which just aren't true. Speaking from experience, it can be *very* difficult to guess someone's orientation and making assumptions without asking often leads to embarrassment or worse.

Are we to assume that the toggle at character creation makes Shepard act a certain way, so that other characters know his sexuality? Would this be expressed in the game? Functionally, how would gayShep act differently from straightShep to make the idea of a toggle work?

What I'm getting at is: the idea that you can tell homosexuality by intuition is, most of the time, faulty. Most people do it by good old-fashioned talking. Sounding out someone's intentions is a pretty universal thing, after all. 

And just on Shepard's sexuality being famous - I'm not suggesting anyone would have an issue with it in 2183. I'm saying the lack of privacy, for an Alliance soldier, would be pretty bizarre. How is that relevant to Shepard's accomplishments, past history, or future goals? It's actually *less* newsworthy because it won't be an issue by the 22nd century. Would Shepard ever casually mention it in interviews about the Reapers? How would that come up in conversation? 

Unless you want the Commander to sit down for a chat with future-Oprah or a gossip website, or something.

[Obadiah]

Heart dialog icon a la DA2. That seemed to solve most of the issues.

[IoCaster]

ElitePinecone wrote...
Are we to assume that the toggle at character creation makes Shepard act a certain way, so that other characters know his sexuality? Would this be expressed in the game? Functionally, how would gayShep act differently from straightShep to make the idea of a toggle work?

I think the idea is that the toggle would function in the same way that locking in a romance with one NPC would disable romance dialogue options with any others. Basically you would be able to explore all of the dialogue choices without any of the romance triggers being available for that NPC. Everything else would remain the same with no overt changes to the player characters attitude or behavior. Essentially it's just a few less dialogue options. I don't personally think that it's necessary or required, but the topic does have plenty of troll potential so it pops up from time to time.

[ElitePinecone]

I get what you mean about how it would switch off dialogue for some characters, but I'm still wondering how the system is meant to make sense. At least with the "lock-in" romances thing, you could make a case that the crew (or other love interests) would fairly easily notice, but a toggle requires that something the player establishes as background information is known by everybody, immediately.

Like, the *game* knows Shepard's sexuality, but would the squad characters? Unless it's assumed that they just know from reading his file, or something, which I do think some players would have an issue with. Would that information even be in a personal file? The way it's handled at the moment - where you can flirt with a bunch of different characters and have the option to accept or decline any of them - is so much more intuitive.

(For example: in ME3 there were two male same-sex romances. Kaidan's required the player to actually suggest the relationship, and Steve's required the player to choose three or so suggestive dialogue options before anything happened. Neither seemed to make a judgement about Shepard's sexuality beforehand, and both required the player's input. Are people actually suggesting that these were too easy to fall into?)

Even apart from that though, a toggle just has unfortunate implications. Like I said on the last page, at the very least it would lead to accusations - not unfairly - that people wanted to filter, ignore or sideline same-sex content. Presenting it to the player up-front on the character-creation page is bizarre, really - what other game series, let alone a roleplaying game, has asked you to define sexuality so definitively?

[IoCaster]

ElitePinecone wrote...

I get what you mean about how it would switch off dialogue for some characters, but I'm still wondering how the system is meant to make sense. At least with the "lock-in" romances thing, you could make a case that the crew (or other love interests) would fairly easily notice, but a toggle requires that something the player establishes as background information is known by everybody, immediately.

Like, the *game* knows Shepard's sexuality, but would the squad characters? Unless it's assumed that they just know from reading his file, or something, which I do think some players would have an issue with. Would that information even be in a personal file? The way it's handled at the moment - where you can flirt with a bunch of different characters and have the option to accept or decline any of them - is so much more intuitive.

(For example: in ME3 there were two male same-sex romances. Kaidan's required the player to actually suggest the relationship, and Steve's required the player to choose three or so suggestive dialogue options before anything happened. Neither seemed to make a judgement about Shepard's sexuality beforehand, and both required the player's input. Are people actually suggesting that these were too easy to fall into?)

Even apart from that though, a toggle just has unfortunate implications. Like I said on the last page, at the very least it would lead to accusations - not unfairly - that people wanted to filter, ignore or sideline same-sex content. Presenting it to the player up-front on the character-creation page is bizarre, really - what other game series, let alone a roleplaying game, has asked you to define sexuality so definitively?

I personally don't do the romance stuff so I'm not invested in this topic. I kind of regret even getting involved in this discussion, but I'll follow through for the moment. The NPCs don't actually exist. They don't have thoughts or feelings or opinions. Toggling off dialogue options don't effect anyone other then the player. As I said before this is something that I think is unnecessary, but I can understand why someone that wants to explore all of the dialogue would be interested in having the option. If I were to request a toggle it would be to disable all of the romance content since I don't have any interest in it. As far as other games are concerned I don't know of any others that contain this type of dating sim nonsense so I can't really comment. *shrug*

[ElitePinecone]

I'm just saying: it would be weird if every NPC Shepard met knew they were into men/women/space hamsters because of an option that the player picked at character creation. People "inside" the universe are reacting to something done outside of it, and unlike gender or class choices, sexuality isn't readily apparent until you tell someone.

The NPCs don't actually exist, but they aren't mind-readers either.

[Redbelle]

It's not so much a dating sim as character investment. Romance offer's the player an incentive to invest more in certain characters that they 'like'. The reward is that the NPC they 'like' the most offers additional 'interaction'....... or course.

Modifié par Redbelle, 29 janvier 2014 - 04:15 .

[Redbelle]

StreetMagic wrote...

IoCaster wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

I get what you mean about how it would switch off dialogue for some characters, but I'm still wondering how the system is meant to make sense. At least with the "lock-in" romances thing, you could make a case that the crew (or other love interests) would fairly easily notice, but a toggle requires that something the player establishes as background information is known by everybody, immediately.

Like, the *game* knows Shepard's sexuality, but would the squad characters? Unless it's assumed that they just know from reading his file, or something, which I do think some players would have an issue with. Would that information even be in a personal file? The way it's handled at the moment - where you can flirt with a bunch of different characters and have the option to accept or decline any of them - is so much more intuitive.

(For example: in ME3 there were two male same-sex romances. Kaidan's required the player to actually suggest the relationship, and Steve's required the player to choose three or so suggestive dialogue options before anything happened. Neither seemed to make a judgement about Shepard's sexuality beforehand, and both required the player's input. Are people actually suggesting that these were too easy to fall into?)

Even apart from that though, a toggle just has unfortunate implications. Like I said on the last page, at the very least it would lead to accusations - not unfairly - that people wanted to filter, ignore or sideline same-sex content. Presenting it to the player up-front on the character-creation page is bizarre, really - what other game series, let alone a roleplaying game, has asked you to define sexuality so definitively?

I personally don't do the romance stuff so I'm not invested in this topic. I kind of regret even getting involved in this discussion, but I'll follow through for the moment. The NPCs don't actually exist. They don't have thoughts or feelings or opinions. Toggling off dialogue options don't effect anyone other then the player. As I said before this is something that I think is unnecessary, but I can understand why someone that wants to explore all of the dialogue would be interested in having the option. If I were to request a toggle it would be to disable all of the romance content since I don't have any interest in it. As far as other games are concerned I don't know of any others that contain this type of dating sim nonsense so I can't really comment. *shrug*

It can easily veer into "dating sim" nonsense, but it's unfair to say it's all it is. Every character is a symbol in a way.. they represent some bigger issue in the universe. Aligning with one (via a romance) is an extension of roleplaying your fealty to what symbol they represent. For example, the Garrus/Shepard relationship says a lot about galactic alliances and where these two species have come from since the First Contact War (you could also roleplay this in a variety of ways that have nothing to do with romance.. this is just one option out of many. I'm just saying it can carry more value than being mere "dating sim nonsense").

Or take Dragon Age, the story dynamics are even better (both in 1 and 2). The relationships are written even more closely with symbolism in mind. Anders, Merrill, Fenris, Alistair, etc.. the romance arcs make their place in the story even more apparent. The closer you get to them, the more they have to say about wider issues.

There are two trains of thought with me on this.

One. I like depictions of adult love.

Two. Adult love depictions should be seen and not heard. And if they are seen, better it be done with a sackcloth over ones head, clostered in a closet while reading passages from the bible while a tape machine recites hail marys.

The number two train of thought winds up as this.

Why does love exist in a game that revolves around killing people when interaction options are avaiable. To which I say, you've missed the point.

Bioware games have always sought to go beyond wham bam thank you maam styles of interaction where you paint walls in pixelated crimson. They have always sought to go beyond traditional gameplay offering while wrapping it in a non traditional gameplay experience.

[IoCaster]

StreetMagic wrote...
It can easily veer into "dating sim" nonsense, but it's unfair to say it's all it is. Every character is a symbol in a way.. they represent some bigger issue in the universe. Aligning with one (via a romance) is an extension of roleplaying your fealty to what symbol they represent. For example, the Garrus/Shepard relationship says a lot about galactic alliances and where these two species have come from since the First Contact War (you could also roleplay this in a variety of ways that have nothing to do with romance.. this is just one option out of many. I'm just saying it can carry more value than being mere "dating sim nonsense").

Or take Dragon Age, the story dynamics are even better (both in 1 and 2). The relationships are written even more closely with symbolism in mind. Anders, Merrill, Fenris, Alistair, etc.. the romance arcs make their place in the story even more apparent. The closer you get to them, the more they have to say about wider issues.

There is a wide and vast audience that doesn't give a single damn about the NPCs in these games. They do the romance sub-plots for curiosity, laugh at it, then go on to the next cutscene/firefight without a second thought. They don't post in character romance/worship threads or sleep on a Garrus body pillow. I'm one of those people that never cared about any of the characters in these games and I got even more detached from them with each sequel. They could have given me a new batch of faceless sidekicks with each game and it wouldn't have bothered me a bit. 

I was initially invested in the Reaper plot from ME, but it got sidelined in ME2 and never recovered. I always felt that the transition from ME-->ME2 was almost a bait and switch affair. I came for the Reapers and left disappointed. The redeeming part of it all was that the gameplay was tight and I could at least enjoy the combat. I'm not even gonna touch on how badly I thought they butchered the writing in ME3 since I'm not interested in rehashing that argument. <_<

[Redbelle]

IoCaster wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...
It can easily veer into "dating sim" nonsense, but it's unfair to say it's all it is. Every character is a symbol in a way.. they represent some bigger issue in the universe. Aligning with one (via a romance) is an extension of roleplaying your fealty to what symbol they represent. For example, the Garrus/Shepard relationship says a lot about galactic alliances and where these two species have come from since the First Contact War (you could also roleplay this in a variety of ways that have nothing to do with romance.. this is just one option out of many. I'm just saying it can carry more value than being mere "dating sim nonsense").

Or take Dragon Age, the story dynamics are even better (both in 1 and 2). The relationships are written even more closely with symbolism in mind. Anders, Merrill, Fenris, Alistair, etc.. the romance arcs make their place in the story even more apparent. The closer you get to them, the more they have to say about wider issues.

There is a wide and vast audience that doesn't give a single damn about the NPCs in these games.  *Snip*

Where is this vast and wide audience? Who are you people! Stop playing ME!!! Go play CoD!

Your constant whinging about the depth of character in NPC's BW put's into it's games to create a deeply personal gameplay experience is going to ruin the development team's spin on what makes a good game! Leaving us with less of a good thing!

Mass Effect..... Nay, any Bioware game you care to mention has always fleshed out it's characters so as to create the impression of a living breathing universe. The fact that it is not and is gigabytes of data is neither here nor their.....

We are immersed in the illusion.

And to ask BW to stop with what makes them unique in the game making department is to ask them to stop differentiating themselves from all these other shooters where it's cutscene..... fight..... cutscene..... fight....... QTE......fight.......

Bioware have taken cutscene's and made them interactive in a way that allows the player to decide how to proceed. Frankly, if you don't want a romance..... Fine..... Just say No when they ask to bunk..... Don't talk to anyone on the ship..... You have the option!

But directly pointing at the NPC interactions and saying you want them out is like saying that American Football would be more interesting if you shortened the pitch to 30 metres. You might score more goals with less distance to travel but you miss out on alot of drama along the way.

Which raises the question....... Did you shoot Wrex? And were you immersed enough to care?

Because as NPC dude's go.... He's easily in my top ten.

And if you betray him in ME3 you get to shoot him then!

See......

Drama!

Modifié par Redbelle, 29 janvier 2014 - 05:39 .

[IoCaster]

Redbelle wrote...
Where is this vast and wide audience? Who are you people! Stop playing ME!!! Go play CoD!

Your constant whinging about the depth of character in NPC's BW put's into it's games to create a deeply personal gameplay experience is going to ruin the development team's spin on what makes a good game! Leaving us with less of a good thing!

Mass Effect..... Nay, any Bioware game you care to mention has always fleshed out it's characters so as to create the impression of a living breathing universe. The fact that it is not and is gigabytes of data is neither here nor their.....

We are immersed in the illusion.

And to ask BW to stop with what makes them unique in the game making department is to ask them to stop differentiating themselves from all these other shooters where it's cutscene..... fight..... cutscene..... fight....... QTE......fight.......

Bioware have taken cutscene's and made them interactive in a way that allows the player to decide how to proceed. Frankly, if you don't want a romance..... Fine..... Just say No when they ask to bunk..... Don't talk to anyone on the ship..... You have the option!

But directly pointing at the NPC interactions and saying you want them out is like saying that American Football would be more interesting if you shortened the pitch to 30 metres. You might score more goals with less distance to travel but you miss out on alot of drama along the way.

Which raises the question....... Did you shoot Wrex? And were you immersed enough to care?

Because as NPC dude's go.... He's easily in my top ten.

And if you betray him in ME3 you get to shoot him then!

See......

Drama!

OK...you're cracking me up with this sh!t. Yes, I don't care about the characters, but my problem is that they threw the Reapers under the bus so that they could waste a game on populating my ship with a circus clownshow of comic book rejects in ridiculous (Jack-nipplestraps, Samara-Vegas showgirl, etc,.) costumes. Then they mixed in some awful super-hero cutscene powers to make it even more exxxtreme and cool. Meh.

In any case, I'll go away now and let you folks get the thread back on topic. <3:wub: 

[Redbelle]

IoCaster wrote...

Redbelle wrote...
Where is this vast and wide audience? Who are you people! Stop playing ME!!! Go play CoD!

Your constant whinging about the depth of character in NPC's BW put's into it's games to create a deeply personal gameplay experience is going to ruin the development team's spin on what makes a good game! Leaving us with less of a good thing!

Mass Effect..... Nay, any Bioware game you care to mention has always fleshed out it's characters so as to create the impression of a living breathing universe. The fact that it is not and is gigabytes of data is neither here nor their.....

We are immersed in the illusion.

And to ask BW to stop with what makes them unique in the game making department is to ask them to stop differentiating themselves from all these other shooters where it's cutscene..... fight..... cutscene..... fight....... QTE......fight.......

Bioware have taken cutscene's and made them interactive in a way that allows the player to decide how to proceed. Frankly, if you don't want a romance..... Fine..... Just say No when they ask to bunk..... Don't talk to anyone on the ship..... You have the option!

But directly pointing at the NPC interactions and saying you want them out is like saying that American Football would be more interesting if you shortened the pitch to 30 metres. You might score more goals with less distance to travel but you miss out on alot of drama along the way.

Which raises the question....... Did you shoot Wrex? And were you immersed enough to care?

Because as NPC dude's go.... He's easily in my top ten.

And if you betray him in ME3 you get to shoot him then!

See......

Drama!

OK...you're cracking me up with this sh!t. Yes, I don't care about the characters, but my problem is that they threw the Reapers under the bus so that they could waste a game on populating my ship with a circus clownshow of comic book rejects in ridiculous (Jack-nipplestraps, Samara-Vegas showgirl, etc,.) costumes. Then they mixed in some awful super-hero cutscene powers to make it even more exxxtreme and cool. Meh.

In any case, I'll go away now and let you folks get the thread back on topic. <3:wub: 

Okay, I'll grant you that not enough time was spent on the 'actual' Reapers. And by Reapers I mean the space ship variety. Not the faceless goon squads that came to represent the ultimate evil of their mythology.

Really. Needed a Harbinger 'Your doomed Shepard's moment every now and then. Plus some inroads into the Reapers so we could actually win...... but we've been down that avenue of discussion.

The character's make Bioware games what they are. No one remember's the combat. They remember the NPC's. The squad mates. The appreciation for the ones who enhanced the game. The furrowed brows at the ones who didn't click with the players.

Mass Effect is better for them because Mass Effect stems from a company who traditionally make RPG's. That's their strong suit. And RPG's in the Bioware domain have always been heavy on story telling through other characters. As well as the games A  and B plots.