92 réponses à ce sujet

[Malanek]

I don't really like this idea. I don't think romance is a big enough part of the game to put this in character creation. New players will see this and think the game is weird for the focus it puts on it before they even start playing.

[shodiswe]

I'm ok with the way they sat things up in general. Even if the content might have been somewhat weak in volume.

But I'm not playing mass effect for the romances. Still I think it helps the series come alive. I also loved the commercial billboard and tv promters in ME2.
The TV programs in the GTA games also added to the immersion and atmospere in it's own satirical way.

There will alway be someting more a game could have had, the mass effect trilogy was good, however it didn't feel like priority earth an onward was finnished, it feelt more like an alphatest of the levels that were in different stages of completion.

[Han Shot First]

How exactly would that work?

Would the protagonist be wearing a sign on their chest that indicated their sexuality? Why would anyone even know what the protagonist was into unless the protagonist mentioned it in conversation?

Anyway bad idea is bad.

[Shinobu]

You want awkward? Try FemShep saying anything to Jacob in ME2. No toggle can fix that.

Up until the first time she spoke to him in the armory I considered romancing him, but hearing FemShep go immediately into sexual harassment mode was completely offputting. I coped by talking to him as little as possible.

It was a shame because most of the time the dialog options for romance/nomance are pretty straightforward and in line with what you think is going to happen when you choose them. I thought the heart icon in DAII was redundant,TBH.

[Eromenos]

Rodus Maxumus wrote...

In the Mass Effect series (and Dagon Age series also) the dialog options can get a bit confusing when it comes to romance, you can chose some innocuous dialog option and the next thing you know is your character is professing their love for the person they are talking to or even worse several missions latter they will not talk to you because they claim you were stringing them along and here you were trying to maintain or develop a friendship.
And in ME3 some of the conversations with Cortez the undertones felt wrong. Admittedly though I have had a few friendly acquaintances in the gay and bi community I have had only one I would call a real friendship and we would never have used those undertones in our conversations.
I believe it’s great that Bio Ware accommodates the gay and bi community, but 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).
The other is context of dialog options as I said earlier sometimes a dialog option will take you in a direction you did not want go. At the very least have the context of the dialog option in brackets eg. (Make a pass), (Develop friendship), (Pick a fight).

As a MShep with Cortez you get to say: "Naw man, I'm str8. S-T-R-8." ("I'll be looking at the ladies.")

As a MShep with Traynor you get to say: "We'll bang, ok?" ("What about playing in bed?")

FShep doesn't get to hit on Cortez, and that's a good thing. But MShep is encouraged to creep on Traynor? I didn't get to flirt with James, Jacob, or Thane as MShep, yet every female NPC that can have relations with "a Shepard" gets treated as fair game for MShep, even the "one" lesbian in all of Mass Effect.

Traynor's not interested, but MShep is supplied with a come-on towards her. Samara won't go for it, but MShep(also FShep) is encouraged to go for the blue bewbiez. Gianna & Shiala hog up resources in ME2 just so bois can resolve the "ones that got away." Tali gets bogged down by daddy-issues in ME2 that make her immature and incompetent than she was in ME1, all to make her accessible. Kelly Chambers? Don't kid yourself. The fanbois would riot and cry censorship if forbidden fruit stays kept behind the glass, and the ME dev team is no better than them.

Do some homework on Cortez vs Traynor. With or without the Citadel DLC, a lot of focus is on personal things with Traynor, lots of innuendoes and especially F/F fantasies. Her skill at work gets lauded, but not without those aforementioned "prereqs." Cortez's prowess is admired too, yet somehow with a lot less of Traynor's come-hither overtones. The disparity is not a coincidence. Tell us again how LGBT inclusion went too far at str8 guys' expense.

Modifié par Eromenos, 09 février 2014 - 11:40 .

[thehomeworld]

See I really don't understand how one can be ninja-manced into dating someone in ME you just listen to them not just what they're saying but how they're saying it and you know you're getting them to like you too much so you need to back off.

I do however dislike the whole press para to fall in love when all I'm doing is pressing para to be nice to you. But that's not too different from real life be nice for nice sake to someone often enough and they'll start to think you've got some chemistry going on even if yo don't feel that way about them

Maybe BW just fixes this by having the romanceable npc say they like you and if you say you like them then they'll ask you do you mean as a friend or could we be something more this allows the player to pick one of two choices if you pick friends you don't get anything more then a - 2 on their part and any future para dialogue you use on them won't be mistaken for want to be lover. If you however pick we could be more and keep picking para options it will further their love for you.

I also like how Kelly informed me that Tali was interested. This is a second option maybe have it tagged for the pilot (if he's like Joker you'll visit him often enough for this to be an easy subject to stumble upon) and if you have an assistant both these people could tell you about npcs that are romanceable if you've gotten them to the point of them loving you both these people would pass this along. In the form of assistant they'd be like, " so and so has told me they like you." in this way you can say, " wow really?" as a good sign or say, " Funny I never thought of them like that," a ren response or , " Oh no...I just wanted to be friends with them," for a neautral one response or " I'm only being polite to them," as a second neutral response in the ren and both neutral responses this assistant "tells" the person whom you said these things about of your intentions and no more romance is possible unless the character was a Mornith and you use ren on her she might actually keep pursuing you. In the case of a para response of Wow really the npc is "told" of your like of their interest so you can continue speaking to them for romance.

In the case of your pilot being the one he/she would state they heard ship rumor about how so and so loves you and you can pick similar para, ren, neutral 1 &2 responses. What you pick to respond to the pilot would work the same as the assistant and you only have to do this once with either of these alert characters.

[RangerSG]

I do think there's an issue with being ninjamanced in the game, hetero, ******, or Asari-gendered. More than one person complained in ME2 that Tali's romance gets sprung on you if you didn't take a cold 'shoot her down' line. The same could be said for the Chambers relationship. The only things minimizing that was the fact she defaults to back of the bus and doesn't consummate until post-game.

But with both Traynor and Steve, there are scenes that I would've liked a clear 'friends' line in their relationship. With Traynor and Femshep, the choice is either invite her into the shower, or growl at her for playing chess, when that's what she suggested in the 1st place. Neither seems particularly appropriate to someone who wants her as a friend.

And I've felt the same way in a couple lines with Steve. The "I'm here for you" line in execution isn't over the top. But the "gist" on the wheel is either uncomfortable--and given the context of his grief, really too much--or a very harsh 'man up' line. Similarly the Purgatory scene. There needed to be a recognition for a Shepard who already has a locked-in relationship at that point. The 'I'm fine with the dancers' line isn't bad as a "Wrong tree" (to quote Gabby) statement. But it does leave Shep in the place of looking like a bit of a lecher.

In general, this is a weakness of the dialogue wheel system. Too often the 'gist' of the statement is nothing like what we actually get. And it can get very jarring when Harbinger Assumes Control of the dialogue.

[78stonewobble]

Well to me... It seems like a perfectly natural addition to the character creation process.

In that sense it would be no different from being able to pick gender and Shepards "backstory"... All of which influence the gameplay somewhat and automatically allows / disallows certain things (to keep a certain continuity). 

It's not reaaally something I've missed though... In my games a "romance" indicator would have been fine and offcourse that what is being said matches fully the text choices I'm seeing. It's just hard to know the tone of what will be said... from the the text.

PS: The last bit goes for all the romances offcourse...

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 12 février 2014 - 10:17 .

[katamuro]

I dont think sexuality is needed in character creation.
First of all it is kinda personal and I just dont see how a random npc would need this information.

Second considering it is set in the 22nd century the humanity as a whole might have accepted the idea that a persons sexuality is their own business and that it by no means defines them in other aspects.

And third, we already had the ability to determine the sexuality of the character through actions rather than a random parameter in the character history.

Plus considering that romance forms maybe an hour, hour and a half of the total games run time it would be a waste.

[78stonewobble]

katamuro wrote...

I dont think sexuality is needed in character creation.
First of all it is kinda personal and I just dont see how a random npc would need this information.

Second considering it is set in the 22nd century the humanity as a whole might have accepted the idea that a persons sexuality is their own business and that it by no means defines them in other aspects.

And third, we already had the ability to determine the sexuality of the character through actions rather than a random parameter in the character history.

Plus considering that romance forms maybe an hour, hour and a half of the total games run time it would be a waste.

If this was at me... I don't think it's necessary, but that to me... it's not different from being able to select gender, looks and backstory.

Whatever helps immersion and provides the sleekest best fit dialogue options is ok with me.

But then again I'm generally disinterested in people's weird interpretations (of options like that) and what not has been mentioned here.

[katamuro]

I am just saying that its not something that comes up in dialogues unless you start talking about it and considering that most of the dialogues in ME games are not friendly get togethers to chat about who fancies who then there is no need to code additional level of complexity into the dialogues.

[Rodus Maxumus]

78stonewobble wrote...

Well to me... It seems like a perfectly natural addition to the character creation process.

In that sense it would be no different from being able to pick gender and Shepards "backstory"... All of which influence the gameplay somewhat and automatically allows / disallows certain things (to keep a certain continuity). 

It's not reaaally something I've missed though... In my games a "romance" indicator would have been fine and offcourse that what is being said matches fully the text choices I'm seeing. It's just hard to know the tone of what will be said... from the the text.

PS: The last bit goes for all the romances offcourse...

Your right I do think it is inevitable that it will become part of character creation in RPG’s, but the reason that I suggested it was to stop the out of place recycled voice overs was a mistake because if a developer is going to use recycled voice overs, a sexuality option will not make a difference. For me the irritation of the emotionally out of place voice overs is between bad voice acting (that can sometimes even ruin a game) and the voice actor’s voice and/or accent changing from one section of dialog to another, which is really a quality assurance issue.

But I will raise one question why do people believe a sexuality option is a bad thing? Yes there will be people that would welcome a gay free option because of religion, culture and/or they are not ready to come to terms with their own sexuality. But for me I do not see a sexuality option as a “gay wall” more as an indicator of what dialog and voice over tracks to use.

The one thing that makes the sci-fi genre so important is that it can explore issues that contemporary genres cannot touch.

Modifié par Rodus Maxumus, 12 février 2014 - 10:39 .

[katamuro]

Rodus Maxumus wrote...

78stonewobble wrote...

Well to me... It seems like a perfectly natural addition to the character creation process.

In that sense it would be no different from being able to pick gender and Shepards "backstory"... All of which influence the gameplay somewhat and automatically allows / disallows certain things (to keep a certain continuity). 

It's not reaaally something I've missed though... In my games a "romance" indicator would have been fine and offcourse that what is being said matches fully the text choices I'm seeing. It's just hard to know the tone of what will be said... from the the text.

PS: The last bit goes for all the romances offcourse...

Your right I do think it is inevitable that it will become part of character creation in RPG’s, but the reason that I suggested it was to stop the out of place recycled voice overs was a mistake because if a developer is going to use recycled voice overs, a sexuality option will not make a difference. For me the irritation of the emotionally out of place voice overs is between bad voice acting (that can sometimes even ruin a game) and the voice actor’s voice and/or accent changing from one section of dialog to another, which is really a quality assurance issue.

But I will raise one question why do people believe a sexuality option is a bad thing? Yes there will be people that would welcome a gay free option because of religion, culture and/or they are not ready to come to terms with their own sexuality. But for me I do not see a sexuality option as a “gay wall” more as an indicator of what dialog and voice over tracks to use.

The one thing that makes the sci-fi genre so important is that it can explore issues that contemporary genres cannot touch.

Considering how much the homosexuality issue has been explored in the last 20 years or so I dont see how it requires a Scifi to be "explored". Sure there are countries, people for whom it is still a problem and who do not accept different people but overall the acceptance of such themes and its use in both the media and creative work is widespread enough for it to be a "normal" theme. It is being explored because people are still trying to show that all people are the same no matter what their sexual orientation. 

[78stonewobble]

It does raise the question how we know the gender and/or skincolour options isn't being used for "nefarious" discriminatory purposes by players. Brainscans and psychological testing?

There will allways be narrowminded people. :S

[katamuro]

Yes there will be, but like other social norms that have evolved over the past 50 years it is at least considered impolite to refer to non-white people by some kind of derogatory name.

[78stonewobble]

katamuro wrote...

Yes there will be, but like other social norms that have evolved over the past 50 years it is at least considered impolite to refer to non-white people by some kind of derogatory name.

Sadly I think it's often a question of "pop-culture", more than it's a genuine change.

[Vapaa]

78stonewobble wrote...

If this was at me... I don't think it's necessary, but that to me... it's not different from being able to select gender, looks and backstory.

It IS different though; gender is spottable on a glance, backstory only comes up with informed people, but sexuality ? how do you justify that everybody knows about it without you saying a world about it ?

[katamuro]

Vapaä wrote...

78stonewobble wrote...

If this was at me... I don't think it's necessary, but that to me... it's not different from being able to select gender, looks and backstory.

It IS different though; gender is spottable on a glance, backstory only comes up with informed people, but sexuality ? how do you justify that everybody knows about it without you saying a world about it ?

Exactly. Especially considering that Shepard for example was an alliance soldier it would make no sense to tell everyone which way he/she prefers. I have known several people for years and such a question has not come up and I dont really care to know how they prefer their partners. 

Modifié par katamuro, 13 février 2014 - 10:29 .

[78stonewobble]

Vapaä wrote...

78stonewobble wrote...

If this was at me... I don't think it's necessary, but that to me... it's not different from being able to select gender, looks and backstory.

It IS different though; gender is spottable on a glance, backstory only comes up with informed people, but sexuality ? how do you justify that everybody knows about it without you saying a world about it ?

Gender is "usually" spottable at a glance, not allways. There is a number of ie. chromosome and gender disorders and just a fair amount of people unhappy with their sex at birth.

I'd justify it's lack in most conversations as the characters having previous knowledge of eachother and/or it's complete irrelevancy in most situations.

Sometimes you do want to add a character that comes on to the "wrong" person or falls in love with the wrong person, but there should be some literary purpose to it.

I personally find "out of character" lines much more disruptive to my gameplay than the question of whether a few codelines knows or doesn't know my, ingame, imaginary sexuality.

PS: But "out of character" lines regarding sexuality is like ... 1 percent of the overall problem of "out of character" lines. By out of character I mean for the shepard I'm creating in my mind and trying to in the game... and then getting shoehorned into a limited number or responces (something which will be there in the forseable future as well).

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 13 février 2014 - 11:09 .

[78stonewobble]

katamuro wrote...

Exactly. Especially considering that Shepard for example was an alliance soldier it would make no sense to tell everyone which way he/she prefers. I have known several people for years and such a question has not come up and I dont really care to know how they prefer their partners. 

Isn't that the point too?



In my social circles people's sexuality has either been assumed or stated once... in matter of factly kinda way. The topic has then only come up exceedingly rarely in either day to day talk or even in personally intimate conversations.
That does sound like a sort of "software flag" thats set once and allmost never consciously thought about again other than having set a few mental background software rules.

Atleast thats how I work. Maybe you girls and guys are different.

[katamuro]

78stonewobble wrote...

Vapaä wrote...

78stonewobble wrote...

If this was at me... I don't think it's necessary, but that to me... it's not different from being able to select gender, looks and backstory.

It IS different though; gender is spottable on a glance, backstory only comes up with informed people, but sexuality ? how do you justify that everybody knows about it without you saying a world about it ?

Gender is "usually" spottable at a glance, not allways. There is a number of ie. chromosome and gender disorders and just a fair amount of people unhappy with their sex at birth.

I'd justify it's lack in most conversations as the characters having previous knowledge of eachother and/or it's complete irrelevancy in most situations.

Sometimes you do want to add a character that comes on to the "wrong" person or falls in love with the wrong person, but there should be some literary purpose to it.

I personally find "out of character" lines much more disruptive to my gameplay than the question of whether a few codelines knows or doesn't know my, ingame, imaginary sexuality.

PS: But "out of character" lines regarding sexuality is like ... 1 percent of the overall problem of "out of character" lines. By out of character I mean for the shepard I'm creating in my mind and trying to in the game... and then getting shoehorned into a limited number or responces (something which will be there in the forseable future as well).

But its not a few lines of code. Its creating the actual status of sexuality for the main character and all the affected npc. Then you add the parameters for certain characters actually knowing it or the possibility of finding out. Then the re-encoding and rewriting all the character lines that would be affected by that to be actively set to a certain sexuality. Then there is the voice actors who would need to record several different variants according to the sexual preference specified and that would include the different variants of variants already present. Yes sure it seems like a small thing at first but when you think about a game with dialogues that are fully voiced like in ME then the work starts to pile up, the money and effort spent on doing that would be much longer than the actual dialogue involved. And that is a waste.

[78stonewobble]

katamuro wrote...
But its not a few lines of code. Its creating the actual status of sexuality for the main character and all the affected npc. Then you add the parameters for certain characters actually knowing it or the possibility of finding out. Then the re-encoding and rewriting all the character lines that would be affected by that to be actively set to a certain sexuality. Then there is the voice actors who would need to record several different variants according to the sexual preference specified and that would include the different variants of variants already present. Yes sure it seems like a small thing at first but when you think about a game with dialogues that are fully voiced like in ME then the work starts to pile up, the money and effort spent on doing that would be much longer than the actual dialogue involved. And that is a waste.

You're completely right that it might take away waaay to many developmental ressources for the benefit it gives.

However ie. gender choice have the same issues.



It is a balance though ... How many people will benefit how much from a change like this and how does this relate to the amount of romantic content in the game.

Ie. if a game is 90 percent romance... Then it will be alot of work. If it is 10 percent romance it will be less work.

I don't know the answer to those questions, but I don't find it entirely unreasonable to ask that question.


Personally I don't think the tiny amount of sexuality related awkward or poorly fitting dialogue is worth a major effort.

In general awkward or poorly fitting dialogue is probably best avoided by better planning before hand to avoid the worst ones.

But if there was all the money and time available in the world? Then I'd offcourse have preferred the mass effect games to completely fit as many possible shepards as possible.

[katamuro]

Gender choice does not have the same issues mainly because human species is divided majorly in two genders and it makes a major cosmetic change of the character. Unlike sexuality, gender choice affects the way characters interact quite strongly, even if they meet the main char for the first time it is quite obvious what gender they are.

[Vapaa]

78stonewobble wrote...

Gender is "usually" spottable at a glance, not allways. There is a number of ie. chromosome and gender disorders and just a fair amount of people unhappy with their sex at birth.

Please we both know it's the case for a huge majority, yes hermaphrodism exist and transgenderd people exist, but recognizing gender on apparence is a valid way to go

78stonewobble wrote...

I'd justify it's lack in most conversations as the characters having previous knowledge of eachother and/or it's complete irrelevancy in most situations.

And how do they have that knowledge ?

78stonewobble wrote...

Sometimes you do want to add a character that comes on to the "wrong" person or falls in love with the wrong person, but there should be some literary purpose to it.

That's valid for every romance out there (especially the female ones in ME): the character throw him/herslf at your PC regardless of his sexual orientaion, but also without know his/her type in general, physical and personality-wise
I we go for a gay toggle, why not a blonde toggle ? or a dark-skinned toggle ? or an asari toggle ? etc..

78stonewobble wrote...

I personally find "out of character" lines much more disruptive to my gameplay than the question of whether a few codelines knows or doesn't know my, ingame, imaginary sexuality.

No amount of toggle can cure a badly written line, and besides, people who hit on you whether you like it or not is hardly news at eleven, people take their chances, so does the NPCs in ME

78stonewobble wrote...

and then getting shoehorned into a limited number or responces (something which will be there in the forseable future as well).

Welcome to ME or in fact any computer RPG

[78stonewobble]

Vapaä wrote...

78stonewobble wrote...

Gender is "usually" spottable at a glance, not allways. There is a number of ie. chromosome and gender disorders and just a fair amount of people unhappy with their sex at birth.

1: Please we both know it's the case for a huge majority, yes hermaphrodism exist and transgenderd people exist, but recognizing gender on apparence is a valid way to go

78stonewobble wrote...

I'd justify it's lack in most conversations as the characters having previous knowledge of eachother and/or it's complete irrelevancy in most situations.

2: And how do they have that knowledge ?

78stonewobble wrote...

Sometimes you do want to add a character that comes on to the "wrong" person or falls in love with the wrong person, but there should be some literary purpose to it.

3: That's valid for every romance out there (especially the female ones in ME): the character throw him/herslf at your PC regardless of his sexual orientaion, but also without know his/her type in general, physical and personality-wise
I we go for a gay toggle, why not a blonde toggle ? or a dark-skinned toggle ? or an asari toggle ? etc..

78stonewobble wrote...

I personally find "out of character" lines much more disruptive to my gameplay than the question of whether a few codelines knows or doesn't know my, ingame, imaginary sexuality.

4: No amount of toggle can cure a badly written line, and besides, people who hit on you whether you like it or not is hardly news at eleven, people take their chances, so does the NPCs in ME

78stonewobble wrote...

and then getting shoehorned into a limited number or responces (something which will be there in the forseable future as well).

5: Welcome to ME or in fact any computer RPG

Sorry I much prefer a numbered way of replying.

1: But in the event that we do get it wrong or wrongly surmise that people are happy or unhappy with their sex would also lead to quite the awkward non-fitting conversation. In the case of a non-intelligent game that cannot "guess" sex with a reasonable degree of accuracy from looks or bodylanguage we ARE forced to input the setting specifically.

Neither can it guess ie. back ground story ... nor can it guess sexuality... That is why I think it's the same. We are not dealing with a intelligence, but a game trying to emulate interacting intelligences.

2: By observation, conversation of other parts of characters lives (cortez does not say... I'm gay... he mentions his husband) or a statement of the fact. Which is all fine and dandy for new characters you meet ingame, but for people your character has known for years? There I find it falls short.

3: Actually I do find it silly that everyone throws themselves at sheppard allmost purely based on gender and sexuality. I think that that part of the game, the romance part, would be much better if certain characters were only into certain personality types and/or looks and/or commonalities. Which could only make it that much more realistic.

I'm not saying that, that part of the game, should have everything including the kitchen sink. I just don't see any problem in trying to make that "minigame" better, more immersive and more emotionally engaging. Whether it's a sexuality option or whatever else that improves the experience for people.

4: You're right about the poorly written line... And in that department the sexuality part is a miniscule part of the problem.

I don't really recognice the part about hitting on people that are genuinely and completely disinterested. Atleast not from someting in my life. My brain seems to not let me develop any romantical feelings for someone I'm not interested in or someone that is genuinely disinterested in me. Ie. I love my coffee .. but I don't fall in love with my coffee...

5: That is really only an argument for accepting the status quo and never looking to improve anything.