303 réponses à ce sujet

[TheChris92]

Ziegrif wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

I'll take that over being forced to romance all girls. Least in P4 I can choose to be loyal and still get my content.

Or you can be Inabas biggest man ***** romancing a giant harem of girls, banging a nurse on the side and making your in game magician arcana BFF bromantic to the max.

And dress in drag.

Man I love Persona 4.

Just to unintentionally derail the thread some more -- Where does your avatar stem from? :happy:

[Ryzaki]

Mr.House wrote...
MC:Did you sign yourself up?
Yu:Nah a woman I liked did
Brosuke: DUDE STAHP

Oh man needling Yosuke during the play date is hilarious.

[Chashan]

iakus wrote...

Personally, I consider dialogue and interaction (including romances)  to
be gameplay elements.  And extremely important ones at that.

I consider both to be more in the story-department of things, but fair enough. Word straight from Mr Gaider on how he would prefer to, but ultimately does accomodate them due to ressource allocation has already been provided here.

iakus wrote...

Replayability

Mh, someone else put it well when it comes to that:

AlexJK wrote...

So... what? All you people who derive pleasure from the game being
different the second time around - you have 4 romances to take advantage
of. Play a different one, for different role playing reasons, and the
game is different. What's the issue?

I fail to see the issue how "hero-sexuality" of characters would be fundamentally in the way of the following:

someguy1231 wrote...
We must have different definitions of roleplaying then. In most RPGs I
play, after finishing one playthrough I start another as a different
gender/class/etc and see how things are different. The more different
they are, the more I feel like part of the game's world.

One is free to do that irregardless. Some like to stick to one gender and only switch class subsequently, I know I do. And differences in dialogue are evident in DA2, the one game people appear to take issue with

So basically, what BW could do there is
- provide clear forks in the dialogue to shut down approaches by characters that still maintain a choice of tone for the PC (friendly or neutral rather than brusque, e.g.)

- keep the dialogue different, but also mention significant facts of the character (Anders's involvement with Karl also mentioned with a Ms Hawke)

- adjust animations so they are better suited to the PC's gender, or at least do not look too out of place for both.


Does that about cover it?

Modifié par Chashan, 18 février 2014 - 10:39 .

[Mr.House]

Ryzaki wrote...

Mr.House wrote...
MC:Did you sign yourself up?
Yu:Nah a woman I liked did
Brosuke: DUDE STAHP

Oh man needling Yosuke during the play date is hilarious.

Nah man, you hit on Kanji!

[CrazyRah]

Mr.House wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Mr.House wrote...
MC:Did you sign yourself up?
Yu:Nah a woman I liked did
Brosuke: DUDE STAHP

Oh man needling Yosuke during the play date is hilarious.

Nah man, you hit on Kanji!

Kanji totally deserve all that hot luuuuve!

[Ziegrif]

Mr.House wrote...

MC:Did you sign yourself up?
Yu:Nah a woman I liked did
Brosuke: DUDE STAHP

Best was when you could flirt with Brosuke in the group date cafe event.

Yu sits on teh girls side and flirts with Brosuke.

Everytime.

Without fail.

TheChris92 wrote...
Just to unintentionally derail the thread some more -- Where does your avatar stem from? [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/happy.png[/smilie]

Agria Tales of Xillia.

She's coo coo for coco puffs.

Modifié par Ziegrif, 18 février 2014 - 10:48 .

[AresKeith]

jwalker wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

spirosz wrote...

And I see that as a negative, as I prefer them to have their own set of rules that they follow.  Though I don't mind certain type of influences, but it all has to fall back on who that character is.

They do.  Those rules just change playthrough to playthrough.

I don't see why this would ever be a problem for anyone.

It's a problem for me because I think characters should exist as their own independent entity, not a satellite that revolves around the player. One of my biggest gripes with an RPG is if everything feels too playercentric. I believe playersexual characters are an aspect of that. A player should feel like they're part of the game's world, not that the world revolves around them.

Yeah, well, that's nice and all but oddly enough, you only see threads complaining about that when it comes to companions's sexuality. No one gives a damn about a companion falling for either a massive unholy d-bag or a nice guy/girl. At all. Such thing does not break their immersion or whatever. What's up with that ?

You'd be surprised by how many actually care about that, but they just don't make threads about it

[Ryzaki]

CrazyRah wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Mr.House wrote...
MC:Did you sign yourself up?
Yu:Nah a woman I liked did
Brosuke: DUDE STAHP

Oh man needling Yosuke during the play date is hilarious.

Nah man, you hit on Kanji!

Kanji totally deserve all that hot luuuuve!

He does but I wanna mess with Yosuke moar D:

Ziegrif wrote...

Best was when you could flirt with Brosuke in the group date cafe event.

Yu sits on teh girls side and flirts with Brosuke.

Everytime.

Without fail.

See Zie knows what's up.

[Ziegrif]

Ryzaki wrote...
See Zie knows what's up.

There's actually a scene in the last encounter with yosuke in his social link where if you spent the entire time picking the right options Yu hugs Brosuke.

Modifié par Ziegrif, 18 février 2014 - 11:03 .

[KaiserShep]

someguy1231 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

spirosz wrote...

And I see that as a negative, as I prefer them to have their own set of rules that they follow.  Though I don't mind certain type of influences, but it all has to fall back on who that character is.

They do.  Those rules just change playthrough to playthrough.

I don't see why this would ever be a problem for anyone.

It's a problem for me because I think characters should exist as their own independent entity, not a satellite that revolves around the player. One of my biggest gripes with an RPG is if everything feels too playercentric. I believe playersexual characters are an aspect of that. A player should feel like they're part of the game's world, not that the world revolves around them.

This doesn't really make sense. Regardless of the romance options, the central characters always revolve around the player. In Dragon Age: Origins, even before the Warden even becomes a Warden, the other recruits and someone who is already a Warden is following you around in the Kocari wilds. No matter the situation, you are in control of the team. Sure, to an extent, these characters are independent in that they can object to the point where they may betray you or leave the group entirely, but for the most part, you can influence them to see things your way, and even get them to break out of their deep-seated issues about something and follow you anyway, like Fenris being able to help you fight the templars despite how he feels about mages. 

So really, what difference does "playersexual" make when all of those other things are true? Let's face it, all of these games, DA, Mass Effect, et al are basically power fantasy stories where the PC has much more control and influence than would be afforded such a character in a more realistic setting.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 18 février 2014 - 11:14 .

[Milan92]

CrazyRah wrote...

Kanji totally deserve all that hot luuuuve!

Man, he already had his Bad Bad Bath House show. Yosuke needs more love!

[Master Warder Z_]

CrazyRah wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Mr.House wrote...
MC:Did you sign yourself up?
Yu:Nah a woman I liked did
Brosuke: DUDE STAHP

Oh man needling Yosuke during the play date is hilarious.

Nah man, you hit on Kanji!

Kanji totally deserve all that hot luuuuve!

"You sayin i like dudes?!"

[Mr.House]

Ziegrif wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
See Zie knows what's up.

There's actually a scene in the last encounter with yosuke in his social link where if you spent the entire time picking the right options Yu hugs Brosuke.

IIRC it's in rank 7 that flags the hug for rank 8.

Modifié par Mr.House, 18 février 2014 - 11:13 .

[TheChris92]

Ziegrif wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

MC:Did you sign yourself up?
Yu:Nah a woman I liked did
Brosuke: DUDE STAHP

Best was when you could flirt with Brosuke in the group date cafe event.

Yu sits on teh girls side and flirts with Brosuke.

Everytime.

Without fail.

TheChris92 wrote...
Just to unintentionally derail the thread some more -- Where does your avatar stem from? [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/happy.png[/smilie]

Agria Tales of Xillia.

She's coo coo for coco puffs.

So that's where I recognize her from. Only just started to play the game and don't know whether I should do Milla's story or Jun or whatever his name was again?

[Red by Full Metal Jacket]

TheChris92 wrote...
So that's where I recognize her from. Only just started to play the game and don't know whether I should do Milla's story or Jun or whatever his name was again?

Jude.  Do his story first, otherwise a lot of things won't make sense in the game.  I learned this the hard way.

Modifié par Red by Full Metal Jacket, 18 février 2014 - 11:18 .

[someguy1231]

KaiserShep wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

spirosz wrote...

And I see that as a negative, as I prefer them to have their own set of rules that they follow.  Though I don't mind certain type of influences, but it all has to fall back on who that character is.

They do.  Those rules just change playthrough to playthrough.

I don't see why this would ever be a problem for anyone.

It's a problem for me because I think characters should exist as their own independent entity, not a satellite that revolves around the player. One of my biggest gripes with an RPG is if everything feels too playercentric. I believe playersexual characters are an aspect of that. A player should feel like they're part of the game's world, not that the world revolves around them.

This doesn't really make sense. Regardless of the romance options, the central characters always revolve around the player. In Dragon Age: Origins, even before the Warden even becomes a Warden, the other recruits and someone who is already a Warden is following you around in the Kocari wilds. No matter the situation, you are in control of the team. Sure, to an extent, these characters are independent in that they can object to the point where they may betray you or leave the group entirely, but for the most part, you can influence them to see things your way, and even get them to break out of their deep-seated issues about something and follow you anyway, like Fenris being able to help you fight the templars despite how he feels about mages. 

So really, what difference does "playersexual" make when all of those other things are true? 

"Playersexual" and the things you describe can't be compared. If your team never betrayed you or left you no matter how poorly you treated them, then that would be comparable to playersexual characters, and yes, I would complain about that being too player-centric. Influencing other characters is also acceptable as long as the player has to earn it, such as doing a sidequest or having enough of a certain stat. Just giving them the persuasion option without having to do anything for it would be too player-centric. I believe playersexual characters cross the line because a character's sexuality should be fixed and set in stone, not dependent on the player. Even if the player still has to "earn" their romance, there should be some characters for whom it can't be earned because of the player's gender. Being able to persuade every romanceable character to desire you regardless of gender crosses the line into Mary-Sue territory for me.

Besides, as others here have pointed out, playersexual characters aren't meant so much to be "inclusive" or "progressive", but more like a budget-saving measure. That alone should be a reason that Bioware should not use them, as I said earlier, because Bioware is (or used to be) a studio known for making games with very detailed characters.

Modifié par someguy1231, 18 février 2014 - 11:27 .

[Orian Tabris]

It's not the least bit surprising people turned this other thread into a new one when the "Is every romancable character going to be bisexual again?" got locked.

...Trust the BSN to go on and on about one topic till it becomes the biggest topic in the history of 1 forum.

[Battlebloodmage]

I wonder when they release the second episode of the Walking Dead.

[Chrom72]

jwalker wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

spirosz wrote...

And I see that as a negative, as I prefer them to have their own set of rules that they follow.  Though I don't mind certain type of influences, but it all has to fall back on who that character is.

They do.  Those rules just change playthrough to playthrough.

I don't see why this would ever be a problem for anyone.

It's a problem for me because I think characters should exist as their own independent entity, not a satellite that revolves around the player. One of my biggest gripes with an RPG is if everything feels too playercentric. I believe playersexual characters are an aspect of that. A player should feel like they're part of the game's world, not that the world revolves around them.

Yeah, well, that's nice and all but oddly enough, you only see threads complaining about that when it comes to companions's sexuality. No one gives a damn about a companion falling for either a massive unholy d-bag or a nice guy/girl. At all. Such thing does not break their immersion or whatever. What's up with that ?

That's messed up too, and should also be corrected.

[Il Divo]

Chrom72 wrote...

jwalker wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

spirosz wrote...

And I see that as a negative, as I prefer them to have their own set of rules that they follow.  Though I don't mind certain type of influences, but it all has to fall back on who that character is.

They do.  Those rules just change playthrough to playthrough.

I don't see why this would ever be a problem for anyone.

It's a problem for me because I think characters should exist as their own independent entity, not a satellite that revolves around the player. One of my biggest gripes with an RPG is if everything feels too playercentric. I believe playersexual characters are an aspect of that. A player should feel like they're part of the game's world, not that the world revolves around them.

Yeah, well, that's nice and all but oddly enough, you only see threads complaining about that when it comes to companions's sexuality. No one gives a damn about a companion falling for either a massive unholy d-bag or a nice guy/girl. At all. Such thing does not break their immersion or whatever. What's up with that ?

That's messed up too, and should also be corrected.

^

Hell, I'd say this sort of thing extends beyond romances. Much as I loved KotOR for example, any sort of dark side playthrough really does break the main plot/romance.

[Seboist]

J. Reezy wrote...

 This thread really devolved into Persona talk...<_<

It's the better franchise after all and unlike Bioware with DA, Atlus didn't go full retard with sequels in Persona.

Modifié par Seboist, 19 février 2014 - 02:24 .

[Mr.House]

Seboist wrote...

J. Reezy wrote...

 This thread really devolved into Persona talk...<_<

It's the better franchise after all and unlike Bioware with DA, Atlus didn't go full retard with sequels in Persona.

It also does romances better along with better companions, so it's not really off topic as people like BW tend to take jabs at JRPGs for being all CINI! When in fact things liek Persona do a better job then what western devs try to do.

[DeinonSlayer]

If I never see the word "playersexual" again I'll die a happy man.