Ce sujet est fermé
Did BioWare think people would lose their sh!t if it was a chaste romance?
it was tryed with Sebastian in DA2. for what I have heard, it didn't go very well.
Still, quite sad MaleShep "love" cure all, while FemShep...well...seems like she can only spread death or having human men being repulsed.
My Shep was gay and never put his genitals near a lady and they all turned out ok. His genitals did not make them better people and this forum just got really foul and angry. Unless the penis posts are supposed to be funny. (they're not funny)
Yeah, I'm a bit confused about some of these posts as well. I have never romanced any of the women in ME, so I can't say for sure, but Jack "reformed" (I'm not sure what the word would be) with my gay Shep as well. I'm not sure if the romance arc is different, though, so I might be speaking out of turn.
My Shep was gay and never put his genitals near a lady and they all turned out ok. His genitals did not make them better people and this forum just got really foul and angry. Unless the penis posts are supposed to be funny. (they're not funny)
They *mostly* turned out okay in ME3 true (but really how much of that was BW's laziness in making alternate paths than anything. Jack becoming a teacher when she's all "MURDER YAY" in ME2 is laughable.) But in ME2? Can't comfort Miranda unless you're sleeping with her because we all know you can't help someone with self esteem issues otherwise, Jack screams at you to **** off if you pick the wrong no and otherwise you get a "stop pissing around." remark and Tali...well she just awkwardly shuts you down in embarrassment. So if we're comparing game to game arguing that DA2's LIs were so much more shallower than the ME2 Lis...is well..
Then in ME3...
Miranda dies if Shep dumps her.
Tali at the very least moves on then again she moves on to Garrus who's pretty much Shepard lite. But she at least moves on while Liara freaking holds a torch for Shepard forever. And the whole allergy thing working out if she and Shep bangs enough is stupid as hell.
Jack seems to be fine either way true.
Not sure about Ashley.
Did BioWare think people would lose their sh!t if it was a chaste romance?
Then again flirt four times and get a sex scene is just what they do.
I guess so.
lol
I didn't really mind Tali's romance having a sex scene. Her dialogue about "sharing suit environments" implied that she'd have been just as sick even if she slept with another Quarian. Or literally anyone, really.
I do hope they make the sex scenes optional or that you can choose when they happen like in Dragon Age Origins though, because having the option of simply not doing it, saving it for after the world is saved and so on... It was nice to be able to play the romance in different ways than the standard "scene 1, scene 2, sex scene, final talk" we got in DA2, ME2 and ME3. And to be able to take the romances at whatever pace you felt best fit the story and your character.
They *mostly* turned out okay in ME3 true (but really how much of that was BW's laziness in making alternate paths than anything. Jack becoming a teacher when she's all "MURDER YAY" in ME2 is laughable.) But in ME2? Can't comfort Miranda unless you're sleeping with her, Jack screams at you to **** off if you pick the wrong no and otherwise you get a "stop pissing around." remark and Tali...well she just awkwardly shuts you down in embarrassment. So if we're comparing game to game arguing that DA2's LIs were so much more shallower than the ME2 Lis...is well..
Was dumb imo that characters would eventually just stop talking to you if they weren't romanced in ME2.
It really was. Garrus and his damn calibrations. All those LIs and all I had for decent length friendship paths were Thane and Samara and they had to double as codex entries. That cheesed me off. (Yeah there was Jacob but he was so flip floppy and weirdly hostile when you tried to talk to him too often.) At least they somewhat fixed that in ME3.
I do hope they make the sex scenes optional or that you can choose when they happen like in Dragon Age Origins though, because having the option of simply not doing it, saving it for after the world is saved and so on... It was nice to be able to play the romance in different ways than the standard "scene 1, scene 2, sex scene, final talk" we got in DA2, ME2 and ME3. And to be able to take the romances at whatever pace you felt best fit the story and your character.
Agreed. At least for some variation if nothing else.
Miranda dies if Shep dumps her.
Seriously?
I never romanced her and she didn't die on me... of course it could be argued that since there was no romance, there was no dumping either.
Seriously?
I never romanced her and she didn't die on me... of course it could be argued that since there was no romance, there was no dumping either.
Yep. Break up with her in the first or is it second conversation one of those.
You have to meet her 3 times for her to live. Edit: wait...rereading. You still meet her all three times but it works as if she's not loyal.
Oddly it seems that saying you still want to be with her then romancing a ME3 LI works just fine though.
Yep. Break up with her in the first or is it second conversation one of those.
You have to meet her 3 times for her to live. Edit: wait...rereading. You still meet her all three times but it works as if she's not loyal.
Oddly it seems that saying you still want to be with her then romancing a ME3 LI works just fine though.
So much for genetic superiority I suppose.
You know, maybe she's better off without Shepard romancing her at all. It's been a while and my memory may be a bit off, but I remember keeping everything professional between her and Shepard in ME2. She never actually seemed to need any comfort, and her loyalty mission worked just fine. Likewise in ME3. Maybe not romancing/"fixing" her is actually better, all things considered. 
Are you trying to fire up the discussion again?
Exception to the rule.
Just as a note, if there's an exception to the rule it probably means the rule's not valid. And in case anyone wants to go with "the exception that proves the rule" I want to point out as well that that term is grossly misused. An exception that proves the rule is an rule that is made obvious due to an exception. For example: "No Parking on Sundays" is the exception that proves the rule "Parking is allowed on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday."
Can you list the ones that can't be romanced in DA2? Then list those who can or even try when you don't try to romance them? I bet the first list will be shorter than the second. And Carver/Bethany doesn't count as that would have just been plain sicko romancing little brother/little sister. Now if you were making a Game of Thrones game, I guess you'd have to go there.
I will start listing the characters you cannot romance in DA2. I'll even omit Carver and Bethany.
Meredith
Ser Agantha
Cullen
Ser Thrask
Gamlen
The Arishok
The Viscount
Wilmod
Mettin
Varnell
Varric
Stroud
Aveline
And I'm just scratching the surface here. There are dozens and dozens and dozens of characters we simply do not allow you to romance. While by contrast, we only allow four (in the base game) that you can romance. This is inherently unrealistic. If it were "realistic" I could ask the shop keeper out on a date. Or a person I meet outside my home. It's not. The realism argument isn't particularly compelling because the game isn't an open sandbox where you can say and do anything and whatever you want, due to the nature of how the game is made. You're only allowed to talk to who we allow. You're only allowed to go where we let you. You're only allowed to say what we allow you to say at any given point in time.
Within this framework, the "4 bisexuals is unrealistic" is an irrelevant argument. It means nothing to me because there are so many other lines in the sand that are unrealistic too. If this bothers you for its lack of realism, I consider it something requiring some self-reflection.
Just as a note, if there's an exception to the rule it probably means the rule's not valid. And in case anyone wants to go with "the exception that proves the rule" I want to point out as well that that term is grossly misused. An exception that proves the rule is an rule that is made obvious due to an exception. For example: "No Parking on Sundays" is the exception that proves the rule "Parking is allowed on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday."
I will start listing the characters you cannot romance in DA2. I'll even omit Carver and Bethany.
Meredith
Ser Agantha
Cullen
Ser Thrask
Gamlen
The Arishok
The Viscount
Wilmod
Mettin
Varnell
Varric
Stroud
Aveline
And I'm just scratching the surface here. There are dozens and dozens and dozens of characters we simply do not allow you to romance. While by contrast, we only allow four (in the base game) that you can romance. This is inherently unrealistic. If it were "realistic" I could ask the shop keeper out on a date. Or a person I meet outside my home. It's not. The realism argument isn't particularly compelling because the game isn't an open sandbox where you can say and do anything and whatever you want, due to the nature of how the game is made. You're only allowed to talk to who we allow. You're only allowed to go where we let you. You're only allowed to say what we allow you to say at any given point in time.
Within this framework, the "4 bisexuals is unrealistic" is an irrelevant argument. It means nothing to me because there are so many other lines in the sand that are unrealistic too. If this bothers you for its lack of realism, I consider it something requiring some self-reflection.
/drops mic
I don't get this hate for the r-word. I hardly dare even type it, it's come this far. 
First of all, I don't think that four bisexuals are unrealistic. Or eight. Or whatever. Also, no game will ever be fully realistic.
But a game can attempt to *approach* realism.
If, in a shooter game, an enemy goes down after, say, one or two hits with a 7.62 battle rifle, then that is relatively realistic within the parameters of a video game.
If the same enemy can eat an entire 20 round magazine of the same type of ammo, then that is relatively unrealistic.
Arguments like "you can't romance everyone because there are only four LIs in the game" are deliberately picking a level of realism that, in absence of unlimited time and resources, a game can never achieve anyway, and from that you conclude that there's no need to even attempt to approach realism in any other aspect.
So much for genetic superiority I suppose.
You know, maybe she's better off without Shepard romancing her at all. It's been a while and my memory may be a bit off, but I remember keeping everything professional between her and Shepard in ME2. She never actually seemed to need any comfort, and her loyalty mission worked just fine. Likewise in ME3. Maybe not romancing/"fixing" her is actually better, all things considered.
Yep.
Nah that whole "he paid for all of that" was her needing someone in her corner to go nope. Alas Shep can only speak up if he wants to romance her.=/
I don't get this hate for the r-word. I hardly dare even type it, it's come this far.
First of all, I don't think that four bisexuals are unrealistic. Or eight. Or whatever. Also, no game will ever be fully realistic.
But a game can attempt to *approach* realism.
If, in a shooter game, an enemy goes down after, say, one or two hits with a 7.62 battle rifle, then that is relatively realistic within the parameters of a video game.
If the same enemy can eat an entire 20 round magazine of the same type of ammo, then that is relatively unrealistic.
Arguments like "you can't romance everyone because there are only four LIs in the game" are deliberately picking a level of realism that, in absence of unlimited time and resources, a game can never achieve anyway, and from that you conclude that there's no need to even attempt to approach realism in any other aspect.
It frames the context by which we make our romance content available.
We can't allow any and every person to be available. If a -mere- 4 people being bisexual is what sets off your "this is unrealistic" radar, I think it needs recalibration. Because it's not like it means the whole world is bisexual (though really, there's no reason why a fictional one couldn't be)... it means four people are bisexual. So when someone says it's not realistic to have 4 bisexual romances, they're giving the impression that the mere presence of 4 bisexuals is inherently unbelievable, which is a huge problem IMO.
As you say, we don't have unlimited time and resources. If we value providing choice for people, it's frustrating to pick and choose the "realism argument." Seeing you state that my arguments are invalid because no game can be that realistic can be frustrating because to me it seems like the argument can be used just as well towards the person feeling 4 bisexual people is unrealistic. So why implicitly defend him for his rigid perspective yet call someone like myself out for being too extreme in my application of realism?
Because I feel that stating that 4 bisexuals is unrealistic is deliberately picking at a level of realism that is fundamentally incorrect while also ignoring the realities of video game development.
As you say, we don't have unlimited time and resources. If we value providing choice for people, it's frustrating to pick and choose the "realism argument." Seeing you state that my arguments are invalid because no game can be that realistic can be frustrating because to me it seems like the argument can be used just as well towards the person feeling 4 bisexual people is unrealistic. So why implicitly defend him for his rigid perspective yet call someone like myself out for being too extreme in my application of realism?
Hmmm. That is not what I wanted to express with my post, and I'm sorry if it came across as such.
I lamented, maybe not very eloquently, the apparent *general* rejection of "realism" as an argument when it comes to videogames. I am under the impression that the basis of the argument goes like this: realism can be used for something bad - like trying exclude certain demographics from equal representation and/or access to game content such as romances - and therefore no type of realism, even in aspects that might be beneficial and not cause harm to anyone (as my "how fast do 7.62 bullets kill" example) should ever be part of a videogame or be used as an argument about video game content. It's not all black and evil. It can be applied in good ways. It's like the r-word gives people a bite-reflex.
Should have known better than touching this, I guess.
Sorry, everyone. Carry on.
I'm sorry for butting in Allan, and I apologise if i've completely taken this the wrong way, but when you say "why implicitly defend him for his rigid perspective" are you talking about me? I can't help but feel that way since this entire line of discussion started as a result of you quoting one of my posts. This is confusing to me as I never actually said anything about realism, my whole position has always been "I'll be happy with however you guys decide to do it." I have mentioned in the thread that there are those who hold that perspective, and I also stated that I have no time for that particular argument.
Again, i'm really sorry if i've completely taken this the wrong way.
Ah, was that the conversation with the camera glued to her bum? That was warning enough... time to be extra cautious with my replies!Yep.
Nah that whole "he paid for all of that" was her needing someone in her corner to go nope. Alas Shep can only speak up if he wants to romance her.=/
Ah, was that the conversation with the camera glued to her bum? That was warning enough... time to be extra cautious with my replies!
Nah that's the conversation about her sister. It was the one after her loyalty mission.
I barely remember that one, I must have really neglected poor Miranda... but on the bright side, didn't get her killed either.Nah that's the conversation about her sister. It was the one after her loyalty mission.
I'm sorry for butting in Allan, and I apologise if i've completely taken this the wrong way, but when you say "why implicitly defend him for his rigid perspective" are you talking about me? I can't help but feel that way since this entire line of discussion started as a result of you quoting one of my posts. This is confusing to me as I never actually said anything about realism, my whole position has always been "I'll be happy with however you guys decide to do it." I have mentioned in the thread that there are those who hold that perspective, and I also stated that I have no time for that particular argument.
Again, i'm really sorry if i've completely taken this the wrong way.
No, it was Gileadan and it's a potential interpretation since it came across as him telling me I'm being too rigid, when I think it's just as valid that the other person was. So effectively I was asking "why was my position worthy of response, but not others."
I lamented, maybe not very eloquently, the apparent *general* rejection of "realism" as an argument when it comes to videogames. I am under the impression that the basis of the argument goes like this: realism can be used for something bad - like trying exclude certain demographics from equal representation and/or access to game content such as romances - and therefore no type of realism, even in aspects that might be beneficial and not cause harm to anyone (as my "how fast do 7.62 bullets kill" example) should ever be part of a videogame or be used as an argument about video game content. It's not all black and evil. It can be applied in good ways. It's like the r-word gives people a bite-reflex.
Should have known better than touching this, I guess.
I do feel that realism has its places in video games. The combat aspects you describe are great examples (and I tend to prefer it in a lot of my games, actually).
Apologies for coming across harsh, but I felt that it was clear that the context of realism in this case was referring to the prevalence of a particular sexual orientation, rather than realism in general. As such, when bringing up the idea that it seems like a curse word came across as a specific dismissal of the examples that I made, which I felt were framed around romance and sexual orientations.
It's possible that that may not have been as clear as I thought. Would it be appropriate that, unless otherwise stated, we agree that the context of "realism" in this thread be about romantic and sexual attraction/relationships? I wouldn't consider the idea of combat realism to really be an applicable analogue for this discussion. Did someone else use it? I know I did draw comparisons to other unrealistic aspects, but tried to focus it on sexuality and romantic availability.
I do feel that realism has its places in video games. The combat aspects you describe are great examples (and I tend to prefer it in a lot of my games, actually).
Apologies for coming across harsh, but I felt that it was clear that the context of realism in this case was referring to the prevalence of a particular sexual orientation, rather than realism in general. As such, when bringing up the idea that it seems like a curse word came across as a specific dismissal of the examples that I made, which I felt were framed around romance and sexual orientations.
It's possible that that may not have been as clear as I thought. Would it be appropriate that, unless otherwise stated, we agree that the context of "realism" in this thread be about romantic and sexual attraction/relationships? I wouldn't consider the idea of combat realism to really be an applicable analogue for this discussion. Did someone else use it? I know I did draw comparisons to other unrealistic aspects, but tried to focus it on sexuality and romantic availability.
No apologies needed at all... if anything, I rather would apologize for being overly smart-ass and picking out your post kinda at random because I had developed - over weeks and months actually - the feeling that using the word "realism" in a discussion automatically led to a "you used the realism argument, you lose" response. I can get somewhat irrational in such aspects at times, and I really should know better.
So, I do apologize. I know you are arguing for a good cause that deserves my support and not me throwing in useless comments from the sidelines.
And yes, we can certainly agree to use realism in the special context of romance and attraction. I will, erm, keep future derailing to a minimum.
Jack becoming a teacher when she's all "MURDER YAY" in ME2 is laughable.
How so? It's Jack being influenced by Shepard and getting some character development.
Instead of being all murdery for no reason, she chose to attach herself to something.
How so? It's Jack being influenced by Shepard and getting some character development.
Instead of being all murdery for no reason, she chose to attach herself to something.
Personally, I think the failing there comes from Mass Effect 2, not 3. Jack's arc towards redemption and peace doesn't get all the beats it needs to make it seem like she is really anywhere close to that (or any) kind of responsibility. I love the idea of Jack eventually becoming a teacher, personally i just needed to see the groundwork being laid a bit more that Jack was, in fact, a stable( r ) person.
How so? It's Jack being influenced by Shepard and getting some character development.
Instead of being all murdery for no reason, she chose to attach herself to something.
...A Shepard that tells her a bullet to the head solves everything and can be insane and bloodthirsty. (and sound like Darth Vadar.)
She suddenly became a mother bear when there's absolutely nothing in ME2 that builds up to it outside the romance. Then of course why on earth would they recommend Jack (who so far is a known hijacker and all around felon) to teach a bunch of kids. Biotic skill = / = teaching skill. It's utterly laughable.
...A Shepard that tells her a bullet to the head solves everything and can be insane and bloodthirsty. (and sound like Darth Vadar.)
She suddenly became a mother bear when there's absolutely nothing in ME2 that builds up to it outside the romance. Then of course why on earth would they recommend Jack (who so far is a known hijacker and all around felon) to teach a bunch of kids. Biotic skill = / = teaching skill. It's utterly laughable.
Same reason Magneto went back to the Xavier institute in Ultimate. Those two characters have a lot in common.
People act in all sorts of irrational ways when in love/get dumped so I have no real problem with Shepards antics.
Retour en haut