263 réponses à ce sujet

[TKavatar]

Are you for it or against it? If you hate it, explain why ("it's unfair" doesn't count on its own). If you love it, do likewise.

And by class I mean either warrior, rogue or mage.

[Br3admax]

Aside from gender, I think most of those other things should be passing glances at the most. 

 

But in the grand scheme of things, I'm not even going to pretend that I care. 

[SerCambria358]

Its just unneeded really, it would be such a pain if someone as myself who loves qunari and also loves cassandra, has to have their experience hindered because she doesnt particularly find that race to be attractive. Its just mess that would be better done with no restrictions. 

 

However maybe if this companion has "bad blood" with the class/race you are, there could be an extra portion of the romance process where you could somehow win them over, although this might be too effort for the devs to consider it

[TheJediSaint]

In general, I'm against restrictions because they limit the variety.  What, if any, restrictions that are placed on a romance should be dictated by the writer's vision of the character and nothing else.

[Ledgend1221]

But restrictions could hurt someones feelings!

 

Their feelings!

 

Think of the children!

[ArtemisMoons]

I really want race restricted content. I think it adds to the replay factor.

For example, I imagine an elf might have extra content with other elves that say a human most certainly wouldn't. 

 

Romances, I don't mind it because characters should have preferences just like people. 

 

I'm not sure why any content would be limited due to class, though. 

[SwobyJ]

All for it.

 

But only if there's a very large variety in general. If there's only 4-6 romances or whatever, then NO. If there's 8+, then maybe.

 

Same goes for other types of content. If there's a lot there anyway, then sure.

[Steppenwolf]

More restrictions on content seem arbitrary. What is the benefit? What do gamers gain from it?

[Knight of Dane]

I'm not sure. If there were many romances (like 10?) I'd like it for variance sake. But when we're down between 4 and 6 I don't think I'd like the options to be too restricted.

[SerCambria358]

More restrictions on content seem arbitrary. What is the benefit? What do gamers gain from it?

Exactly, are players in favor for restrictions going to get enjoyment out of being denied by a companion? All it does is restrict those who want no restrictions, those who are for restrictions literally gain nothing

[Urazz]

I'm for restrictions as it does develop the character of party members to show what they like and dislike.  Of course some of this is dependent on the amount of romances as well.  If there are only like 3 to 4 romances then I don't expect that much in restrictions.

[Blackrising]

I would love to have restrictions based on you actions within the game. Like an evil bloodmage being turned down by Cullen or something.

 

Restrictions based on the boxes you tick in the character creator, though? No dice. All it does is take options away from people who probably really wanted it while having no real benefit for the people who wanted those restrictions in the first place. (Apart from knowing that some other player they don't know is now cut off from content they were looking forward too and the ability to be smug about having gotten their way, I guess.)

 

If I HAD to choose a set of CC-based restrictions, I'd probably pick class-restricted romances, followed by race-restricted romances. It wouldn't be ideal for me, but I also wouldn't be too terribly disappointed.

And everyone who's ever read one of my posts knows that gender-restricted romances are the worst. possible. thing. for me. I'd rather have no romances at all.

[Han Shot First]

I think the problem you'd run into if romances were restricted by several categories (race, gender, class, politics, ect) is that there would be so many variables to account for that there is a good chance your character would either be limited to a single potential LI, or perhaps none at all. 

 

I'd limit it to just gender and politics so that it doesn't become too restrictive.

[Mad Cassidy]

Sure, if we had unlimited resources to spend on all manner of LIs of various aesthetics, morals, and sexualities. But when there are only 4 romance options (or thereabouts), I find the call to completely gate content based on a character creation decision made in a vacuum to be odious. In such a case, I would consider the implementation of a romance that is limited to only a very selective spectrum of sexes/classes/races to be a poor design decision; it means that a large portion of the audience is missing out on content without any compensation.

 

Certainly, some say that such gating adds to 're-playability', but the truth of the matter is that most players do not replay games, and often as not, I am one of them. I do not like finding out midway through a game that I'm SoL because I should have rolled a human male non-mage to romance the one LI character I'm interested in, especially if there's no justifiable narrative explanation for this. All this ends up accomplishing is a reduction of player freedom and a detraction from a player's potential fun, without adding anything to the NPC's arc. As such, it is a largely arbitrary decision that serves only to further limit an already very limited array of choices.

 

Realism is often touted as a reason to prevent characters from being broadly accessible, but that's 'realism' as it exists in our world, with all its societal baggage. The argument breaks down as soon as you mention the word 'fantasy' - all the rules fly out the door then. The writers and world designers can invent whatever statistics they so desire.

 

I would much prefer to have slightly variable content that remarks upon issues of class/race/sex. A few lines thrown in here and there, maybe even some added difficulty. Some reactivity to the decisions my PC actively makes. But to fully bar someone right out of the box when there's already so little to go around? No, I think not.

[stuffystuffs]

Don't see the point of restrictions outside of someone not wanting you b/c you did something to p them off.

 

Dwarves need love too.

[MetalGear312]

Its just unneeded really, it would be such a pain if someone as myself who loves qunari and also loves cassandra, has to have their experience hindered because she doesnt particularly find that race to be attractive. Its just mess that would be better done with no restrictions.

However maybe if this companion has "bad blood" with the class/race you are, there could be an extra portion of the romance process where you could somehow win them over, although this might be too effort for the devs to consider it

This all day long.

[MetalGear312]

Don't see the point of restrictions outside of someone not wanting you b/c you did something to p them off.

Dwarves need love too.

This too...Giggity.

[Ryzaki]

Class? Maybe. Race? I don't see how that can be done meanginfully when ~80% of players play human. Either you restrict them and have resources going to a minority (and thus I have a good guess it wouldn't get as much L&C as a more widely avaiable feature) or you're restricting a wee bit of players.

 

As said earlier I much much rather have restrictions based off the actual decisions you make while playing. Bloodmage? You turn certain characters off. Kicking puppies for the lulz? Turn some characters off. Helping everyone like you're some kind of saint? Turns some characters off.

 

That way you get a reactivity that speaks to characterization instead of something laughable like Alistair romancing my bloodmage, slavery supporting douchebag to everyone but him elf cause female.

[Han Shot First]

I must ask...by class are we referring to a character's social standing or their gameplay class? In a system with multiple character origins I could perhaps see the former playing a role. Im not sure how gameplay class would/should have an impact on romances though.

 

Love interest: "Sorry, I only date guys that dual-wield."

 

Yeah, I'm just not seeing that. 

[BabyFratelli]

Race seems a little much (the heart wants what the heart wants...), but as far as Class goes, someone being a blood mage could easily be a massive turn off for a character who is extremely anti-blood mage, so I can get that.

 

Gender restrictions are a little more complicated. I would tend to lean towards the fact that sexuality is a part of a person (and a character's) identity, so to have characters who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, etc makes sense. Also for representation reasons.

 

Playersexuality seems a little cop outish, but I can still understand why it's a thing.

[Ryzaki]

I must ask...by class are we referring to a character's social standing or their gameplay class? In a system with multiple character origins I could perhaps see the former playing a role. Im not sure how gameplay class would/should have an impact on romances though.

 

Love interest: "Sorry, I only date guys that dual-wield."

 

Yeah, I'm just not seeing that. 

 

if you use the origin as class distinction then there's no reason to really separate it from race since it'll be the same for everyone but the human. So I'm guessing it's mage, rogue, warrior.

 

Though hey maybe Iron Bull thinks rogues should buff up and be warriors

[TKavatar]

I must ask...by class are we referring to a character's social standing or their gameplay class? In a system with multiple character origins I could perhaps see the former playing a role. Im not sure how gameplay class would/should have an impact on romances though.

Love interest: "Sorry, I only date guys that dual-wield."

Yeah, I'm just not seeing that.

By class I was actually referring to gameplay classes (mage warrior rogue) and specialisations like blood mage and so on. I'll edit the title to clear things up.

[Bob from Accounting]

It's unlikely that there will be more than three romances for any gender and sexuality combination. There's a good chance that one or two of the love interests will be locked off for many players if they make decisions that anger the character. How many options would this cut it down to for many players? One? Zero?

[SerCambria358]

It's unlikely that there will be more than three romances for any gender and sexuality combination. There's a good chance that one or two of the love interests will be locked off for many players if they make decisions that anger the character. How many options would this cut it down to for many players? One? Zero?

Wasnt it said that there would be 4 romance options?

[Blackrising]

Wasnt it said that there would be 4 romance options?

 

There will either be 4 or 6. He was referring to the romance options available to a non-bisexual player character.