263 réponses à ce sujet

[SerCambria358]

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

Excuse my ignorance but arent all romances "playersexual"?

[Steppenwolf]

Excuse my ignorance but arent all romances "playersexual"?

 

The number and "playersexual" status of romances have not been confirmed afaik.

[Blackrising]

Excuse my ignorance but arent all romances "playersexual"?

 

I wish. Nothing has been confirmed as of yet, though, and Bioware seems reluctant to talk about it.

Which is why topics like this still get so much traffic.

 

Edit: 'd

[SerCambria358]

The number and "playersexual" status of romances have not been confirmed afaik.

 

 

I wish. Nothing has been confirmed as of yet, though, and Bioware seems reluctant to talk about it.

Which is why topics like this still get so much traffic.

 

Edit: 'd

 

 

 

(0:16)

[byeshoe]

9 companions..and possibly only 4 romancable?  oh man...
BUT I can see where they get those numbers from   Orgins we had Alistar, Morrigan, Lelianna and zevran, our Li's. Shale, Sten, Orgren, wynne and loghain were nono's. counting this orgins had 9 companions..ah 

Ontopic.....you dwarf folks don't have to worry about being locked out of anything. In Orgins you were free to romance whoever you desired~
If we're talking about races then I don't think there will be any restrictions. Gender is a whole nother thing since in Orgins two of our Li's were pure straight, bi :3
I actually liked the restriction btw, but for someone else they might get grouchy since he or she is out of their league just on their gender

hubbabubba I don't mind

[Steppenwolf]

9 companions..and possibly only 4 romancable?  oh man...

 

It's probably 6 romances though. Cullen is exceedingly unlikely to be a companion, which would mean NPC romances are in. 

[ArtemisMoons]

It seems like everyone is focusing on the romances and no one is really talking about the "other content". xD

So would you all mind having certain content blocked based on race? 

Like humans could possibly have a better in with nobles, the dwarves with other dwarves, and elves with other elves, which might mean different experiences with each race. 

[Brass_Buckles]

If restrictions were solely based on your actions and choices you made in-game, then I'd be all for them.  But I would not approve of restrictions based on class or race--I don't even like gender restrictions, due to the low number of characters and the fact that you're bound to be locked out of one whose story you are fascinated by.  You don't learn as much about characters you don't romance, and if you aren't willing to play the right specific character to unlock that content, you will simply never see it.

 

In a way, it's kind of like Gaider said, making characters available to everyone means they get objectified.  And yet at the same time, you might lock someone out of content due to their not being willing to play the other gender/race/class that COULD romance that character, when they'd rather play that love interest's romantic storyline than anyone else's.

 

And it might not even be about pervy drooling over that pixelated character, it might just be that they found that character and the story involved more interesting. 

 

It's not like you can romance just anyone anyway.  There are only certain characters who are open to the idea.  Others might become more open to the idea given time, but as we have only one game's worth of time, we don't get those characters.

[Moirin]

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. 

 

This. I think it'd be interesting to see. Like someone who you could romance with one race but not the other because they were simply "not into humans" or something like that. I doubt we'll be getting it this game though.

[Fredward]

Take out the romances in that equation and we're good. Nothing heavy mind, maybe the occasional dialogue option or maybe a quest only a Qunari can take and etc.

[stuffystuffs]

It seems like everyone is focusing on the romances and no one is really talking about the "other content". xD

So would you all mind having certain content blocked based on race? 

Like humans could possibly have a better in with nobles, the dwarves with other dwarves, and elves with other elves, which might mean different experiences with each race. 

 

That wouldn't be the same as blocking content (if I understand correctly). It seems it would possibly make a specific mission easier/harder based on race, but I doubt they would totally deny a mission to the PC based on race.  If I remember, they are going for NPCs that will react differently to the Inquis based on race but no race-specific missions.

 

I think romance is the focus as there's a precedent for it (romance content blocked by gender at least).

[TKavatar]

I think the devs are totally fine with players not being able to access all content in one playthrough this time. So it seems to me they will restrict certain content or open up new ones based on race and other things like class.

[TheCreeper]

I don't think everyone should be player sexual, but beyond that I don't think there should be restrictions applied to the romance. Now it would be wonderful if they commented on the fact that they're romancing a Qunari or whatever.

[TKavatar]

I don't think everyone should be player sexual, but beyond that I don't think there should be restrictions applied to the romance. Now it would be wonderful if they commented on the fact that they're romancing a Qunari or whatever.

What if a companion was a mage hating fanatic and the PC was a blood mage? Should the PC be able to romance the companion even though it would be totally OOC for the companion?

[SilkieBantam]

I don't want race restricted romance but aside from that I'd love just about any other race or gender restricted content. 

[elyu]

Generally I'm against restriction, but if your character is extremely anti/pro-something I can see how it would make sense. Why would a templar or anti-mage character like Fenris want to get involved with a blood mage? Or an apostate want to be in a relationship with a templar? A fling I can understand, but a longer relationship wouldn't work.

I would like a few extra lines of dialogue if both are mages/elves/etc though.

[fchopin]

I have no problem with restrictions.
If a game has no restrictions then it is not really a game.
RPG’s need to have a form so some restrictions have to be applied or there is no way we could have a good plot. Restrictions should be plot related and also technological restrictions depending on what is possible.

[Darth Krytie]

I'm not too keen on gender or race restrictions, but not 100% against them full stop. Class restrictions I'm less bothered by.

 

I think any restrictions should serve the plot. Not just a blanket option.

 

Say, a dwarf would only romance another dwarf because they are concerned with propagating their familial line. Or a mage who won't date a templar. I just think it should be used sparingly.

[Thomas Andresen]

Ignoring some utterly offensive posts here.

In regards for romances: In a world where this would still mean more than one option for every combination of race/class/sexual preference, I would not be opposed to this. But that's not going to happen in a BioWare game so long as romance content remains optional content intended as nothing more than flavour. Which doesn't mean it's worth nothing, but contrary to (apparent) popular belief, it's not even close to being BioWare's top priority.

As for other content: I read somewhere(I think it was the GameInformer DAI feature back in August(?)), that there was originally planned an arc in DA2 specifically for mage Hawke, set in the first act and to be referenced in later acts, but it didn't pan out for various reasons, among which I think was engine restrictions. I don't see the concept as being too far removed from the concept of origins in DAO.

[cephasjames]

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.

I think the days of 'restricted relationships' are long gone. Too many people complain when the character that they create can't ultimately have the person that they want in a relationship. And, also, most people don't replay RPGs enough to want to replay simply to gain the relationship they were restricted from having in the first place. Restricted relationships are no longer seen as a good thing.

 

As for answering the question in the OP: I am totally for restricted relationships; that's what life is. I rather enjoy not getting everythting that I want because I simply want it. I think it's pandering to do just that. But, as I stated above, I think restricted relationships are gone for good.

[cephasjames]

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

Except for the need to choose. We are restricted, in that sense, a ton in RPGs: we must choose to kill or show grace, we must choose to save the dying friend or go after the bad guys who tried to kill my friend, etc. Those are restrictions placed on us by the story; choices that we must make because we are not allowed to have it both ways. Relationship restrictions do the same thing: make us choose.

[cephasjames]

It seems like everyone is focusing on the romances and no one is really talking about the "other content". xD

So would you all mind having certain content blocked based on race? 

Like humans could possibly have a better in with nobles, the dwarves with other dwarves, and elves with other elves, which might mean different experiences with each race. 

Personally, I think the more 'restrictions' or 'benefits' there are for choosing certain genders, races, classes, etc. the more replayability there will be: "Oh, I didn't get to do that one thing because I was a dwarf. I'll have to play as an elf next time."

[Mockingword]

Hahahaha. "It's unfair" doesn't count? Wanting things to be fair isn't a good enough reason to dislike your idea?

 

Maybe you should give me a pre-approved list of acceptable reasons for disagreeing with you.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

i think i'll have more than one PT so it doesn't really matter.

 

my inner completionist squirms already. fortunately i've learned to ignore it.

[Vincent-Vega]

I'm all for gender and race restrictions, for 3 main reasons.

 

1. Replayability, see the comment above mine (chepasjames)

 

2. I want my companions (or basically every NPC) to be as independent as possible. This CAN include not being attracted to a certain  race/gender.

 

3. I think denying the player certain elements of the game, due to choices he or she made, enhances the experience and credibility. I'm just no fan of these godlike player-characters who can achieve everything they want and have everyone they want. Make us (the player) more human.