263 réponses à ce sujet

[Mockingword]

What on earth does sexuality have to do with 'independence'?

[Vincent-Vega]

Independence from the player (playersexuality). I'm not english, so if there is a better word, I'd appreciate the help.

[Mad Cassidy]

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?

 

Then having that fanatically mage-hating companion as one of the 4(ish)* LIs would be sub-optimal.

 

I could understand the blood mage issue putting a wrench into (or flat-out stopping) the romance arc because of the general attitudes towards blood magic. But that's a decision the PC makes within a context; it is expected to have certain repercussions (and these repercussions should be telegraphed). Choosing to play a mage at the onset of CC when no other information is available should not result in automatic disqualification from a large** percentage of the content when there is otherwise nothing to replace it. Could they make it so that it's more difficult to initiate the romance as a mage? Sure, and that would be fine by me. That's not an outright denial of content.

 

Now, LIs needn't be all things to all people, nor should LIs be completely blank pages. But if you're going to select a character to be an LI, it might be wiser to select one without extreme and unbending views on certain races or classes. Would it be interesting to have a relationship with such an extreme character? Perhaps. But I personally don't see that as the best allocation of resources. I would think that it would be much more desirable to have LIs with broad appeal.

 

* Using DA:O and DAII numbers as a benchmark.

 

**This becomes less and less of an issue as we add more romances to the equation. Out of e.g. 10 romance options, losing access to one based on class still leaves 90% of the romance options open to you. If you lose one out of four, well that's a significantly greater loss.

[cephasjames]

What on earth does sexuality have to do with 'independence'?

As of right now, the companion's sexuality is dependent on the PC (playersexual). A companion whose sexuality is independent remains that sexuality regardless of the PC.

[Blackrising]

As of right now, the companion's sexuality is dependent on the PC (playersexual). A companion whose sexuality is independent remains that sexuality regardless of the PC.

Except they are not and it is purely your perception that makes it so.

[Navasha]

In the future when they can start making games where the choice of LI is selected from over 100 different possible characters, then the NPCs can start getting "choosy".    As long as there are only 2-4 possible LI characters, then no... they pretty much have to find themselves attracted to the player regardless of race/gender/class.  

[Former_Fiend]

In previous discussions about the topic, I've presented this hypothetical;

 

Say Bioware makes an rpg set in the real world America during the early to mid 1900s. They let you customize your character as much as any Bioware game does; you get to pick your gender and ethnicity, all that.

 

Would anyone be particularly in favor of them restricting romantic options based on race or gender in that scenario? Certainly mixed race and same sex relations were not socially acceptable at the time, but they still happened.

[Darth Krytie]

In previous discussions about the topic, I've presented this hypothetical;

 

Say Bioware makes an rpg set in the real world America during the early to mid 1900s. They let you customize your character as much as any Bioware game does; you get to pick your gender and ethnicity, all that.

 

Would anyone be particularly in favor of them restricting romantic options based on race or gender in that scenario? Certainly mixed race and same sex relations were not socially acceptable at the time, but they still happened.

 

Tbh, I wouldn't play it. I've no interest in experiencing virtual discrimination based on my gender or sexuality or ethnicity. I can do that by talking to people in real life.

[Mockingword]

Hey, I know a game we can play about experiencing bigotry.

 

It's called Going Outside.

[Former_Fiend]

Tbh, I wouldn't play it. I've no interest in experiencing virtual discrimination based on my gender or sexuality or ethnicity. I can do that by talking to people in real life.

 

That's kind of my point.

 

In that hypothetical there's a lot of potential for an interesting game; the whole time period opens up a lot of potential plot ideas. The inclusion of discrimination in the interests of historical accuracy, however, isn't necessary, and is potentially detrimental to the enjoyment factor of the game.

[Mockingword]

Independence from the player (playersexuality). I'm not english, so if there is a better word, I'd appreciate the help.

Well, the characters will never be 'independent' of the player, regardless of sexuality. The only reason they exist is to support the player's character, and provide them with content.

[Darth Krytie]

That's kind of my point.

 

In that hypothetical there's a lot of potential for an interesting game; the whole time period opens up a lot of potential plot ideas. The inclusion of discrimination in the interests of historical accuracy, however, isn't necessary, and is potentially detrimental to the enjoyment factor of the game.

 

But then I'd also think...what's the point of using that setting, if you're going to ignore a very large portion of how it actually was back then.

 

IN DA, it's fantasy. They can include and exclude bases for discrimination as they please and it's never going to be "historically inaccurate" because it doesn't actually exist. As long as it's consistent with the lore, it doesn't matter.

 

If you ignore the racial and gender tensions of the early 1900's, you're pretty much sanatising it for no good reason and it's actually insulting to the people who suffered through it.

[Mockingword]

As of right now, the companion's sexuality is dependent on the PC (playersexual). A companion whose sexuality is independent remains that sexuality regardless of the PC.

Since they never discuss their sexuality, how do you even know what it is? Let alone what factors it's 'dependent' on, if any.

[SerCambria358]

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.

I dont see how thats the same as choosing to let someone live or die

[Former_Fiend]

But then I'd also think...what's the point of using that setting, if you're going to ignore a very large portion of how it actually was back then.

 

IN DA, it's fantasy. They can include and exclude bases for discrimination as they please and it's never going to be "historically inaccurate" because it doesn't actually exist. As long as it's consistent with the lore, it doesn't matter.

 

If you ignore the racial and gender tensions of the early 1900's, you're pretty much sanatising it for no good reason and it's actually insulting to the people who suffered through it.

 

Plenty of stories to be told in that era. Mob stories, Great Depression stories, pre-WW2 espionage stories. Maybe they just like the fashion.

[Mockingword]

Plenty of stories to be told in that era. Mob stories, Great Depression stories, pre-WW2 espionage stories. Maybe they just like the fashion.

I don't think any of that addresses the point of the erasure of past bigotry being insulting.

[Darth Krytie]

Plenty of stories to be told in that era. Mob stories, Great Depression stories, pre-WW2 espionage stories. Maybe they just like the fashion.

 

I'm not saying there's not stories to be told, but if they tell em, be honest to the era is all. Sorry, I double majored in English and History in college. There's no sense in that. To tell a story set in that era, but ignore a huge aspect of it for convenience is insulting and disgusting.

 

And if you think people complain now about the games not having enough sexism or homophobia because DA is a quasi-medieval type setting. Imagine if they actually set a game in an actual period of time and actually ignored the way life actually was.

[ArtemisMoons]

That's kind of my point.

 

In that hypothetical there's a lot of potential for an interesting game; the whole time period opens up a lot of potential plot ideas. The inclusion of discrimination in the interests of historical accuracy, however, isn't necessary, and is potentially detrimental to the enjoyment factor of the game.

Except that's a false representation of why a character might not be able to romance another. An NPC could have preferences (Ala Varric who says that he is not interested in humans in that way in DA2) without it being due to some sort of discrimination or prejudice. Could prejudice be a reason? Sure but it's not the only reason.

Though, one race I could see being limited due to prejudice would be the qunari. Think about it, how many people in the world would look at a Qunari and go "Hot damn, I wanna give that a ride"? Most people don't even know what a qunari is, let alone want to get close enough to romance it. lol. That isn't to say I want to nix any romance for Qunari (especially since I intend to play as one), but it wouldn't be the end of the world if someone didn't want to romance my PC because they were a qunari. 

[Former_Fiend]

I'm not saying there's not stories to be told, but if they tell em, be honest to the era is all. Sorry, I double majored in English and History in college. There's no sense in that. To tell a story set in that era, but ignore a huge aspect of it for convenience is insulting and disgusting.

 

And if you think people complain now about the games not having enough sexism or homophobia because DA is a quasi-medieval type setting. Imagine if they actually set a game in an actual period of time and actually ignored the way life actually was.

 

There are a lot of ugly elements about a lot of parts of history that don't need to be brought up. Games set in modern settings don't feature racism nearly as much as reality does.

 

Though honestly I wouldn't mind racism and bigotry being featured in such a game so long as it wasn't the primary focus, but that's besides the point.

[Vincent-Vega]

In previous discussions about the topic, I've presented this hypothetical;

 

Say Bioware makes an rpg set in the real world America during the early to mid 1900s. They let you customize your character as much as any Bioware game does; you get to pick your gender and ethnicity, all that.

 

Would anyone be particularly in favor of them restricting romantic options based on race or gender in that scenario? Certainly mixed race and same sex relations were not socially acceptable at the time, but they still happened.

 

Yes, if it's done right (and I know it would be very difficult).

You could, for example, have a gay/lesbian NPC, who is afraid of the reactions. You could have a black slave, who is reluctant to get involved with you, because his/her life, everyone treated him/her more like an animal than a human.

 

In general, it would be great if games explored more serious topics. Games could learn a lot from books or movies.

 

Well, the characters will never be 'independent' of the player, regardless of sexuality. The only reason they exist is to support the player's character, and provide them with content.

 

This is exactly what I was talking about. I know it's a game and not a book, that's why I said, that I want them as independent from the player as possible. I don't want them to be there, just to provide the player with content.

 

Btw, is it independent from or of?

[OrbitalWings]

Just my two cents, but I've always believed that our character's actions should play a far bigger part in opening up or locking off romance content, rather than their gender or race.

 

BioWare often talk about the importance of character, and yet in DAO you can defile the Urn of Sacred Ashes and still romance Leliana, or in DA2 refuse to help Merrill at every turn and still do the rivalry romance. I'd find it far more interesting if instead, characters simply turned around and said "you know what, you're a dick", and that effectively locks off the romance - why would they fall for someone so completely opposed to everything they stand for?

 

So in Inquisition for example, say you're trying to romance Vivienne, and your Inquisitor is very anti-mage - that should be the reason she'll never be interested in you, rather than what you keep in your pants. I think everyone should have the potential option to romance anyone they choose, but due to the decisions they'll have to make throughout the game, no one character will ever appeal to every possible romance option.

 

tl;dr - I think it's far more compelling to have romance availability decided by your actions throughout the game, rather than a single choice you've made in the CC before you've even started playing.

[Mockingword]

Personally, I think I could stomach a little insult and disgust in exchange for seeing a gay character not be brutally victimized for once.

 

I'm all for acknowledging that the past was pretty shitty, but I don't think every single story set in the past has to be about that if it includes minority characters.

 

I mean, there are plenty of horrific and blatant acts of discrimination going on now. How many movies set in the contemporary era give a crap about that?

[Mockingword]

This is exactly what I was talking about. I know it's a game and not a book, that's why I said, that I want them as independent from the player as possible. I don't want them to be there, just to provide the player with content.

 

Btw, is it independent from or of?

The terminology doesn't really matter, unless you're extremely into the technicalities of English grammar.

 

But you realise that what you're asking for is impossible, right? Games are entirely comprised of content for the player. Everything that's put in those games is done so with the intention that the player (or at least a player) will access it. If the developers didn't want players to see something, they would just leave it on the cutting room floor.

[daveliam]

I'm okay with some restrictions for romances, but I have a few thoughts:

 

1.)  I'd prefer for restrictions to be based primarily on your player's actions not their demographics.  It makes more sense for me to think of a character falling for a person with similar ideals regardless of race or gender than the other way around.

 

2.)  If we are going to have restrictions based on demographics, I'd prefer for there to only be one (either race or gender) because I think that with only 4-6 LI's, it will get too restrictive if both race and gender play a role.  There would, inevitably, be some combination who would get left out and that kind of sucks.  I would hate to play through a game without metagaming and find out midway that everyone is rejecting me because I happened to pick the combo that no one wants.

 

In general, I'd prefer to see less restrictions than more, however.