263 réponses à ce sujet

[Fetunche]

Bioware should allow the mage class to be available for dwarves as well. We should be able to take Bianca out of Varric's inventory and sell it without any repercussions. We should be able to make Wynne a blood mage, we should be able to romance Fenris as a blood mage and damn anyone who says that's OOC for these characters or the lore right?
Too much choice is not always a good thing.

We know from the CC that dwarves don't do magic, one of the reasons Idont play as them. Bianca is Varrics weapon only and is not restricted by race or gender. We can romance Fenris as blood Mage and make Wynne a blood Mage if we choose.

[Mockingword]

Yes, I know. But it's horribly OOC for these characters to even allow such a thing.

According to your personal interpretation of those characters.

 

But I have no problem with barring romance content base on choices made during the game. I'm opposed to the notion of being locked out of content before I even start to play.

[Mockingword]

Right, so I'm a twit for asking why it's in any way reasonable to expect every LI to be sexually available to your protagonist, regardless of how you choose to play him\her? Because - when it comes to romantic content - 'freedom of choice' can only be measured in the way you describe?

Ridiculous.

I didn't call you a twit. I merely established the criteria for being a twit. Also, you certainly never asked any such thing. You asked me what value is added to a romance by making it available to everyone and I told you. The answer is freedom of choice. The freedom to develop the character you want and have the story you want.

 

Your wording suggests that you're playing devil's advocate by proposing a hypothetical scenario. Not that you're relaying your own personal opinion.

 

There is only one way to measure freedom of choice; by the number of options you have. A non-restricted Varric offers potentially infinite ways to experience his romance content. A racially/gender-restricted Varric offers significantly less. That's just pretty basic math.

[stuffystuffs]

Also, it forces to play a character that you may not have other wise played.

 

Being forced to play a PC you don't want to play as for 40 plus hours sounds...so much fun.

[TKavatar]

We know from the CC that dwarves don't do magic, one of the reasons Idont play as them. Bianca is Varrics weapon only and is not restricted by race or gender. We can romance Fenris as blood Mage and make Wynne a blood Mage if we choose.

But it's terribly unfair for the people who want to play as a dwarf mage!!! I say make the mage class available for them because I don't want to be locked out of something I chose at the CC. The silly lore purists can restrict themselves and not play dwarf mages while the rest of us get to do so

[SerCambria358]

Bioware should allow the mage class to be available for dwarves as well. We should be able to take Bianca out of Varric's inventory and sell it without any repercussions. We should be able to make Wynne a blood mage, we should be able to romance Fenris as a blood mage and damn anyone who says that's OOC for these characters or the lore right?

Too much choice is not always a good thing.

Selling Bianca and allowing any race to romance anyone are not comparable 

[daveliam]

Right, so I'm a twit for asking why it's in any way reasonable for anyone to expect that every LI to be sexually available to their protagonist, regardless of how they choose to play him\her? Because - when it comes to romantic content - 'freedom of choice' can only be measured in the way you describe?

Ridiculous.

 

And this is the crux of the problem.  Both sides of the argument have valid points.  Neither is wrong or right.  So you can all keep going round and round in circles with your arguments and no one is going to change anyone's opinion.  Some people are in favor of restrictions.  Some aren't.  That's pretty much the moral of the story.

 

Ultimately, however, it's Bioware that gets to decide what is best for the game using their set of standards.

[OrbitalWings]

Being forced to play a PC you don't want to play as for 40 plus hours sounds...so much fun.

 

Oh so very much :/

 

This is the reason I'm very keen for there to be no restrictions - yeah, romances are a big part of the game for me, but not enough to roll a character I'm not going to enjoy playing the whole game as.

[daveliam]

But it's terribly unfair for the people who want to play as a dwarf mage!!! I say make the mage class available for them because I don't want to be locked out of something I chose at the CC. The silly lore purists can restrict themselves and not play dwarf mages while the rest of us get to do so

 

Well, now, here's another issue.  Restricting dwarves from being mages is grounded in lore.  Restricting a character from romancing another race or the same gender isn't.  There's a big difference between breaking lore and breaking some players' idea of "more realistic" scenarios.

[Xilizhra]

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.

No, but I would accept people being bigoted about it so long as they were unable to do any actual damage. My being able to rub it in their face might be nice as well.

[Mockingword]

But it's terribly unfair for the people who want to play as a dwarf mage!!! I say make the mage class available for them because I don't want to be locked out of something I chose at the CC. The silly lore purists can restrict themselves and not play dwarf mages while the rest of us get to do so

Lore can change.

 

Your argument seems to be that the silly people who want accessible romances will SURELY be repulsed by the idea of a Dwarf Mage, and by drawing a comparison between the two, we'll surely see the light.

 

Well, if Bioware announced tomorrow that the mage class would be available to Dwarves, I wouldn't care even slightly.

[Fetunche]

Being forced to play DA2 as femhawke with that stupid walk and irritating voice just to romance Fenris if there had been gender restrictions, I'd rather set fire to my PS3.

[Xilizhra]

Right, so I'm a twit for asking why it's in any way reasonable for anyone to expect that every LI to be sexually available to their protagonist, regardless of how they choose to play him\her? Because - when it comes to romantic content - 'freedom of choice' can only be measured in the way you describe?

Ridiculous.

"LI" is an artificial distinction as it is. Having them be bisexual does not make it more artificial.

[Kingthlayer]

I'm 100% for this, it adds tremendous depth to the characters and gives them a life of their own outside of the player.  I know most fans don't like content like that since they want the whole game to revolve around their character, but I differ of that opinion.

 

I'd love to see Varric only be romanced by a Dwarf, since clearly based on DA II he doesn't have a sexual interest in Humans or he would have ploughed Hawke.  Little things like that really adds so much to the game, while yes it's true that many people only play a game once or twice, or don't even finish the game the first time around.  There are those of us that play certain games multiple times, like myself for example, the only games coming out in the fall that interest me in any way is Dragon Age Inquistion, Witcher 3, and perhaps the Telltale games(Borderlands/Game of Thrones) and the Assassin Creed games.  So that leaves me plenty of times to play Dragon Age.

[TKavatar]

Lore can change.

Your argument seems to be that the silly people who want accessible romances will SURELY be repulsed by the idea of a Dwarf Mage, and by drawing a comparison between the two, we'll surely see the light.

Well, if Bioware announced tomorrow that the mage class would be available to Dwarves, I wouldn't care even slightly.

No, I was pointing how ridiculous this argument about how unfair it would be if we can't experience everything in one playthrough is when applied to other things besides romances.

Also, why must players have that much power over romances when so many other things are restricted? What makes romances so special?

[Xilizhra]

No, I was pointing how ridiculous this argument about how unfair it would be if we can't experience everything in one playthrough is when applied to other things besides romances.

Also, why must players have that much power over romances when so many other things are restricted? What makes romances so special?

Because it's fun and doesn't hurt anyone else's experience playing the game if there are four bisexual people you can romance in the party.

[Fetunche]

I don't like restrictions based on gender or race, reactivity to race sure. The only restrictions should be story based, depending in how your choices affect the world, eg. Save the village or not, is Alistair king or a warden or dead?

[Mockingword]

I'm 100% for this, it adds tremendous depth to the characters and gives them a life of their own outside of the player. 

 

I'd love to see Varric only be romanced by a Dwarf, since clearly based on DA II he doesn't have a sexual interest in Humans or he would have ploughed Hawke.

Alistair's romance story plays out exactly the same, even if you mod your game to make it possible to woo him as a male. Does that take away his "tremendous depth" and "life of his own"? Does a book or film lose depth when more people have access to it?

 

Who says that a lack of interest in Hawke indicates a lack of interest in humans generally? Aveline isn't interested in Hawke, but she still has relationships with humans.

[stuffystuffs]

No, I was pointing how ridiculous this argument about how unfair it would be if we can't experience everything in one playthrough is when applied to other things besides romances.

Also, why must players have that much power over romances when so many other things are restricted? What makes romances so special?

 

Now I'm confused.  You can't do all the romances in one playthrough regardless.  I don't think anyone is asking for that.

[Mockingword]

No, I was pointing how ridiculous this argument about how unfair it would be if we can't experience everything in one playthrough is when applied to other things besides romances.

Also, why must players have that much power over romances when so many other things are restricted? What makes romances so special?

I don't think those other things should be restricted, so as far as I'm concerned, your question is nonsense.

 

Choices are already restrictive by nature. Going down one path prevents you from going down another. Further limitations are not needed.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Bioware can only make a small amount of romances. It's never going to be more than 4-6. Not everyone wants to, or has anywhere near the time to, play through on half a dozen different races/classes/genders/etc. It limits the experience you can have if you end up not being able to romance anyone at all on half your playthroughs because the 4 available romances have a whole list of qualification you had to meet way back in character creation. 

 

The other choice is dumbing down romances so they can have a dozen or more romances spread across NPCs that don't matter. One of the things that make Bioware special is the extreme focus on character development. If I wanted access to dozens of relationships that have no development or depth, I could play Skyrim or Fable. 

[Mockingword]

The only way to measure 'freedom of choice', is to tally up the number of options across a single playthrough, eh? And what of those options that are made impossible by the circumstances of the game? I mean, did it restrict 'freedom of choice' to have Ashley or Kaiden die at Virmire? Does it restrict 'freedom of choice' to have NPC's react differently to different protagonists? Seems to me that the opposite would be true, but then I'm just a big old twit!

No, the way to measure freedom of choice is to measure all the options total in the game. If Varric is accessible to all PCs, then you have the option to romance him as a qunari, elf, human or dwarf. If he's open to both genders, those options double. If he's open to all classes, then those doubled options have now tripled, so on and so forth.

 

If you restrict Varric to female dwarves, then your options for romancing him have just been extremely limited. You have much less freedom, in an objective, mathematical sense.

 

The death of Ashley or Kaidan is the result of a choice, not a restriction. The restriction is that there are no options that allow for both to live or die.

 

Yes, having conversation options and such locked out because of your character's design is restricting freedom of choice. That should be really obvious.