Now I'm confused. You can't do all the romances in one playthrough regardless. I don't think anyone is asking for that.
Alistair's romance 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"?
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.
A fan made, fan fiction mod that turned Alistair homosexual does nothing to help your point. Of course the dialogue would stay they same.
Aveline found romance during the course of the game, that's why she wasn't interested in Hawke. Varric is never shown showing any romantic interest in any human. Plus there is this line from the wiki "And as they naturally consider themselves superior to other races, and such mingling is looked down upon in any case." when talking about Dwarves romancing other races.
For those reasons, I don't believe Varric has any sexual interest in humans or elves. So if he is a LI, I'd personally like to see it with a Dwarf only.
I don't follow.
You've got a bunch of people in your party. Most of them aren't asexual (Shale and possibly Sten are exceptions), none are underage, but not all of them will want to bone you, regardless of gender. Why? Rarely is it explained precisely why you can get magically working flirtation lines with some companions and some not, and there's no clear in-universe delineation between people you can romance and people you cannot. As such, it doesn't seem at all problematic to me for that mysterious quality to fall only upon bisexuals.
If romances were all playersexual or had no restrictions, you would be able to potentially romance everyone in one playthrough regardless of whether they were male or a dwarf hating fanatic. That's what I meant as experiencing all content in one PT.
How can you when starting one romance kills any others?
In DA2, I couldn't end up with both Merrill and Isabela.
A fan made, fan fiction mod that turned Alistair homosexual does nothing to help your point. Of course the dialogue would stay they same.
Aveline found romance during the course of the game, that's why she wasn't interested in Hawke. Varric is never shown showing any romantic interest in any human. Plus there is this line from the wiki "And as they naturally consider themselves superior to other races, and such mingling is looked down upon in any case." when talking about Dwarves romancing other races.
For those reasons, I don't believe Varric has any sexual interest in humans or elves. So if he is a LI, I'd personally like to see it with a Dwarf only.
If a story is the same, regardless of who accesses it, then it what sense has it lost depth? Explain.
Why does a romance "lose depth" just because more people can access it? Does a book lose depth the more people read it? does a film lose depth the more people watch it?
Would your girlfriend lose depth if you learned that she had dated people of other races and genders?
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.
How can you when starting one romance kills any others?
In DA2, I couldn't end up with both Merrill and Isabela.
Exactly. Having no restrictions on who you can romance wouldn't have to have any affect on how many romances you can have. Sure, you could create a straw man argument here about people who might want to romance more than one person, but that's not the argument on the table. They are not necessarily linked at all.
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.
What "tremendous depth" would restrictions add and how did you conclude that Varric wouldnt go after any other race other than Dwarves only because he didnt "plough" Hawke?
If Alistair's story is the same, regardless of who accesses it, then it what sense has it lost depth?
Why does a romance "lose depth" just because more people can access it? Does a book lose depth the more people read it? does a film lose depth the more people watch it?
Would your girlfriend lose depth if you learned that she had dated people of other races and genders?
Alistair's story is the same, because the mod isn't canon. You can't use non canon to prove a point.
And I never meant just romance depth but character depth. I keep using Varric as an example, because he's the only DA:I companion that we know quite a lot about. If Varric stays true to his races belief that they are better than the other races and only romances other Dwarves, it adds more to what his character is than if he just starts sleeping around with every race with no other reason than playersex.
How can you when starting one romance kills any others?
In DA2, I couldn't end up with both Merrill and Isabela.
I have no problem with restricting certain romances due to gender/class/race - as someone who looks forward to doing multiple playthroughs in every class and gender, it adds excitment to my replays.
The issue I see would be that every combination would need at least one romance available to them - so male, warrior, dwarves would need both a hetero and homosexual option available to them, as would female, mage, elves. And no combination would be able to have more options than any other combination. So it would require a lot more work for the developers to do.
You make a choice in the CC whether to play as a male or a female. So some content is already restricted to you once you made that choice. You cannot perform the Dark Ritual yourself if you're a female for example. So why shouldn't some romances be also restricted based on what you chose at the CC? Whats the purpose of a choice if they can only open and never close doors?
Except it's not, and you can perform the Dark Ritual through a very easy work-around. But I would argue that Bioware should never have made a pregnancy-related plot point in the first place.
WTF are you even talking about? Choices do close doors, all choices do. Did you miss the part where I said choices are already restrictive by nature?
If you turn right, you can't turn left. If you go to McDonalds for lunch, you miss out on Burger King.
As it is, romance is already heavily restricted. There will only be between 4-6 romanceable characters at all, and chances are that confirming one will lock you out of any others. Why do we need more restrictions on top of that? Do you want half the people who play the game to not be able to experience a romance on their first playthrough at all? Why?
You make a choice in the CC whether to play as a male or a female. So some content is already restricted to you once you made that choice. You cannot perform the Dark Ritual yourself if you're a female for example. So why shouldn't some romances be also restricted based on what you chose at the CC? Whats the purpose of a choice if they can only open and never close doors?
I've made this argument in other threads as well and it was ignored. But I agree with your logic.
What "tremendous depth" would restrictions add and how did you conclude that Varric wouldnt go after any other race other than Dwarves only because he didnt "plough" Hawke?
Restrictions brought on by the character's personally or way of life obviously adds depths to the character. How can you not see that? I know I'm clearly in the minority of this board, and how much control they want over the companions. I clearly remember the outrage over not being able to play Barbie Dress Up in Dragon Age 2.
Argh I should have been more clear. You can romance only one, but all potential romances are available to you.
But I thought you were originally talking about experiencing them all in one playthrough?
You will still have to play a new character in order to experience another romance option.
I'm still confused by what you are trying to say.
Alistair's story is the same, because the mod isn't canon. You can't use non canon to prove a point.
And I never meant just romance depth but character depth. I keep using Varric as an example, because he's the only DA:I companion that we know quite a lot about. If Varric stays true to his races belief that they are better than the other races and only romances other Dwarves, it adds more to what his character is than if he just starts sleeping around with every race with no other reason than playersex.
Uh, how does his being a racist add character depth again? Tolerance as a trait is certainly not less deep.
I have no problem with restricting certain romances due to gender/class/race - as someone who looks forward to doing multiple playthroughs in every class and gender, it adds excitment to my replays.
The issue I see would be that every combination would need at least one romance available to them - so male, warrior, dwarves would need both a hetero and homosexual option available to them, as would female, mage, elves. And no combination would be able to have more options than any other combination. So it would require a lot more work for the developers to do.
For starters they can make one of the companions a "Kelly Chambers" she/he would be available for all races, plus the dog/nug/whatever other pet that the team picks up on their adventure.
Guest_Fandango_*
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.
Little of what you say is obvious to me Mockingword, but then most of it is complete gubbins love! In any case, I think that your post represents the divergence in our opinions perfectly well in that NPC interactions for me are much less about the numbers than they are about actual characterisation.
Back after the footie!
Restrictions brought on by the character's personally or way of life obviously adds depths to the character. How can you not see that? I know I'm clearly in the minority of this board, and how much control they want over the companions. I clearly remember the outrage over not being able to play Barbie Dress Up in Dragon Age 2.
It only adds depth if the character has some sort of history with the restricted group, such as hating blood mages because they killed the companions family. Someone like Varric who has shown no prior hatred or dislike for a particular group would have no depth added to his character if they restricted everyone but dwarves to romance him. Thats just restriction for the sake of restricting choice
The issue I see would be that every combination would need at least one romance available to them - so male, warrior, dwarves would need both a hetero and homosexual option available to them, as would female, mage, elves. And no combination would be able to have more options than any other combination. So it would require a lot more work for the developers to do.
Yeah, if I'm doing the math correctly, there would be 44 combinations between 4 variables: gender, sexuality, race, and class (with dwarf only having two options). Now, of course, some LIs could "double up" and fill different niches, but this is ALOT of variable to account for and would make the romance feature a much more heavily invested game feature. It's a cost-benefit argument in this case and I'm not sure that the "experience" that some people would gain is worth the amount of resources and planning that would be needed.
Alistair's story is the same, because the mod isn't canon. You can't use non canon to prove a point.
And I never meant just romance depth but character depth. I keep using Varric as an example, because he's the only DA:I companion that we know quite a lot about. If Varric stays true to his races belief that they are better than the other races and only romances other Dwarves, it adds more to what his character is than if he just starts sleeping around with every race with no other reason than playersex.
I don't think you even understand my point.
You said that restricted romances have more depth than accessible ones. By your logic, a mod that makes Alistair's romance accessible to male characters would therefore cause said romance to lose depth that it had previously. The canonicity of said mod is completely irrelevent to the point, and your insistence on harping on about that particular detail makes me think you either don't understand my argument, or you are just stalling for time.
If you had paid any attention to Varric in DA2, you would know that he doesn't, in fact, stay true to the 'beliefs' of his 'race'. He is actually a very non-traditionalist dwarf who hates living underground, and doesn't worship the Paragons.
So far, the only thing preventing him from being in a romance with anybody at all is the fact that he still pines for Bianca. There is little to no information about what he might be attracted to if she was out of the picture.
You make a choice in the CC whether to play as a male or a female. So some content is already restricted to you once you made that choice. You cannot perform the Dark Ritual yourself if you're a female for example. So why shouldn't some romances be also restricted based on what you chose at the CC? Whats the purpose of a choice if they can only open and never close doors?
These choices can add flavor to different experiences throughout the game and so I would say, are worth it. They can do this without full on restricting content.
Also, there have always been CC choices that mean nothing (hair color)...do these choices have no purpose?
I clearly remember the outrage over not being able to play Barbie Dress Up in Dragon Age 2.
And it's dismissive and insulting comments like this that discredit your entire argument.
Yeah, if I'm doing the math correctly, there would be 44 combinations between 4 variables: gender, sexuality, race, and class (with dwarf only having two options). Now, of course, some LIs could "double up" and fill different niches, but this is ALOT of variable to account for and would make the romance feature a much more heavily invested game feature. It's a cost-benefit argument in this case and I'm not sure that the "experience" that some people would gain is worth the amount of resources and planning that would be needed.
Pretty much. It's an idea that seems cool and would add something to the game, but not enough to warrent the amount of effort required to implement it.
Little of what you say is obvious to me Mockingword, but then most of it is complete gubbins love! In any case, I think that post represents the divergence in our opinions perfectly well in that NPC interactions for me are less about numbers than they are about actual characterisation.
Back after the footie!
When you return from the 'footie', maybe you can explain exactly how characterisation would be harmed in any way.
You'd be the first.
Retour en haut